I originally posted this in September 2012. It’s worth revisiting.
Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of press for calling for a tax on the world’s wealthiest, and she should get attention because, well…she’s an American, she is the U.S. Secretary of State, and what she is doing is treasonous, not to mention abhorrently unconstitutional. In this Republican Democracy we do not tax Americans through the UN. We tax Americans through the legislation of an elected Congress (or as seen recently, through the Supreme Court – ObamaCare), and then we use numerous and varied avenues to send aid to the needy – which then goes to War Lords and dictators all over the globe. A one percent tax on Billionaires of this planet is being lobbied for (but not the Billionaires created by dictatorships), just as the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal (UNMDG) called for, and which Barack Obama supports. It’s known as Innovative Financing in the halls of the UN where Islam reigns. Can you imagine the Saudis giving up one percent of their GDP – even if Hillary Clinton insists they must?
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.” Fox News
Have you picked yourself up off the floor yet? Wipe that smirk off your face. Hillary Clinton is deadly serious about this task. Never before has the U.S. had deeply devoted globalists at the highest levels of government, working tirelessly to skirt the powers of Congress.
Hillary Clinton speaking at her husband’s Clinton Global Initiative:
“One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country,” Clinton said to laughter from the audience. “You know I’m out of American politics, but – (applause) – it is a fact that around the world, the elites of every country are making money.”
Clinton continued her rift on the rich. “There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries.”
The secretary of state suggested that the rich around the world do not give back to their communities. “They don’t invest in public schools, in public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally,” said Clinton. Source: Weekly Standard
Stunning. Hillary says she is “out of American politics.” The U.S. Secretary of State holds herself above the White House and the Congress, because they are American politics, but she is simply a political appointee, a long-time globalist, a power monger, and she works for Barack Obama. See the Pant Suits video at Tom Tancredo’s
The same Fox story linked above quotes Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and supporter of the Occupy Movement:
[Sachs] …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.
3. To move towards creation of alternative revenue sources for the United Nations. The United Nations should set up expert groups and begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions (i.e., the Tobin Tax) and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.
The United Nations on Thursday called for a tax on billionaires to help raise more than $400 billion a year for poor countries.
An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate. …
There are an estimated 425 billionaires in the United States, 315 in the Asia-Pacific region, 310 in Europe, 90 in other North and South American countries and 86 in Africa and the Middle East.
Those unfortunate suckers, the Brits, home to liars and cheaters in the ClimateGate scandal headquartered at the East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, are living with this:
The increases in Air Passenger Duty (APD) for all flights out of UK airports, which come into force next week, will push up the tax on a family of four’s trip to the Far East or Australia by £240 to £680. Those in economy face an increase of £120 to £340.
APD was initially introduced as a ‘green tax’ on the basis it would discourage people from flying and cut carbon emissions.
However, it has become a cash cow for the last government and the Coalition, with annual revenue set to rise from £2.3billion to £3.8billion by 2015.’ Source: Connecting the Dots of The New World Order, October 2010
American, this is coming at us from every direction. In December 2011 we learned of a treaty spawned at the anti-Semitic Durbin Summit, which created an International Climate Court, with expectations that all nations, except the “third world” will pay a tax of 2% of our/their GDP on every financial transaction, along with taxes on air travel, and fuel.
Taken Directly from the U.N. Millennium Goal Forum (MDG) minutes:
5] Controlling the world’s finances:
…To move towards democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision.
…Sustainable funds could be raised through a currency transfer tax…and a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.
8] Controlling conservation through a global tax:
…establish a global habitat conservation fund to purchase comprehensive protection of threatened, critical ecological habitat worldwide. The fund should accrue revenues from a nominal (0.5 -1.0 per cent) royalty on worldwide fossil energy production oil, natural gas, coal, collecting at least $5 billion to $10 billion annually.
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, warned that the proposals were dangerous and should be opposed by “anyone who believes in our national sovereignty and opposes global governance.”
“The chief ambition of the United Nations for many years has been to increase funding for their vast bureaucracy by creating some sort of new global tax that flows automatically without any control by the U.N.’s member governments,” he said late Thursday.
“Such a taxing authority would thus be totally unaccountable to elected officials in the U. S. (or to officials in any other country for that matter),” Ebell said. “Money is power: hundreds of billions of dollars in additional annual revenue would allow the U.N. to create the institutions of global governance that are contained in several U.N. environmental treaties but that have never been realized due to lack of funding.
Right about now, you are confident that if our sovereignty-disdaining President and Secretary of State should sign on to such a treaty, our Congress will never ratify it:
Despite the modern separation of signature and ratification, many international lawyers and academics contend that when a nation signs a treaty, it is bound not to take actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty, until such time as it makes clear its intention not to become a party to the treaty.
This obligation is reflected in Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty that itself governs the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties. Although the United States has not joined the Vienna Convention, many commentators claim that Article 18 reflects customary international law that is binding on nations that have not joined the Convention, and the United States has not denied that claim.
In addition, some commentators have made broad claims about the content of the object and purpose obligation, arguing in essence that it binds signatory nations not to violate any of the “core” or “important” provisions in a treaty. This claim is frequently made, for example, in connection with the U.S. signature of human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. – Curtis A. Bradley, Richard and Marcy Horvitz Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy Studies at Duke University – 2004 Counselor on International Law in the Legal Adviser’s Office of the U.S. State Department
To quote myself in July 2012: The billions raised is to be used for “poor countries?” Bwaaaahahahahaha! If you are a Clinton supporter, remember this and Benghazi in 2016.
I’m guessing Obama will move on from the U.S. to the Secretary of the United Nations after he tires of surfing. A vote for Hillary will strengthen BOs hand in the United Nations.
If you would like to receive Maggie’s Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.