Here is one area where your "wise" Tobin tax would be put to use. The hell with our Constitution.
newsmax.com
newsmax.com
Maybe you should move to Syria, Cuba or China where you can enjoy their brand of freedom! They will be more than happy to help you bash free enterprise and the profit motive.
Maybe you can come up with a better system to maintain a well functioning currency market than geographical and cross rate arbitrage. Maybe if we move away from free/managed/pegged/joint floating currencies and go back to the gold standard or a system of fixed currency rates this would eliminate the evil profit motive. Then next we can put a small tax on futures and options trading in order to eliminate the speculative gains obtained by those greedy enough to partake in those transactions. What is your problem with the profit motive? In your discussion with XY you tell him he "failed to provide a single example of someone who fits neatly into his category of individuals who have furthered progress, civilization and human existence while satisfying their own greed." You have got to be kidding. Speaking from an ethnocentric perspective there have been more inventions and breakthroughs in science that benefited humanity as a whole that originated from capitalistic society's than from your socialistic utopia. Please name me 1 altruistic individual from a totalitarian government? I don't hear of many endowments or philanthropic organizations named after any. According to your train of thought only the "non greedy" or those with a lack of profit motive can/have furthered progress, civilization and human existence. Maybe you can explain this rationale to me! Please tell me what Alger Hiss and the other Communists/Socialist who started the United Nations know about the alleviation of suffering. I thought it was well understood that capitalism beat out communism with the Fall of the Berlin Wall! Although the Tobin tax may provide benefits to the needy in theory, so the United Nations was started in order to help avert war. Let me know of one war or police action that averted because of this organization.
Maybe you are all for global governance. Will you at least admitted that this is not a myth conjured up by a paranoid "devil"
Are you one of those who are adamantly against America remaining a sovereign nation?
sovereignty.net
getusout.org
Your Tobin tax would do nothing but enable "The United Nations Charter"
As certainly should be expected, the UN Charter briefly mentions the importance of national independence. If it had
failed to do so, few nations would have accepted it because all nations want to remain independent. A careful reading
of the Charter, however, shows that even though Article 2 pledges to maintain "the sovereign equality of all its
Members," the Charter violates that pledge in the very same Article.
The Charter's main authors were Americans Alger Hiss and Leo Pasvolsky and the Soviet Union's Vyacheslav Molotov.
Hiss was a secret communist and a member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations.
Pasvolsky was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Molotov was an official of the murderous
Soviet Union whose criminal leaders expected the United Nations to bring about a communist-controlled world.
These men surely did not want the nations of the world to remain independent. Instead, they wanted all to become
subject to the authority of the United Nations, an organization they expected to control. And they wrote the UN Charter to
accomplish that goal.
The Charter's attack on national independence begins in Article 1, paragraph 7. But it hides its ultimate goal by stating:
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, or shall require the Members to submit such matters to
settlement under the present Charter...."
Anyone who reads only that statement will likely conclude that the UN intends to protect a nation's right to govern within
its borders, a major ingredient of sovereignty. But the sentence in Article 1, paragraph 7 does not end there. It
continues: "... but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." So the
UN Charter does not prevent the organization from meddling in the affairs of nations. What then are these "enforcement
measures under Chapter VII" of the UN Charter? And how might they be employed?
Chapter VII of the Charter begins with Article 39 by proclaiming that "the Security Council shall determine the existence
of any threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression... and shall decide what measures shall be taken...."
So the UN shall make the decision as to whether and when it shall act militarily. Then, in Article 42, the UN Security
Council is authorized to -
... take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international
peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and operations by land, sea, or air
forces of Members of the United Nations.
That's no guarantee of peace, it's a blueprint for war. Clearly, a nation that balks at being controlled by the UN will be
deemed to be a threat to the UN's definition of peace. And the UN has authority under this section of its Charter to
wage war to accomplish its idea of peace.
But nowhere in the Charter is there a definition of peace. Yet it is obvious that peace, according to Molotov, Hiss, all
members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and all communists and socialists, has always meant the absence of
opposition, not the absence of war. This, I contend, is what the authors of the Charter intended.
Among the numerous routes to gain world dominance, UN-style peace will begin to reign after the UN employs "action
by air, sea, or land forces" to completely destroy all who oppose the UN. Of course, this is "enforced" peace which isn't
real peace. Enforced peace exists when opposition is crushed as it was in the former Soviet Union, in the former Nazi
Germany, and today in the vast Communist-controlled prison known as the People's Republic of China. This isn't
peace; it's tyranny.
As J. Reuben Clark said in 1945, the UN Charter "is a war document, not a peace document." And so is the UN's
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is also falsely portrayed as a peace document.
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
My country was born in 1776 with our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. This document presents the
philosophical base upon which the United States of America has been built. Its most important point states as a
"self-evident" truth that "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In other words, the rights that
are so often taken for granted (to life, speech, assembly, religion, ownership of a weapon, etc.) aren't granted by a
government and cannot justly be taken away by a government. They are God-given and cannot be limited. These rights
were then mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.
But the UN never mentions God and never asserts that rights are granted by God. Its lavishly praised 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states instead that rights are "granted ... by the constitution or by law." If a law grants
rights, another law can cancel them. And this is precisely what the UN intends. It even says so in this same Universal
Declaration where it states: "In the exercise of his rights and responsibilities, everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law." In other words, a UN law, or a law approved by the UN, can be enacted to cancel
whatever rights are granted by the UN.
This totalitarian attitude is then amplified in Article 29 of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights where one can read the
following: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the
United Nations." No one, therefore, shall have any rights if the enjoyment of them conflicts with the UN's desires.
Then in 1966, the UN produced its International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Again, various rights are
mentioned but the power of the UN to cancel or modify them appears as each is mentioned. This is a blueprint for
tyranny.
Anyone who has ever seen the Constitution of the former Soviet Union would recognize that the UN has followed the
USSR's lead in mentioning rights and canceling them out in the very act of their being mentioned. In the Soviet Union, all
persons were guaranteed freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc. by the Soviet Constitution. But no one in the
USSR was allowed to exercise those rights because the Constitution gave government the power to create laws
suspending them. And these laws were indeed created. This is precisely what should be expected if the UN should ever
become dominant.
The parallel between the United Nations and the totalitarian Soviet Union cannot be denied.
Is this also your opinion on individual property rights?
getusout.org
I'm sure you're all for gun control along the lines of the United Nations. Americans should not be armed, correct?
getusout.org
getusout.org
I found you a home here!
dsausa.org |
