The Black Tax & The Election

Posted: 09/05/2008 in UN
Tags: , ,
I’ve been reading pretty heavily into the coming elections the last few days. One of the things we need to bear in mind throughout these proceeding is that these candidates, if elected/reelected, will be primarily chosen by the people. On the National scene, it looks like the choice for republican is going to be McCain, while the Democratic choice is still up for grabs. Pundits and analysts claim that the outcome will place Obama as the Lefty candidate. I kind of like referring to Dems and Reps as lefties and righties, don’t you? After all, if all that’s Right is right, then all that’s left is wrong, right?

One of the things I am keeping tabs on is how the candidates relate to the globalization efforts of the UN and its programs of Socializing the world. As you can tell from previous posts, one of the jarring issues of the country at large is the issue surrounding the Carbon Tax or Cap & Trade programs as some people have called them. A lot of people are under the impression that the carbon tax is merely a way to reduce CO2 emissions, but that is not true. The tax actually grew out of the UN’s efforts to redistribute wealth from rich Nations into poor Nations, especially in Sub-Sahara Africa being the emphasis.

In support of this claim, refer to an article at;

This article from a UN publication details the real reasons behind the Carbon issue exists today. The title asks “Can the financing gap be closed?” Interesting enough question, but the subtitle says it all; “UN panel suggests new international taxes to help fund development.” The article goes on to describe how the donations from rich countries were shrinking, and the UN needed at least 50 Billion in US dollars every year to support their programs of pulling poverty stricken countries out of the mud they were entrenched within.

The Zedillo panel, a UN sponsored summit in Mexico of that year, suggested global taxation as a way to achieve the UN’s monetary goals and two major proposals were suggested. The first one was dubbed the “Tobin Tax” after James Tobin of Yale, the economist of that first made the proposal to tax international monetary transactions. It was felt at the time that more time was needed to study that proposal. Several analysts in the financial industry suggested that the reluctance of some countries to participate and collect the tax would defeat the purpose of the tax. It could not be verified if all countries were actually taxing the transactions and levying the tax. Several NGO’s were fully supportive of the tax, however. The article says that a Ms. Robin Round told Africa Recovery “….that the call for further study “gives us an important opening to educate more people about the promises of a Tobin tax and to keep pushing for the consensus necessary to adopt it.”

But the other tax is the one we are facing today, the mighty Carbon Tax, or as I call it, The Black Tax. The Zedillo panel seems to have heartily embraced the concept of global taxation. The article also said:

“….Combating poverty, the panel argued, requires the provision of vital services which strengthen social and political stability, such as peacekeeping, healthcare facilities and programmes for environmental protection — described collectively as “global public goods.” To secure the enormous amount of money needed yearly for that, it said a global system of taxation is necessary, either through a currency transaction tax or a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels.”

Also stated was “…Support for such a “carbon tax” has been growing since the 1992 UN Earth Summit focused international attention on the damage to the environment caused by excessive use of fossil fuels worldwide.” With such a worldwide support base it is easy to see how the public could be taken in on this issue. All that was needed was a spokesperson to bolster their claims. A scientific body would have been ideal, but nobody listens to scientists, so they needed a choir boy to sing their tune. They found both in the IPCCC and Al Gore.

It’s funny how the left tends to bash Bush on the Kyoto Treaty and his failure to support it. The Kyoto Treaty was actually signed in 2003 while Billy Clinton was smoking cigars in the oval office, as I recall. There wasn’t even enough support to come close to being able to ratify a signature for the US on that contract. Those that were in power then knew it was a sham, and those in power today know it’s a sham. The Kyoto agreement expires in 1012, so we’ll only have to put up with that joke for another four years.

The taxes were to be aimed at fossil fuels, specifically coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The UN felt, according to the story that “…Implementation would not be difficult since many countries already impose taxes on fossil fuels. An additional carbon tax, the panel hoped, should encourage consumers to shift to lower or non carbon-emitting sources of energy, such as hydro-power, solar energy and wind power.” Some countries in the world have been taxing fossil fuels since 1991, most notably Sweden. In spite of the Swede’s highest tax rate so far on record, after 15 years they have only seen a modest reduction of emissions of merely 2% overall. Sounds like the tax is really a great idea, huh? Sucks money out of one country and gives it to another after siphoning off their own needed funds.

Here’s one of the bigger kicks in this story:
“Several international and governmental organizations already deal with international tax issues, including a UN group of experts on international cooperation in tax matters. The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad.”

So you can see where it is important to know where the candidates stand on the issues of globalization, and especially The Black Tax. The real goal behind the Carbon taxation is global taxation and redistribution of wealth.

The Council On Foreign Relations had the following points on the three candidates listed above:
( )

Sen. Clinton;
Sen. Clinton (D-NY) has generally praised the United Nations, and said in 2002 that “whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success.” But, she said, the United Nations “often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates.”

Sen. Obama;
“Sen. Obama (D-IL) has repeatedly said that the United Nations should play a key role in managing crises like Darfur. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama voted against the Bolton nomination. His comments during those hearings provide a sense of his stance on the United Nations, including the need for reform:”

Sen. McCain;
“Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has generally supported U.S. engagement with the United Nations but has noted the recent oil-for-food scandal and faulty human rights institutions demonstrate a “crying need for reform.”

In a 1999 lecture at Kansas State University, McCain said, “The United Nations, although many of its founding principles were borrowed from our own, can never be an adequate substitute for American leadership. It has its uses, but to confer on that diverse organization, the leading responsibility for international stability, freedom and justice, will quickly render it incapable of any task whatsoever.”

I think we can infer that McCain has the better intentions towards the UN without handing our freedom to them on a silver platter. I also think we can infer that both Clinton and Obama are more than willing to become subserviant partners with that global organization. If you agree, then you can help by supporting the Republicans in their efforts to gain and regain seats across this Nation, and especially for the Presidency. Volunteer if you can, and donate as best you can with today’s rising fuel prices. Remember, gasoline isn’t spiking just because it wants to have fun. Return the US to its rightful place in the world. Vote for a strong leadership with the Right qualities.

If you want to help out even more, Mike Huckabee has formed a PAC that you can contribute to so your donation can go even further.

Acts 20:34-36 (King James Version)

34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.

Cabela’s Opening Next Week!


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s