Hannity on Fox News quoted the U.N. as saying that "American citizens have forfited their right to control their natural resources because of their urban sprawl and SUV's, someone had to take charge".
Do a google search on the many faces of Agenda 21.
The following article can be viewed at http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story.asp?storyname=7181
The United Nations' International Conference on Financing for Development, set to take place in Mexico this March, has set the cat amongst the pigeons with its proposed focus on the creation of an International Tax Organisation, which would enable nations to collect and disseminate information regarding their tax policies, assist governments in taxing emigrant workers, and compel members to share tax data.
Tim Hall, a spokesman for the United Nations, denies that this is on the agenda for the March meeting. 'This has nothing to do with taxing anybody,' he stated. 'That is specifically what this proposal is not about.' He asserted that the UN meeting in Monterrey will be more concerned with 'strengthened international tax cooperation through enhanced dialogue' than with the establishment of an international tax body.
Many in the US are not convinced, and New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith has written to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to ask him some pertinent questions on the subject, and suggesting that he should block any proposal for an International Tax Organisation.
"A United Nations conference in mid-March" says Senator Smith, "will be considering proposals to boost foreign aid, including tax harmonization proposals such as information exchange, an International Tax Organization, and global taxes on energy and/or financial transactions. Can you assure me that the United States will block these proposals, all of which would undermine America's competitive advantage in the global economy?"
Senator Smith also asked the following three questions of the Secretary:
Do all nations have the right to determine their own domestic policies so long as they do not create a national security threat to other countries?
Do nations have the right to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside their borders?
Are European welfare states promoting tax harmonization policies that are inconsistent with conservative principles?
Here is a copy of the complete letter:
January 25, 2002
The Honorable Paul O'Neill
Secretary
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Secretary O'Neill,
The "information exchange" schemes proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and European Union pose a significant threat to America's competitive position in the global economy. Compared to Europe's welfare states, the United States is a low-tax economy, and this helps us attract jobs and capital.
I recognize that you have resisted these initiatives, but I am concerned that the Administration's opposition to tax harmonization is not sufficiently enthusiastic. To put my mind at ease, can you address the following issues:
The United States should never feel compelled to put another nation's laws above our own, and we should guard against international initiatives that create dangerous precedents. With this in mind, can you assure me that you agree that all nations have the right to determine their own domestic policies so long as they do not create a national security threat to other countries?
Do nations have the right to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside their borders? This question is important, as you will appreciate, because America is the world's largest beneficiary of international capital flows. Needless to say, the United States should determine how – and if – any resulting income is taxed.
A United Nations conference in mid-March will be considering proposals to boost foreign aid, including tax harmonization proposals such as information exchange, an International Tax Organization, and global taxes on energy and/or financial transactions. Can you assure me that the United States will block these proposals, all of which would undermine America's competitive advantage in the global economy?
As New Hampshire residents can attest, tax competition between states promotes fiscal responsibility and rewards free-market economic policy. But politicians from the European welfare states promoting tax harmonization argue that individuals should not be allowed to lower their tax bills by shifting resources to lower-tax jurisdictions. Isn't this mentality inconsistent with conservative principles?
I look forward to specific answers to these important questions. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Bob Smith
U.S. Senator
More information at these sites: http://www.americanpolicycenter.org/un/globaltreaties.htm
http://www.newscorridor.com/columnnists/caruba/2002columns/carubacolumn031202.htm
http://wwwsyninfo.com/PRIVATE/2001/11/21/200112110543541.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/12/646434.shtml
And here is a United Nations report exploring what to tax and how to make global taxation more palatable to the suckers.
http:/www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2001/wahlberg.htm
With far more political acuity than critics expected, President George Bush disarmed world government proponents while promising more aid to developing nations. The U.N.'s High Level Panel on Financing Development concluded its four-day conference in Monterrey, Mexico, without explicit authorization for U.N. taxes on currency exchange, fossil fuels and a host of other tax targets.
The conference, publicized as a poverty-reducing initiative, was, in fact, another effort by the U.N. to gain taxing authority. Ernesto Zedillo, head of the U.N. panel, issued a report on June 28, calling for the new taxing authority. U.S. delegates to the conference made it clear that the U.S. would not support any document that included U.N. taxing authority.
The final "consensus" document was toned down substantially, and reference to taxing authority was removed. When the conference opened on March 18, however, delegates from Germany, Britain and other European countries tried to reinstate language to authorize global taxation. Again, U.S. delegates, with help from Japan, blocked the effort.
Then Vincente Fox, president of Mexico, renewed the call for U.N. taxing authority when he spoke to the delegates. The U.S. stood firm, and U.N. taxing authority was excluded from the final document.
Had Al Gore been elected president, the outcome would have likely been different. Gustave Speth, a member of the Clinton-Gore transition team who then was appointed head of the U.N. Development Program, was a strong advocate of U.N. taxing authority, and promoted the scheme during his U.N. tenure.
Bush did even more to confuse the world government crowd. He diffused the anticipated criticism of U.S. aid by announcing a sharp increase in foreign aid over the next three years. European nations made a similar commitment, leading conference officials to claim victory before the conference even convened.
When he spoke to the delegates on Friday, however, Bush made it clear that U.S. aid would no longer be poured down the U.N. rat-hole as it has been in the past. U.S. aid will be placed into a special "Millennium" account, not simply handed over to the U.N. The U.S., not the U.N., will establish the criteria that must be met by developing nations before receiving U.S. aid.
Bush told the delegates that no longer can poverty relief be measured simply by the amount donor nations give. The real measure of poverty relief must be based on the achievements produced by the aid.
Bush made it clear that U.S. aid will go only to countries whose governments exist with the consent of the citizens, that commit to open markets, and that promote the principles of freedom.
U.N. conferences are not accustomed to hearing this kind of talk from a U.S. president. Bill Clinton told the Millennium Summit in 2000 that the time had come for national sovereignty to take a back seat to U.N. activism. Bush invoked U.S. sovereignty by defining the conditions upon which U.S. aid will be granted. And he did it with a smile, and without confrontation.
Castro, on the other hand, spoke to the delegates in his usual "fatigues," with his usual dictatorial bluster, calling U.S. policies "economic genocide."
The Bush administration is clearly changing gears with its U.S. aid. U.S. aid will now be aimed at helping nations build the infrastructure to create wealth, rather than on programs that simply feed global poverty – and enrich those who administer the programs.
This change will not be welcomed by the U.N. bureaucracy, nor by the IMF, that is building a new $250 million palace in Washington to house its expanding bureaucracy in anticipation of becoming the chief administrator of anti-poverty wealth redistribution.
The U.N.'s quest for global taxing authority will not go away. Even though this effort has been thwarted, temporarily, the U.N. can be expected to continue its efforts to get out from under the control of the United States. The World Summit on Sustainable Development, which will convene in Johannesburg, South Africa, next August, will likely hear sharp criticism of the U.S., and more calls for financial independence for the U.N., among the many other agenda items. For now, at least, the world has dodged a bullet, thanks to the Bush administration. Those who believe national sovereignty should be superior to any scheme of global governance cannot rest easy, but instead, must keep a vigilant eye on both the U.N., and the U.S. government. There are plenty of people in the U.S. who do not agree with Mr. Bush's determination to advance the principles of freedom.
Okay, I showed you mine...now you show me where the UN has "joint control" of U.S. lands.
And have you any support for your silly claim that "The U.N. has joint control of 75% of our government held land, they have to be consulted as to when, if, and how it can be used."