since.
Inherent in it is a desire to get the power to tax our wealth. However they rationalize their scheme, it still comes down to this: They want our money. They want our assets. They want the ability to tax us. They want us to give them our technology, developed by our creative entrepreneurs, often with government investments.
On Thursday, July 5, 2012—the day after our celebration of national independence—the UN called for a global tax on billionaires, intended to raise more than $400 billion a year for the world’s poor countries. The proposal would tax 1,226 billionaires to raise the money (425 of whom live in the US). The tax proposal is coupled with four other proposed global taxes—each imposed by the UN:
• [A] tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation.
• [A] tax of 0.005 percent on all currency transactions in the dollar, yen, euro and pound sterling could raise $40 billion a year.
• [T]aking a portion of a proposed European Union tax on financial transactions for international cooperation. The tax is expected to raise more than $70 billion a year.29
It also suggests expanding a levy on air tickets that a number of nations already impose to raise money for drugs for poor states through UNITAID, a UN initiative.
In its extreme, global governance also wants to eventually eliminate national elections, especially in the United States. They see the concept of popular elections as an unnecessary evil, which often leads to elected officials actually responding to the demands of their constituents. Imagine that! Some would call that the hallmark of democracy. This quote from Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs indicates just how naive and nutty these folks can be: “The prevailing unilateralism of the United States will seem for many people to be an inevitable feature of world politics in which politicians are voted in or out of office by their own populations rather than by a global electorate.”30
While this is undoubtedly the view of the global governance crowd, most of them are afraid to say just how far they want to go to destroy our political system.
It’s hard to understand exactly what Professor Sachs is really saying. Is he proposing that politicians in the United States should be elected by a global electorate? That seems too far-fetched for even the global governance zealots. More likely he is suggesting that we elect a worldwide government that is not answerable to us.
Think about it: A global governance would eliminate the troublesome dictates of the US Constitution, as well as unruly citizen participation and dialogue. It would stymie the ability of duly elected American officials to determine our policies, and would tax us without representation.
The plan essentially calls for a dumbing down of America and a leveling of American influence and ideology.
How will these goals be realized?
By enforcing obscure treaties that bind us to outrageous mandates without the participation of Congress and without the consent of our people. (We’ll discuss this in detail below.)
By international conferences with implementing agendas—like the Rio environmental conferences—and signed agreements that often include criminal sanctions.
By imposing international taxes without our consent.
The idealized concept of one-world government has been kicking around for a long time. Its genesis is deeply imbedded in socialist principles. Currently disguised in contemporary United Nations globalspeak, it relies on “sustainability” as the unifying theme.
Sustainability purportedly means that planetary growth and development must only advance if it does not impair the sustainability of the planet. But
Recently, there has been a frenetic push by the “international community” to make this unwise and undemocratic policy come true.
Even the Vatican has weighed in, recently calling for a one-world government: “Globalization, despite some of its negative aspects, is unifying peoples more and prompting them to move towards a new ‘rule of law’ on the supranational level, supported by a more intense and fruitful collaboration.”31
This view of the need for a “supranational” level of government is, unfortunately, shared by many. These are the people and organizations who want us to surrender our national identity, change our lifestyles, provide reparations for what they view as our excesses, and surrender to a new order of international institutions that will tell us what to do, when to do it, and how much to pay for it.
How will they be able to transfer our wealth? By imposing mandatory foreign aid to underdeveloped countries and by enacting international taxes aimed at the United States, including carbon taxes, airline taxes, and Internet taxes. And we’ll have no way to stop them.
And that’s not all. They also want to require us to hand over our technology—our valuable intellectual property—to countries who don’t have either the brain power or the financial resources to develop their own.
All of this is called social justice. More like economic injustice.
They want to take major decision making away from the Congress and Executive Branch and replace it, instead, with a one-world governing system.
And the Obama administration is helping them do it by rushing through a series of treaties that will transfer sovereign power and control to global agencies.
Barack Obama believes in it. Think about it: We have a president who goes to the United Nations to ask for permission to bring a military action in Libya, but claims that he isn’t required to seek the approval of the United States Congress under the War Powers Act—even when his own Department of Justice advises him that he is required to do so.
There’s no doubt about it: President Obama embraces the one-world global view. So does his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
Obama showed his hand even before he was president. On July 24, 2008, then–US senator Barack Obama spoke to the largest crowd of the presidential campaign in Berlin, Germany. More than two hundred thousand people thronged into the park in front of the site where the Berlin Wall, separating East and West Germany, communism and freedom, had once stood. All were anxious to hear the young senator who was stirring the American electorate and who might be an antidote to President George W. Bush, who was detested by Europeans.
The spectators got what they came for. Obama talked the talk, walked the walk. He spoke their language. Playing to the crowd, he told them that he came to Berlin not as a presidential candidate, but as a “citizen of the world.” His rhetoric soared as he repeatedly spoke of “global cooperation,” “global partnership,” “global commitment,” and the “burden of global citizenship”… that continue[s] to bind us together.”32
“I speak as a citizen of the world,” he told the crowd.33
Those few words, emphasizing Obama’s obvious embrace of globalism and global governance over nationalism, foretold his vision of a new world order. In this new paradigm, America is just one part of a worldwide decision-making process, instead of an independent—and, yes, nationalistic—country with historic political and cultural roots set deep in democracy that are often at odds with some of the rest of the world, including Europe.
This book is a wake-up call to all Americans who value our democratic traditions and culture, who still believe in the fundamental tenets of liberty and freedom that are the cornerstones of our great nation, and who applaud the uniqueness of America.
WHY GLOBAL GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY AMERICANS
David Brooks of the
