Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: "In second term, Obama will allow UN to tax Americans" Morris Opinion Piece

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like

    "In second term, Obama will allow UN to tax Americans" Morris Opinion Piece

    In second term, Obama will allow UN to tax Americans


    By Dick Morris

    Published October 08, 2012

    FoxNews.com


    It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is re-elected. But here’s the shocker: He will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly. And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World. In this way, Barack Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.

    In our new book, "Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom," Eileen and I describe how there is now pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth – not to other Americans – but to other countries. These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress. Nor akin to foreign aid which we choose to give. They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens. And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty – not an act of Congress -- only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board. The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process.

    (Of course, we do not believe that actual black UN helicopters will land in our midst to take over our country. But we use the symbolism to warn that the liberal, bureaucratic elites in the UN, enabled by Obama and Hillary, mean to create global governance to override American self-rule and independence).

    Here is what we say in "Black Helicopters" that Obama, Hillary, and the UN are planning for us:
    A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while travelling, you’d be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN.

    A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO).

    A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don’t delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again the funds will go to the UN.

    Under the Law of the Sea Treaty – up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session – offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world.

    A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world.

    A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output.

    These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit.

    Is there any organizations less worthy of our trust to spend our money wisely than the United Nations? Beset by almost constant scandal, bereft of any in-house oversight or even audit, the UN is one of the most corrupt of all international organizations. In "Black Helicopters," we document how pervasive this corruption really is.

    And where would the money go? To so-called less developed countries. The taxes are part of a global plan of redistribution of wealth from the Northern Hemisphere (US, Europe, Japan) to the Southern Hemisphere (Latin America, Africa, and South Asia).

    But don’t think that this flow of wealth will reduce poverty. Foreign aid doesn’t work. We explain in "Black Helicopters" that it really just puts a pot of money on the table in third world countries that automatically goes to whoever controls the presidential palace. Coups, civil wars, revolutions, and all sorts of violence usually ensue as various factions, tribes, or ethnic groups try to get their hands on the money. Real reduction in poverty can come only through foreign direct investment and trade, not via massive exports of northern hemisphere wealth to countries controlled by corrupt oligarchs.

    Even a victory in the election of 2012 may avert the threat of rampant globalism. Obama and his lame duck Senate will sign and try to ratify a broad range of global treaties to give away our sovereignty and expose us to UN taxation.

    "Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom" is a clarion warning call and a guide to saving our freedom while we still can!

    Please…read the book and join the battle for our liberty!
    Interesting theory. But is it true?

    If it is true, then that is something I'd very strongly stand against, policy wise. UN/International taxation via treaty is not soemthing I'd support for any reason.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Some of these taxes are ALREADY on the table, ready to be implemented.
    A direct income tax on U.S. citizens though? Over my dead body.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    This would complete the trend on sh.tting on The Constitution.

    That said, I don't see it happening, even on this idiot's watch. Would ensure a violent revolt.

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    This would complete the trend on sh.tting on The Constitution.

    That said, I don't see it happening, even on this idiot's watch. Would ensure a violent revolt.
    You think?

    I doubt it.

    The trick is implementation. Sure, if you tell every American up-front "You get new tax, it go to UN, lolz" there would be outrage.

    Of course, thats not how it will be done.

    It would be inserted into the mind bogglingly complex existing U.S. Tax Code somehwere, if even that. The average sheeple would never even know they were paying it.

    Or even more likely, the U.S. would pay the bills directly, and simply raise existing taxes to fund it. So "you" don't pay the tax, the U.S. does, and you just pay your good old U.S. taxes none the wiser and no more outraged than normal.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    With little to no specifics and evidence, these types of claims need to be taken with a grain of salt. It reads like a conspiracy theory.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    With little to no specifics and evidence, these types of claims need to be taken with a grain of salt. It reads like a conspiracy theory.
    Absolutely.

    With that said, they don't read (to me) as "Conspiracy/Implausable".

    They read to me as 100% plausible tbqh. Global Carbon Tax, paid by US, to UN to help with Third World coping? Sounds right up (D) alley to me.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Absolutely.

    With that said, they don't read (to me) as "Conspiracy/Implausable".

    They read to me as 100% plausible tbqh. Global Carbon Tax, paid by US, to UN to help with Third World coping? Sounds right up (D) alley to me.
    I guess we'll see how things turn out.

    It's my mind, it's pretty implausible. It would never fly with the American public, and besides, wouldn't this type of policy need to be enacted by Congress?

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    You think?

    I doubt it.

    The trick is implementation. Sure, if you tell every American up-front "You get new tax, it go to UN, lolz" there would be outrage.

    Of course, thats not how it will be done.

    It would be inserted into the mind bogglingly complex existing U.S. Tax Code somehwere, if even that. The average sheeple would never even know they were paying it.

    Or even more likely, the U.S. would pay the bills directly, and simply raise existing taxes to fund it. So "you" don't pay the tax, the U.S. does, and you just pay your good old U.S. taxes none the wiser and no more outraged than normal.
    No way to sneak this kind of thing through these days. Internet media watchdogs sound alarm at even the slightest perception of this sort of thing. It would be out there fast, and would garner little support, while enraging many who understand and respect the importance of American sovereignty. No chance, this is simply media sensationalism

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    No way to sneak this kind of thing through these days. Internet media watchdogs sound alarm at even the slightest perception of this sort of thing. It would be out there fast, and would garner little support, while enraging many who understand and respect the importance of American sovereignty. No chance, this is simply media sensationalism
    +1

    Before the first payment was even made, Fox would be all over it and IJF would be here telling us how simple-minded we are for listening . . .

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    I guess we'll see how things turn out.

    It's my mind, it's pretty implausible. It would never fly with the American public, and besides, wouldn't this type of policy need to be enacted by Congress?
    It already does mate.

    Check out how much we (the US) funds of the U.N. Budget, and where we (the U.S.) gets those funds.

    It's no stretch from that (and our aid programs already in place) to "allow" the U.N. to get more from us to use for aid of the Third World.

    Again, it all comes down to presentation and transparency. Or lack thereof.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dick Morris unquestionably the worst political pundit I've ever seen. He's never right about anything ever.

    Besides, if Obama doesn't rebound in the 2nd debate, there won't be an Obama second term.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    Could Dumbama be impeached for doing this? What about Senators that vote yes - violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution?

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    Could Dumbama be impeached for doing this? What about Senators that vote yes - violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution?
    No, because there is nothing strictly unconstitutional about it.

    If there was, someone would have already won over it with the existing funding of the U.N.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,028
    Post Thanks / Like
    Isn't Dick Morris wrong about every prediction?

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for posting this Warfish - I don't run into this sort of stuff so its interesting to read.

    This is a pretty loony piece - I'm assuming its from some sort of extreme right writer/organisation?

    If not, wow - can see why there are a solid wedge of people in America who believe the USA is controlled by the UN, the banks, the Jews and the Rand Corporation or whoever if they are getting fed this type of trash. This seems to come from the Timothy McVeigh vein of thought that has led to "patriotic militias" who believe every newborn is being microchipped and everyone should own a gun because its written into the constitution or whatever.

    Do note the writer hasn't provided a skerrick of evidence for any of these absurd claims, just a repetition of the conspiracy theory trash that the far-right in a lot of western countries believe in. Its unfortunate for the Republican Party that some of these types of people have attached themselves to it because it only drives away the more centrist leaning types of people, of which the great bulk of the population is.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    No, because there is nothing strictly unconstitutional about it.

    If there was, someone would have already won over it with the existing funding of the U.N.
    I'm not so sure: funding the UN is one thing; violating our sovereignty is something else entirely.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    Thanks for posting this Warfish - I don't run into this sort of stuff so its interesting to read.

    This is a pretty loony piece - I'm assuming its from some sort of extreme right writer/organisation?

    If not, wow - can see why there are a solid wedge of people in America who believe the USA is controlled by the UN, the banks, the Jews and the Rand Corporation or whoever if they are getting fed this type of trash. This seems to come from the Timothy McVeigh vein of thought that has led to "patriotic militias" who believe every newborn is being microchipped and everyone should own a gun because its written into the constitution or whatever.

    Do note the writer hasn't provided a skerrick of evidence for any of these absurd claims, just a repetition of the conspiracy theory trash that the far-right in a lot of western countries believe in. Its unfortunate for the Republican Party that some of these types of people have attached themselves to it because it only drives away the more centrist leaning types of people, of which the great bulk of the population is.
    perhaps you should look into the Law of the Sea Treaty before blathering on with your partisan crap, which, BTW, the article mentions.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    I'm not so sure: funding the UN is one thing; violating our sovereignty is something else entirely.
    It's not a "violation of our sovreignty" is our own Federal Government does it, i.e. via legally passed Treaty Agreement.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not as much conspiracy as you would like to think. This has quotes right from the UN General Assembly

    EXCLUSIVE: As the UN opens its General Assembly session, it is already thinking up new global taxes

    By George Russell
    Published September 28, 2012
    | FoxNews.com

    UPDATED: See editor's note at bottom

    A 1 percent tax on billionaires around the world. A tax on all currency trading in the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound sterling. Another “tiny” tax on all financial transactions, including stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives. New taxes on carbon emissions and on airline tickets. A royalty on all undersea mineral resources extracted more than 100 miles offshore of any nation’s territory.

    The United Nations is at it again: finding new and “innovative” ways to create global taxes that would transfer hundreds of billions, and even trillions, of dollars from the rich nations of the world — especially the U.S. — to poorer ones, in line with U.N.-directed economic, social and environmental development.


    These latest global tax proposals have received various forms of endorsement at U.N. meetings over the spring and summer, and will be entered into the record during the 67th U.N. General Assembly session, which began this week. The agenda for the entire session, lasting through December, is scheduled to be finalized on Friday.

    How to convince developed countries wracked by economic recession and spiraling levels of government debt – especially the U.S. — is another issue, which the world organization may well end up trying to finesse.

    As the U.N. itself notes, in a major report on the taxation topic titled, “In Search of New Development Finance” -- the main topic at a high-level international meeting of the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this summer -- “These proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.”

    The U.N. clearly hopes it can find a way to move ahead. “ Politically, tapping revenue from global resources and raising taxes internationally to address global problems are much more difficult than taxing for purely domestic purposes,” admits an ECOSOC document produced last April. But, it summarizes, “the time has come to confront the challenge.”

    Shortly thereafter, the tax proposals — known in U.N.-speak as “innovative methods of financing”-- got a limited endorsement from a group of government ministers and other heads of national delegations who attended a major ECOSOC meeting in New York City in July.

    The global taxation idea was echoed this week by Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and also a U.N. Assistant Secretary General. Sachs was recently named by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to head a new intellectual lobbying group of experts called the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. It “will work closely with United Nations agencies, multilateral financing institutions and other international organizations,” according to the Earth Institute website.

    On Monday, the controversial economist, a vociferous supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, called on President Obama to implement a carbon tax that in turn could be used to finance bonds, paying for investments to combat “climate change” -- one of the major focuses of the new solutions network.

    Sachs was quoted by Bloomberg News as declaring that, “I’m happy to have the future pay for a lot of this. It doesn’t have to be current financed.”

    In the midst of a heated U.S. national election campaign, any official endorsement of those views is unlikely.

    Nonetheless, the U.N. is taking a longer view. The world organization, and its constellation of funds, agencies and programs, has been pushing “innovative financing” for nearly a decade, since the topic was discussed in depth at an international conference in 2002. The topic was endorsed again at the failed Rio + 20 conference last summer, without much detail attached.

    But the need for new revenue is becoming more urgent as the world’s rich countries, gripped in recession, no longer hand out foreign aid with the same generosity as before — though the total reached $133 billion annually last year--while the demands for huge additional amounts of money for social and climate issues continues to grow.

    Earlier this year, for example, the overseers of a new, U.N.-sponsored Green Climate Fund held their first meeting in Bonn to contemplate the spending of some $30 billion annually — rising to $100 billion by 2020 — to meet climate change needs in developing countries. Where all that money will come from is still not clear.

    The U.N.’s latest roster of tax possibilities certainly has what the New Development Finance Report calls “large fundraising potential.” Or, at least some of them do. An around-the-world tax of $25 per ton on carbon dioxide emissions in rich countries, the report says, could raise some $250 billion a year. That new billionaire’s tax would raise anywhere from $40 billion to $50 billion per year, the report estimates, though it adds that the idea “is not yet in any international agenda.”

    CLICK HERE FOR A TAX LIST

    The U.N. places the same estimated value on the proposed currency tax ($40 billion), and roughly the same thing on its proposed financial tax ($15 billion to $75 billion).

    Even more innovative is a notion to, in effect, borrow the lines of credit allocated to rich countries themselves at the International Monetary Fund, and “leverage” them to create new investment funds for the world’s poor. How to do this while preserving those credit lines as a reserve asset that rich countries could draw on when required, the report admits, remains to be seen.

    Another “innovative” idea that may have trouble staying afloat is the notion of charging royalties on undersea minerals more than 100 miles offshore, within what are called “exclusive economic zones” — in effect, inside some country’s sovereign economic territory.

    The sensitive issue here is that the world’s current “exclusive economic zones” extend 200 miles offshore — meaning that the U.N. is suggesting that it collect royalties on mineral wealth on half the “exclusive” territory, which it refers to in the report as part of the “global commons.”

    For most nations, excluding the U.S., those 200 mile zones were established by the U.N.-sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, known as LOST, which came into force in 1994 after it was signed and ratified by 162 countries. (The U.S. signed but has not ratified LOST; its 200-mile “exclusive economic zone” was established by presidential decree.)

    The new, 100-mile royalty proposal in the U.N.’s financing report would require a new agreement to hand over proceeds from half of that territory to the U.N.-sponsored International Seabed Authority.

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Approximately 24 hours after this story was published, a spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations sent the following unsolicited statement to Fox News: “The United States opposes global taxes because we believe that any source of revenue should remain under the control of national authorities. This is an idea that has been kicked around for years. Fortunately, it hasn’t gone anywhere, nor will it.”

    The U.S. is currently one of the 54 nations elected for three year terms to ECOSOC, which, as the story notes, has incubated many of the “innovative” tax ideas. The U.S. term expires at the end of this year, though it may be re-elected.

    George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter @GeorgeRussell

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    ...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us