The United Nations Bans Opposition to Global Tax
Jul 11, 2011 20:49:50 GMT -5
Post by shann0 on Jul 11, 2011 20:49:50 GMT -5
www.eagleforum.org/un/2011/11-07-11.html
The United Nations Bans Opposition
to Its Global Tax Design Meeting
by Cathie Adams
Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman
cathieadams@me.com
Further Reading: United Nations / Global Warming
July 11, 2011
When United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his plan "to fundamentally transform the global economy — based on low-carbon, clean energy resources," few realized he was calling for a new global tax to be designed without public scrutiny, but that is exactly what he meant. To thwart it, the UN's flawed process and its tax design scheme must be exposed.
The UN's one nation, one vote system has been used since its founding to render the U.S. impotent, regardless of the fact that we are its major financial donor. It is credulous to think that UN reforms could fix its flawed process. Banning the press and global tax opponents from its July 13-14 tax design meeting in Tokyo, Japan, for example, is anathema to a democratic process, but the UN is not a democracy. Rather, its unelected bureaucrats use a "collaborative decision-making process" to reach "consensus" with no debate or expressed opposition. The UN calls it "global governance" and Ban Ki-moon describes how it works: "While we are all in the same boat, not all have a say in how to steer it."
Ads are provided by Google and are not
selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
The tax saga began in earnest last December in Cancun, Mexico when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992, created a Transitional Committee charged with designing a new Green Climate Fund. The Committee is to design the Fund to amass a minimum of $100 billion a year, which is to be approved at the next major meeting of the UNFCCC in Durban, South Africa this December.
The Committee consists of representatives from 40 nations, including the U.S., who are considering taxes on carbon, international aviation and shipping, international financial transactions and a wire tax for producing electricity. The UN is also pushing for removal of fossil fuel subsidies and redirecting them to its international green agenda, which would cause the U.S. to be even more dependent on foreign oil.
The purpose of the Fund is to enable the UN to implement its global blueprint for sustainable development called Agenda 21. This green agenda is the new Marxism that requires government ensured economic equity and environmental neutrality. Agenda 21 is not a treaty, but a plan of action produced by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
In the U.S., federal and state legislatures were bypassed when then-President Clinton signed an executive order to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development to implement Agenda 21. Federal grants continue to flow to local governments to carry out the UN's green agenda across America.
Granting the UN the right to tax would be like giving it a blank check for future use. Taxpayers can be assured of perpetual demand because it has no idea what it will cost to "go green." Two years ago, it estimated the cost at $600 billion annually for the next decade, but today its estimate is at least $1.9 trillion annually for the next 40 years or $76 trillion!
Political manipulation of climate change is key to global taxation and the fundamental transformation of the global economy. Since the 1997 UNFCCC meeting in Kyoto, Japan, I have watched the UN agitate class warfare to create a demand for a global tax to "green" third world economies.
At the first tax design meeting in Mexico City last April 28-29, I was told that approval for my attendance was a "fluke" and that I should not have been credentialed to attend. Nonetheless before departing Mexico, I was assured that I would be invited to follow-up meetings.
When I did not receive an emailed invitation, I asked a U.S. Congressman to intercede. His chief of staff called the UNFCCC in Bonn, Germany and was told the only entry was through one of the UN's nine "constituency focal points," so I next contacted them. Not even the U.S. Departments of State or Treasury could penetrate the UN's bureaucratic morass.
Typically I attend UN meetings with press credentials, but because the press was banned from the Committee meeting, I petitioned the UN's women and gender constituency. They initially told me they had space, then withdrew their invitation stating, "I find it quite audacious [for you] to try to go on our ticket, given the positions you have." Eagle Forum indeed opposes a global tax and the UN's radical feminist positions that would not even be discussed at the tax design meeting.
The UN's tax scheme must be derailed because it is only the opening salvo in an all-out war on the U.S. economy and national sovereignty. The U.S. Congress should cut ALL funding to the UN until it backs away from its global tax scheme!
The United Nations Bans Opposition
to Its Global Tax Design Meeting
by Cathie Adams
Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman
cathieadams@me.com
Further Reading: United Nations / Global Warming
July 11, 2011
When United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his plan "to fundamentally transform the global economy — based on low-carbon, clean energy resources," few realized he was calling for a new global tax to be designed without public scrutiny, but that is exactly what he meant. To thwart it, the UN's flawed process and its tax design scheme must be exposed.
The UN's one nation, one vote system has been used since its founding to render the U.S. impotent, regardless of the fact that we are its major financial donor. It is credulous to think that UN reforms could fix its flawed process. Banning the press and global tax opponents from its July 13-14 tax design meeting in Tokyo, Japan, for example, is anathema to a democratic process, but the UN is not a democracy. Rather, its unelected bureaucrats use a "collaborative decision-making process" to reach "consensus" with no debate or expressed opposition. The UN calls it "global governance" and Ban Ki-moon describes how it works: "While we are all in the same boat, not all have a say in how to steer it."
Ads are provided by Google and are not
selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
The tax saga began in earnest last December in Cancun, Mexico when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992, created a Transitional Committee charged with designing a new Green Climate Fund. The Committee is to design the Fund to amass a minimum of $100 billion a year, which is to be approved at the next major meeting of the UNFCCC in Durban, South Africa this December.
The Committee consists of representatives from 40 nations, including the U.S., who are considering taxes on carbon, international aviation and shipping, international financial transactions and a wire tax for producing electricity. The UN is also pushing for removal of fossil fuel subsidies and redirecting them to its international green agenda, which would cause the U.S. to be even more dependent on foreign oil.
The purpose of the Fund is to enable the UN to implement its global blueprint for sustainable development called Agenda 21. This green agenda is the new Marxism that requires government ensured economic equity and environmental neutrality. Agenda 21 is not a treaty, but a plan of action produced by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
In the U.S., federal and state legislatures were bypassed when then-President Clinton signed an executive order to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development to implement Agenda 21. Federal grants continue to flow to local governments to carry out the UN's green agenda across America.
Granting the UN the right to tax would be like giving it a blank check for future use. Taxpayers can be assured of perpetual demand because it has no idea what it will cost to "go green." Two years ago, it estimated the cost at $600 billion annually for the next decade, but today its estimate is at least $1.9 trillion annually for the next 40 years or $76 trillion!
Political manipulation of climate change is key to global taxation and the fundamental transformation of the global economy. Since the 1997 UNFCCC meeting in Kyoto, Japan, I have watched the UN agitate class warfare to create a demand for a global tax to "green" third world economies.
At the first tax design meeting in Mexico City last April 28-29, I was told that approval for my attendance was a "fluke" and that I should not have been credentialed to attend. Nonetheless before departing Mexico, I was assured that I would be invited to follow-up meetings.
When I did not receive an emailed invitation, I asked a U.S. Congressman to intercede. His chief of staff called the UNFCCC in Bonn, Germany and was told the only entry was through one of the UN's nine "constituency focal points," so I next contacted them. Not even the U.S. Departments of State or Treasury could penetrate the UN's bureaucratic morass.
Typically I attend UN meetings with press credentials, but because the press was banned from the Committee meeting, I petitioned the UN's women and gender constituency. They initially told me they had space, then withdrew their invitation stating, "I find it quite audacious [for you] to try to go on our ticket, given the positions you have." Eagle Forum indeed opposes a global tax and the UN's radical feminist positions that would not even be discussed at the tax design meeting.
The UN's tax scheme must be derailed because it is only the opening salvo in an all-out war on the U.S. economy and national sovereignty. The U.S. Congress should cut ALL funding to the UN until it backs away from its global tax scheme!