PUNTing the UN out of the World Stadium

puntUN.jpgThe same organization that brought the world the infamous The Oil-for-Food Programme once again wants to stick their grubby little paws directly in your back pocket. While some countries don’t mind losing their sovereignty, Rep. Ron Paul (big R, small L-TX) has already led the way to oppose Nicolae Carpathia’s ascent to ultimate global power. From Dr. Paul’s site:

Congressman Ron Paul continues to lead the fight against United Nations global tax proposals, which could add another level of taxes to the state, local, and federal taxes Americans already pay.

The US House of Representatives last week passed the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which fund the nonmilitary activities of our federal government overseas””including our United Nations dues. Paul crafted language that prohibits the Treasury from paying those dues if the UN attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on US citizens. That provision was included in the final Foreign Operations bill, which Congress passed last week.

“The UN continues to build the foundation for global government, and a worldwide tax is the key to their entire agenda,” Paul stated. “This is not hyperbole– in fact, the UN’s own website is quite open about the organization’s ambitions. The UN has established a system of international laws and international courts; now it needs an enforcement mechanism in the form of an international army. If UN bureaucrats succeed in creating a worldwide tax, they will become totally unaccountable to national governments and their citizens.”

The Senate has a form of the bill, known at the “Protection against United Nations Taxation Act of 2006” (PUNT), too. The The Brussels Journal reports:

Properly concerned about these proposals, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last month, crafted by Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, which prohibits the Treasury from paying dues to the U.N. if it attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on U.S. citizens. The action has now shifted to the Senate.

Sens. James Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, and Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, also seeing the threat to national sovereignty and global economic prosperity, have introduced a bipartisan bill known as the “Protection Against United Nations Taxation Act of 2006″ (S.3633).

As of this writing, the bill has 32 co-sponsors. When enacted, the bill will require the U.S. government to withhold 20 percent of its subsidy to the U.N., the OECD and other international organizations if those organizations develop, advocate, endorse, promote, or publicize any proposal “concerning the imposition of a tax or fee on any United States national or any income earned in the United States in order to raise revenue for the United Nations, any foreign government, or any international organization.”

UN officials are reportably upset because their current fundraising scheme places serious restrictions on UN activities. In addition to the direct monetary limitations, our global bureaucrats must currently act in a manner which appeases their largest donor states or risk losing the funding these sponsoring countries provide. The proposed UN plan would implement a global tax on airplane tickets and fuel, a carbon use tax of 5 cents per gallon of gas and a variety of taxes on various international exchanges of goods and services. Scarier still, it would impose the Tobin Tax on all international currency transactions.

It’s refreshing to see that even our bumbling House of Representatives is somewhat concerned with protecting our national sovereignty; 32 co-sponsors in the Senate is a good indicator they’ll do the same. It’s critical that we don’t supersize the generally flaccid United Nations with Viagra funded by our tax dollars.

Better yet, perhaps it’s time to return to discourse aimed at castrating the beast before it takes advantage of some future Reichstag fire or 9/11 to gain an unprecedented level of power.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

  1. It’s critical that we don’t supersize the generally flaccid United Nations with Viagra funded by our tax dollars.

    That’s great, Stephen.

  2. This is optimistic, but there is still a very large contingent of Congress that puts credence in the U.N. Until I see a serious proposal that takes the U.S. out of the U.N. I will stay weary.

  3. I have a question that is related to this. Before the XVI Amendment, did each state pay taxes to the fed gov? Now the U.N. is trying to do the same trick? This is really bad news.

  4. Out of curiosity, can anyone here conceive of a crime that could require a court above the level of a national boundary to try? While I’m definitely not in favour of the taxation, or the expanded powers of government at any level, it seems one thing a reasonable fraction of the party can envision is a judiciary. I understand the useful delimitations of national boundaries (and state boundaries, and the nice 6 foot fence around my yard) but wouldn’t a world court be useful for crimes involving actions that spanned national boundaries? Assuming a fairly limited set of agreed upon rules for judging the harm inflicted?
    Also, while I didn’t exactly have to look up that “Nicolae Carpathia” reference (easy to skim through that pulp fantasy in the comfort of local library), it did bring an amusing thought to mind.
    Some evangelicals support the Israeli state since they see it as a critical component to setting the stage for the end world play envisioned in some doctrine (including trying to get the Temple in Jerusalem rebuilt, breeding red bulls, etc). These same folks oppose the U.N. as an organisation which they see as the home of a future Antichrist.
    That somehow seems contradictory.