and just think of how much easier this will be once the US public is conned into electronic cash and implantable chips - the tracking possibilities are endless: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,55999,00.html notice Mr. Ellison is thinking ahead - he must be drooling at the prospect of landing the mother of all service contracts: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-276615.html http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/ccarch/2001/11/06/yaukey.htm
try withholding your contribution to the UN and the World Bank in April, then see if the IRS shares your view on sovereignty.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries". -David Rockefeller, in an address given to Catherine Graham, publisher of The Washington Post and other media luminaries in attendance in Baden Baden, Germany at the June 1991 annual meeting of the world elite Bilderberg Group. Josh
By the way, I think U.S. is still refusing to pay its U.N. membership dues. How could that be if U.S. is so much in favor of World Govt.?
never mind that the un is nothing else than all the member states put together, never mind that it's main objective is international peace and a framework of international law guiding states bilateral and multilateral interactions with each other, never mind that the european union has managed to achieve it's primary and founding objective of peace in europe just fine... the main caveat would appear to be that it's not good for warmongers, having a social contract and laws that form a framework of norms and rules applicable to all, hehe. however, maybe the end is upon us after all, what with little black helicopters all over the place What are the Little Black Helicopters? Quite simply, the Little Black Helicopters are aircraft used by the United Nations to prepare for a total Takeover of the United States. The privately held property inside the United States would be inter-nationalized, the citizens' weapons confiscated, and children gang-raped if we allow them to continue their covert operations. We have been softened for decades. Think of it! The continual dumbing-down of our educational system and the increasing banality of popular culture are just two clear trends, now becoming so clear we can look through them to their source. That source is Communism. Communism, you see, is not "dead." It is not even napping! In fact, it is right out in the open. Our nation's newspapers are edited by socialists. The TV networks spew endless hours of mind-numbing groupthink. Society has become so left-of-center that most people do not recognize Communism when they step in it. Even Republicans get down in that wallow, like porky squealing pigs. Of course the Democrats have been totally up front about their support of Communism since the FMLN/Contra War. Give 'em a point for honesty, at least. Click here for locators for information about Communism What evidence of Little Black Helicopters is there? They're real, and they're here! Click below for real testimonials from people who have SEEN the Little Black Helicopters: Glenview, Arizona Austin, Texas Secret Exchange Imports Pilots The good news is that the United Nations cannot find enough qualified, and unpatriotic, pilots amongst the US citizenry to reach their goals. The bad news is that they have set up an organization on American soil to smuggle out-of-work Communist pilots into the country. Hiding under the techno-sounding name "Global Exchange," they import pilots to their headquarters in San Fransisco, California (okay, so it's not "real American" soil, like Idaho). The pilots are then furnished with fake IDs (operatives within the Democratic Party provide the blank IDs from the various states they control), English language courses, and a selection of credit cards. When the pilots are sufficiently acclimatized, they are shipped out to their "cover" assignments, to be contacted when there is a training sortee taking place (or when the Takeover happens). http://www.sss.org/lbh/ hey, maybe it's not even, commies, liberals or bleeding hearts, maybe it's even ufos behind it all:eek: :eek: http://www.ufoseek.com/Black_Helicopters/ i mean, everybody knows that lil black helicopters have the capacity to reproduce http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters.html quick, let's go nuke someone, doesn't matter who, they're all commie bastards and ufo's, after all, before they take over and internationalize privately held property inside the usa and gang-rape our children:eek: (disclaimer: the above is irony)
10 years ago everybody had the same jokes and said everybody was paranoid and read the Enquirer too much. Well its too late for that now, there are too many facts and too many public figures opening their mouths too many times. The U.N. has gone way beyond preventing war and is aggressively branching out. The "dues" they collect are really taxes since 100% of their income is tax money which is then spent on "resolutions" ( like congressional bills ). Also those "dues" have been growing dramatically. U.N. reps in NY refuse to pay traffic fines and get away with it, they are considered above the U.S. citizen. They do the same damn thing as congress except that we didn't get to elect them.
TraderKay, the reason we owe back U.N. dues is that there are congressmen who know what is going on and don't like the U.N., also the U.N. has been giving us a lot of crap lately. This world government stuff is not unamimous by a long shot, it is a relative minority of people that are highly influential.
UN Conference Fails To Establish Global Tax Organisation Mike Godfrey, Tax-News.com 25 March 2002 To the delight of liberal activists, the United Nations' International Conference on Financing for Development, which took place in Monterrey, Mexico, last week failed in its aim of creating an International Tax Organisation, intended to enable nations to collect and disseminate information regarding their tax policies, assist governments in taxing emigrant workers, and compel members to share tax data. In the run-up to the conference, French premier Lionel Jospin repeated his calls for a global tax on foreign exchange transactions aimed at supporting developing countries, while his President Jacques Chirac also called for global taxes, saying: "We need to give deeper consideration to the possibilities of international taxation." Needless to say, Cuban President Fidel Castro also endorsed the global tax agenda. But in the event other counsels prevailed. Fred Gedrich from the Washington based Freedom Alliance, and member of the Coalition for Tax Competition, was in Monterrey monitoring the conference, and reports as follows: "Amid the pomp and circumstance of this international gathering of global bureaucrats - a general feeling of disappointment and bitterness exists - it appears the conference will conclude without a requirement for a firm commitment on increasing levels of foreign aid from 'wealthy' countries to 'impoverished' countries or without any mention of the famed currency transaction tax. In other words - a major victory for US taxpayers. "Organizers of the UN Conference on Financing for Development originally saw this event as a great opportunity to coerce and shame 'wealthy' countries, under the guise of fighting a world-wide war on poverty in a 133 'Third World' countries, into transferring $466 billion annually (an estimated $166 billion on foreign aid and another $300 billion on the currency transaction tax) to the UN in support of a host of dubious socialist causes including a standing UN army and a global international criminal court. "They viewed 'foreign aid and a global tax on currency transactions' as the primary instruments for obtaining this revenue - and the United States as the major funding source. "They blame United States in general and President Bush in particular for them not being able to achieve their goals." In advance of the conference, the United Nations had denied that an international tax was on its agenda. Tim Hall, a spokesman for the United Nations, said: 'This has nothing to do with taxing anybody,' but confirmed that the meeting in Monterrey would be concerned with 'strengthened international tax cooperation through enhanced dialogue'.
[excerpt] Suppose, loyal reader, you and I were to work together in secret and hatch a plan that would affect others â perhaps a lot of others â without their knowledge or consent. Would we or would we not be launching a conspiracy? I think we would have to say, Yes. Now suppose we do the same thing, but instead of keeping it secret we put our agenda on the World Wide Web where anyone with a computer, a modem and an ISP can access it. Never mind that weâve written it in mindnumbing bureaucratese. Never mind that most of the public is more interested in sports, the Oscars or the latest Survivor series. Never mind that its reporting by the mainstream media is minimal and focused on side issues. The point is, our machinations would be available to any literate person who has the will and the know-how to seek them out. I doubt we could still call it a conspiracy. What would be the point? But that is the state of affairs with the UNâs latest confab, the International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) in Monterrey, Mexico, held from 18 â 22 March, 2002. This meeting continued the agenda set forth in Our Global Neighborhood issued by the Commission on Global Governance in 1995, restated in the Millennium Declaration, and now incorporated into the Monterrey Consensus agreement. Except for the Internet, of course, media reporting was skimpy, even though representatives of 171 nations signed the agreement. The meeting was attended by hundreds of other luminaries, from leaders of non-governmental organizations to CEOs of multinational corporations who attended an International Business Forum on "public / private partnerships." The Monterrey Consensus is fairly tough slogging. The phrase mindnumbing bureaucratese pays the document a compliment. There are abundant phrases like global partnerships, sustainable development, good governance, appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks, involving all stakeholders and so on and so on, for 16 pages (73 paragraphs) of small print. One suspects that its writers wanted to discourage prying eyes. Most people indeed will lose interest before they get to the second page. Much the same may be said for the UN website itself. It is a disorganized, hard-to-navigate mess; finding specific information on it is challenging even for experienced Web-hounds. But there is enough in this document to give away the game when translated into plain, words-mean-things English â for those who persevere. For example, in the very first paragraph of the Consensus is the overall goal of the meeting: "⦠to eradicate poverty, achieve sustained economic growth and promote sustainable development as we advance to a fully inclusive and equitable global economic system." In the next breath (paragraph 2): "We note with concern current estimates of dramatic shortfalls in resources required to achieve the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the United Nations Millennium Declaration." Thus the need for "[m]obilizing and increasing the effective use of financial resources and achieving the national and international economic conditions" needed to achieve the goals; this "demands a new partnership between developed and developing nations. We commit ourselves to sound policies, good governance at all levels and the rule of law" (paragraph 4). Okay, time out. Once translated from bureaucratese, is this or is this not a recipe for global socialism, under the auspices of a global superelite? (Superelite here means: an elite operating freely at an international of a national level, with the additional clout and resources this implies.) Is it or is it not a call for massive redistribution of the wealth from "developed" nations (i.e., the U.S.) to "developing ones" (i.e., much of the rest of the world). What, finally, is the cash value of the last sentence in the above quote? The UN steadfastly denies any commitment to setting up a world government. According to Our Global Neighborhood, "global governance ⦠does not imply world government or world federalism." But then what in blazes does it imply?
[excerpt] In related documents, the long-term intent is clear. Consider the Report of the High-Level Panel on Financing for Development, Executive Summary. It also notes "the task of mobilizing the financial resources needed," observes that the FfD confab "will be a key event in agreeing a strategy [sic.] for better resource mobilization." Then, once we have waded through several more pages of bureaucratese, we come to the following: The international community should consider whether the common interest would be furthered by providing stable and contractual resources for these purposes. Politically, taxing for the solution of global problems will be much more difficult than taxing for purely domestic purposes. If only out of self interest, new sources of finance should be considered without prejudice by all parties involved. In particular, a currency transactions tax (otherwise known as the Tobin tax) have [sic.] often been proposed as a new source of finance. There, lest there be any doubt, is the call for a UN-sponsored global tax â on the UNâs website, not a site put up by a "conspiracy theorist." The document calls for "further rigorous technical study" of the Tobin tax, named for the Yale University professor who came up with the idea. It is true that the Tobin tax would only lay taxes on cross-border currency transactions, and so would not affect those uninvolved in international business. But a door would be opened, and we might never be able to close it again. The UN would have been granted taxing authority to pay for its agenda, and this authority would quickly expand. Also being kicked around, after all, are ideas of taxing carbon emissions, air travel, the Internet and so on. None of these are specifically cross-border. But as UN operations become more expansive and expensive, the need to hire and pay more bureaucrats will grow. This is the way power centers operate, after all. Look at the history of our own tax system.