Posted on 03/17/2006 2:15:36 PM PST by cope85
United Nations Proposal: World Taxation Without Representation
By Paul M. Weyrich Mar 14, 2006
Researcher Cliff Kincaid has devoted his life in recent years to studying what is happening at the United Nations. He fortunately has a strong stomach. This amalgamation of nations which continually is envious of the prosperity of the United States convenes to debate new ways that we can be taxed for their benefit.
A few months ago the UN had its sights firmly on the Internet. Thanks to Kincaid and others these designs were exposed early on and the UN was forced temporarily to back off taxation of the Internet. The retreat is only tactical - one step back to take two steps forward.
Kincaid has discovered a meeting at which UN Secretary General Kofi Annan delivered a major but virtually unreported speech to a UN Conference at the end of February and the first of March 2006 at which he challenged delegates to have the courage to levy international taxes. The meeting was hosted by that great friend of America French President Jacques Chirac.
Among the $200 billion in new taxes which the UN is proposing to levy are: Taxes on air transport: this tax, Kincaid reports, was said to make “economic sense.” Taxes on aviation fuel: this tax was sold on the basis that it would have a positive impact upon the environment. Taxes on airline tickets: this tax, according to the UN, easily could be implemented because there is no legal obstacle, and it would generate $8 billion per annum.
The UN also seeks an indirect tax on air-flight corridors, which should generate $10 billion per annum, to be followed by an indirect tax on passenger transportation, to raise $20 billion per annum. An international currency tax would generate $60 billion. A tax on carbon emissions which at five cents per gallon of gasoline would bring in a whopping $130 billion per annum. There you have it: the UN proposal to tax us for the first $200 billion.
If the UN were not blocked in this clear usurpation of power the $200 billion would be only the beginning. The United States takes in about $2 trillion in taxes. Surely the UN can figure how to duplicate that amount.
The Chirac-Annan conference was titled “the Paris Conference on Innovative Financing Mechanisms” and apparently behind the back of the United States Government the UN is planning its taxation schemes almost immediately.
The matter was raised with GOP House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), who was instrumental in causing the House to go on record against UN taxation of the Internet. He said he was confident that he could stop the implementation of any of these new taxes. Fine. What would happen after November if the Democrats were in control and they accepted these taxes as part of their budget resolution? George W. Bush would veto that, you say. In the sixth year of his Presidency, he has vetoed nothing. Let us say he would veto it.
Let us also suggest that after the end of Bush’s term a Democrat were to occupy the White House. The odds favor that. The only reason George H. W. Bush was elected in 1988 was because Ronald W. Reagan concluded his term in very popular fashion. Bush was seen at a third term for Reagan. If Bush ’43 should conclude his term on a note of unpopularity it would be highly unlikely that he would be succeeded by another Republican.
At some point these UN taxes very likely will be imposed upon this country. When that happens we would completely lose our ability to control taxation. President Bush’s tax cuts have generated billions more revenue than was projected. He and a handful of other “supply siders” believed this would happen. There is no way that you would be able to convince the UN to cut taxes so additional money would be generated. No, the UN will keep taxes high. Given the types of taxes proposed, the levies will be next to invisible. Not many of us look at an airline ticket to break down the amount of taxation reflected in the price of that ticket.
Annan made it clear that the money generated by taxation will not replace dues money or other forms of aid raised for various causes. The UN Secretary told the UN Conference “Innovative sources of financing should not be seen as a replacement for traditional forms of aid. Rather they are meant to generate even more money for development and to channel resources more effectively. And there are some very promising possibilities on the table.” For example, a nation wants to develop an industrial park to promote business and industry. The money thenceforth would come from the UN and not from traditional investments.
The list of US participants appears to have been nominated by the far-left NATION magazine. The United States delegation was composed entirely of liberal globalists. Who named them? How did they get there? Is this something John Bolton can tackle as Ambassador to the UN?
Numerous nations already have begun to implement the various taxes called for at the Paris Conference. The Old Media soon will begin to pressure the United States to pay “our fair share” by implementing these taxes. We fought a revolution in part over “no taxation without representation.” Who has represented us at the UN? Ambassador Bolton is doing an excellent job there but is he on top of this? When I met with him recently the subject was not mentioned although he covered the waterfront.
The UN cannot be trusted. The UN continually is looking to shift assets from those who have achieved to those who have not and often to those who would not know how effectively to utilize those shifted assets.
This coming Presidential election will be unique. For the first time in half a century no President or Vice President will be running. Both parties are wide open. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the favorite Democrat but who knows if she will run. So every voter of every political stripe should ask candidates of all political parties where they stand on UN taxation. Once this enquiry starts there will be no end to it. While we are at it, we need to support Cliff Kincaid at America’s Survival Inc. (Kincaid@comcast.net) We need him as our watchdog, informing us about the latest UN outrages. If he were not on top of these developments we might never know about them in time to act.
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
Symantec Joins United Nations Global Compact
Commits to Responsible Corporate Citizenship Practices
CUPERTINO, Calif. - March 15, 2006 - Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC) today announced that it has signed the United Nations Global Compact, reinforcing the company’s commitment to socially responsible business practices on a worldwide basis.
The U.N. Global Compact has been signed by more than 2,500 companies around the world and embraces 10 principles covering human rights, fair labor, the environment, and anti-corruption. The Compact, established in July 2000, seeks to promote responsible corporate citizenship by providing a framework for businesses to follow in response to the challenges of globalization.
“Globalization and the need for transparency have brought issues of corporate social responsibility to the forefront of business strategy,” said John W. Thompson, chairman and chief executive officer of Symantec. “By signing the Compact, we recognize and endorse the business value of operating in an ethical, environmental, and socially responsible manner.”
“We applaud Symantec’s leadership in joining our worldwide initiative,” said Georg Kell, executive head of the U.N. Global Compact. “In an increasingly interconnected world, corporate responsibility is no longer an option – it is a strategic imperative. The rapid up-take of the Global Compact by U.S. companies, including Silicon Valley-area firms, reflects this new reality.”
Symantec signed the Compact at the Corporate Social Responsibility Forum, which was presented by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and CanyonSnow Consulting and hosted by Symantec at its Mountain View campus. More information about the Compact can be found at www.unglobalcompact.org.
The signing ceremony also formally launched Symantec’s own Corporate Social Responsibility program, tasked with evaluating and implementing policies and programs focused on responsible business processes. Focus areas include employee, customer, and business relationships; maintaining ethical business and manufacturing practices; initiatives to raise cyber security awareness at the community level; and programs ensuring the protection of customers’ private information. More information about the program can be found at www.symantec.com/about/profile/responsibility.
About Symantec
Symantec is the world leader in providing solutions to help individuals and enterprises assure the security, availability, and integrity of their information. Headquartered in Cupertino, Calif., Symantec has operations in more than 40 countries. More information is available at www.symantec.com.
I don't see how they could implement/enforce a tax on us. What mechanization could they use to do so?
Dear U.N.:
Please take a long walk off a short pier.
Good Riddance,
Ben
Any of the Washington crapweasels who come out in support of this notion had better be ready for retirement.
Democrats.
We could always charge the UN HQ and burn it down.
So Symantec has been taken over by leftist tree-huggers, huh? I knew there was a reason behind their growing pile of crappy software.
Any taxation by any definition earmarked for the UN will be absent my share. Bet on it.
The U.S. has already exposed the United Nations as a fraud and a joke, so articles like this come across as alarmist paranoia more than anything else.
RIGHTS:
U.N. Creates New Watchdog Over U.S. Opposition
Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 15 (IPS) - A running gag at the United Nations is that whenever the United States takes a defiant stand against an overwhelming majority of the 191 member states, there are only three countries that predictably vote with Washington most of the time -- whether it is right or dead wrong.
As expected, this incongruous voting pattern was repeated Wednesday when the three loyal U.S. allies -- Israel and the two tiny Pacific Island nations of Palau and the Marshall Islands -- were the only member states to stand in unison with the United States when it rejected a resolution calling for the creation of a new Human Rights Council.
The vote in the General Assembly was 170 in favour and four against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau), with three abstentions (Venezuela, Iran and Belarus).
Seven member states -- Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Papua New Guinea and Seychelles --were deprived of their votes because they had not paid their dues to the world body.
Since the United States has no veto in the General Assembly, the resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority. The U.S. opposition couldn't block the establishment of the new Human Rights Council.
"With the exception of the usual additions of two tiny dependent island-states, the United States and Israel stand alone in defying virtually the entire world's support for the new Human Rights Council," says Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
As the work of selecting the first group of members for the new Council begins, each candidate state must agree to being vetted before membership as well as being examined fully at some point during its three-year term, she said.
"The United States, despite its opposition to the Council, has claimed it will 'work with' the Council, and we can anticipate it will expect to win a seat in the first term," Bennis told IPS.
But such an effort should be rejected, she said, as countries evaluating human rights records keep in mind the continuing patterns of U.S. human rights violations both within the United States itself and internationally, where U.S. military or political officials are in power.
"No country with such a record of torture, secret detentions, 'extraordinary renditions,' rejection of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), denial of due process and generations of capital punishment, even for minors and the mentally disabled -- all as a matter of official policy -- should be allowed to serve on the new Human Rights Council," said Bennis, author of "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the U.N. Defy U.S."
If the General Assembly does indeed allow the United States a seat, she argued, special care should be taken to insure that the mandatory human rights evaluation carried out of all members be taken very seriously when it comes to the U.S., so that the claim that the so-called "indispensable nation" should be somehow exempt from human rights scrutiny will be rejected.
The proposed new Council will have 47 members compared with 53 in the outgoing Human Rights Commission, which has been criticised for accommodating "habitual human rights abusers" as some of its members.
The membership in the new Council shall be based on equitable geographic distribution and seats shall be distributed among regional groups: 13 for the African Group; 13 for the Asian Group; eight for the Latin American and Caribbean group; six for the Eastern European Group; and seven for the Western European and Other States Group.
All members, who will have term limits, will serve for three years but will not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms.
The General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, may suspend the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Human Rights Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights.
Since a two-thirds majority for membership was opposed by an overwhelming majority of states, General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who crafted the draft resolution, opted for a compromise: an "absolute majority" -- meaning 96 votes in a 191-member General Assembly.
After the voting in the Assembly, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said that too many countries sought membership in the outgoing Commission primarily "to protect themselves against criticism, or to criticise others".
He agreed with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had initially proposed that the new Council be elected by a two-thirds majority.
"That would have made it harder for countries not committed to human rights, to win seats on the new body. The United States had also proposed exclusive criteria to keep gross human rights abusers off the Council, to exclude the worst violators," he added..
Sadly, Bolton said, those suggestions had not been included in the text. The resolution merely required member states "to take into account" a country's human rights record when voting.
"And suspension of a member required a two-thirds vote, a standard higher than that required when electing new members," he added.
Bolton also said the real test would be the quality of membership that emerged on the Council -- "and whether that would include countries like the Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Belarus and Burma, to name a few".
In a statement released Wednesday, Annan said: "This is only the first step in a process of change." In the coming weeks, he said, states wishing to be elected to the new Council will put forward their pledges and commitments to protect and promote human rights.
"It will be up to their fellow member states to evaluate these promises, and to hold the successful candidates to them. The General Assembly will vote on all candidates, and thereafter will have the responsibility to suspend any of the Council's members that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights," Annan said.
He also said that the universal review mechanism will allow the Council to hold all member states to their human rights obligations fairly and equally, without selectivity or double standards.
The Council will meet regularly throughout the year, and can hold special sessions when needed. This should enable it to deal with human rights crises immediately, whenever they arise, Annan added.
The creation of the new Council was also hailed by virtually all human rights organisations.
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said the new council should be a great improvement over the old Commission on Human Rights.
"Today's resolution marks an historic step towards enhanced human rights protection within the U.N. system," he added.
"The challenge now is to make the Human Rights Council function effectively, so human rights victims around the world will gain the forum they urgently need to seek relief from abuses," Roth said, in a statement released Wednesday.
Yvonne Terlingen, U.N. representative for Amnesty International, said her organisation welcomes "the overwhelming vote" by the General Assembly in favour of establishing a new Human Rights Council.
She said the U.S. government's decision to vote against the resolution was "regrettable". However the result, 170 in favour, four opposed and three abstaining, demonstrates unambiguous international support for the Council.
Although the hard work is only just beginning, she said, it is encouraging to hear that, despite voting against the resolution, the U.S. government will cooperate with the Council and support it. (END/2006)
The UN and it's corrupt unelected elitists and their NGO's need to be dismantled.
It's a dangerous animal, and heavely infested with another dangerous animal- Islam.
Unless they are islamic countries, then it's ok.
Juristiction to detain US Citizens. Since we are not members of the ICC, we are safe. At least unless a leftist wins in 2008.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.