What senator stood up to more than 90 countries, successfully defending U.S. sovereignty before the Supreme Court? Answer.

Please use the PayPal button above to donate to The US Report.

Subscribe with Kindle

Search the US Report. 

Please visit The US Report bookstore!

Need a speaker for your next event? Contact us.



 The US Report, an indie publisher, features stories about politics, public figures and government. Learn more about The US Report  and the credentials of our contributorsHelp us keep TUSR online; use the PayPal link in the right column.



While you were sleeping: Democrats open door for UN to tax Americans

Adding insult to injury, UN Chief Ban Ki-moon, in a private meeting with lawmakers in Washington, says we’re ‘deadbeats.’

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) speaks at a ceremony at Tinker Air Force base in Okalahoma City. Inhofe tried to prevent the UN from pursuing taxes on U.S. citizens. Democrats refused to support his efforts.(Washington, D.C.)—While media obsessed about Rush Limbaugh and Congress obsessed about how much pork could be stuffed down the throats of U.S. taxpayers, Democrats in Congress paved the way for the United Nations to use U.S. funds from appropriations bills to pursue global tax schemes. GOP stalwart Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) seemed astonished when a preventive amendment he introduced to the Omnibus Appropriations bill failed by a 43-51 vote. This wasn’t an unusual amendment.

Inhofe’s announcement said, “This provision has appeared in every annual appropriations bill since 1996, and this year marks the first time an annual appropriations bill will not contain this policy.” Will taxpayers soon see a new line item whereby we owe the UN on top of the new administration's planned tax increases?

Inhofe also said prohibiting U.S. taxpayers funding UN global taxes in annual appropriations bills has been a bipartisan U.S. policy that began over a decade ago under the Clinton administration. He continued, “My amendment to the FY ’09 omnibus appropriations bill would have reinstated this important U.S. policy and ensured that officials at the UN and other international bureaucracies who receive generous funding from US taxpayers do not pursue or implement policies of international taxes on US taxpayers.” Inhofe said he was “disappointed” the Democratic majority in the Senate reversed course on this “longstanding US policy.”

Inhofe’s Mar. 4 floor speech explained the situation clearly. “In addition, in the last two Congresses, I introduced what is known as the Helms-Biden Reauthorization Act, which withholds 20% of the US funding for the UN until the President certifies that the UN is not pursuing taxes on US citizens. I am preparing to reintroduce this legislation and have 10 original cosponsors so far.

“The ‘findings’ section of the Helms-Biden reauthorization bill contains 70 sections describing the different international tax schemes that have been under discussion among UN bureaucrats, academics, and foreign countries. Sometimes the language is cloaked to disguise the true design, but these proposals can often be found in UN literature as ‘innovative sources of financing.’ This means international taxes.

“As recently as 2005, however, the language is more explicit. The 2005 Human Development Report envisions ‘raising additional revenue through international taxation mechanisms.’ "

It’s obvious the Democrats in Congress not only want to raise domestic taxes. They have created a deliberate loophole for the UN to tax us as well. Establishment media ignored this story.

While you (and establishment media) were sleeping, Ban Ki-moon slipped his hands in your pocket, and then he had the nerve to call you a deadbeat. A lone Republican tried to do something about it. No one from the other party reached across the aisle even though doing so would have clearly protected the interests of the Americans they represent.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

« Somebody tell Larry Summers: it’s the tax refunds, stupid | Main | GOP trips on Steele’s GQ interview; GQ levies insult at Steele and the South »

Reader Comments (19)

I am glad that Ms Day has brought this to the surface. It goes back to the Clinton Administration, who agreed to UN Agenda 21, a global program for implementing population control, redistribution of wealth and an aggressive green agenda. Through the Bush years, the US withheld support for Agenda 21, but it is coming back. You can read the document here.

Welcome to the Brave New World!

March 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterGene Retske

I was so amazed at this under-covered story I called the senator's office to confirm. There is no way the American people should accept this. I am hoping people from both parties will protest this. Thanks for coming by--kay

March 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKay

Gene, this part really freaks me out:

This is what Gore and Clinton's "global village" concept has brought us to.

Ron Paul predicted every bit of this you know. And some called him crazy.

best, Kay

March 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKay

Where was Fox News on this one? Interesting how not ONE news media has touched this.

Interesting how not ONE news media will touch on how Barak's administration is attacking Sherif Joe Arpaio (Arizona) who is fighting almost single-handedly illegal immigration, drug lords, Mexican gangs, kidnappings, etc.. Janet Napolitano unsuccessfully tried to shut his efforts down but WE residents of Arizona have and are overwhelmingly supporting Arpaio's efforts. Now Obama's boys (Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder, et al.) are going Napolitano's New World Order agenda to stop Americans from defending our country --- Lord knows, as all of Arizona residents know, she'll not do it.

March 16, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterEM

Sherif Joe Arpaio should be given a medal. You'd think at least Rush or Sean would have backed his efforts by now. You know, it isn't always "what" the so-called "news media" will report on --- it's what they won't report about that's most telling.

March 16, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterEM

Where was Fox News on this one? Interesting how not ONE news media has touched this.

Interesting how not ONE news media will touch on how Barak's administration is attacking Sherif Joe Arpaio (Arizona) who is fighting almost single-handedly illegal immigration, drug lords, Mexican gangs, kidnappings, etc.. Janet Napolitano unsuccessfully tried to shut his efforts down but WE residents of Arizona have and are overwhelmingly supporting Arpaio's efforts. Now Obama's boys (Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder, et al.) are joining Napolitano's New World Order agenda to stop Americans from defending our country --- Lord knows, as all of Arizona residents know, she'll do whatever it takes to promote the NWO and support her boss's puppet-master, George Soros.

March 16, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterEM

Hmmm...I hate to play devil's advocate, but I wonder how much money we owe the UN. Surely all the well-informed readers here know we're supposed to be paying money to the UN and we never do. Perhaps this is Ban Ki-Moon's way of settling? Although I'm sure no one here thinks we should be paying the UN anything.

March 16, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLogan

Logan, while the story actually deals with UN taxation, I will address the issue of dues. Your statement is categorically untrue. We are in fact the largest contributor to the UN--not just in dues but in food aid and other matters. Go to the UN website and read for yourself.

And yes, I don't think we should pay the UN a dime. Being part of that organization has done nothing more than harm this country. In my opinion.

What Ki-Moon complained about was our not paying dues on time. There would be no UN without US taxpayer dollars.

Consider this--we are the largest donor of aid to Gaza, for example. Arab countries have yet to pony up their share.

For other readers, on the issue of establishment media, they routinely give Democrats a pass. This is not the first unreported story and it won't be the last.

March 16, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKay

We don't pay our full UN dues. We are deadbeats in that sense. We give far less per capita than most other countries.

As far Gaza, hello - we arm Israel and we turn our heads as they commit genocide in Gaza. Whatever we give, it's the LEAST we can do.

March 16, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterlaurie

Laurie, it depends on how you do those sneaky little calculations. A couple years ago, senate Dems and Republicans put a cap on dues--Biden warned at the time it might result in our falling behind on those dues.

Don't talk to me about per capita anything. It's a no-brainer if you think about the populations of China and India and don't talk to me about wealth because those countries still do not have the degree of freedom we do and only freedom creates wealth.

As for Gaza, hello! They've committed quite a bit of genocide of their own. Just so you know I'm way on Israel's side in that regard. Hamas has historically decried Israel's existence. The US did not create Israel, but once we signed on, we were bound to help defend her.

And the "least we can do" in my opinion, is start looking to the U.S. constitution when it comes to pledging my taxpayer money to other countries.

The UN is a dark hole (oil for food anyone?) and it's long past time for us to lower our involvement.

March 16, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKay

In the interest of freedom, welcome to the liberals in the land. Wondered when some of you would start showing up around here. Have at it. We welcome your thoughts.

March 16, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKay

I believe the best thing we could do is quit the UN and kick their butts out of this country. It's obvious, they need us more than we need them. Let them locate in France, so those people can kiss their butts as they did the Nazis. The United States has always carried more of the financial burden, for the UN, than any other country. What do we get, in return for our support; the UN Chief, Ban Ki-moon, calling us "deadbeats". Well, I have a few choice words to describe the UN, but I'm not able to use them online. I will say, I believe they're a bunch of arrogant, corrupt, hypocritical, and absolutely useless parasites that feed off the world. Get rid of them as you would a leech!.................

March 17, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterPaul

Paul, I'm working on a UN article now. It's amazing really how that organization grew from a liberal idea to a gargantuan cost-inefficient bureaucracy. I'll have it up in a day or two.

Ki-Moon, like his predecessor, is the ultimate hypocrite.

best, Kay

March 17, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKay

Sure. It hurts to realize that our elected representatives don't stand up for our interests. I fail to understand the shock, surprise, and indignation whenever this comes up--which is about once a day.

In case you hadn't noticed, members of Congress spend the majority of their time processing information from corporate lobbyists. This isn't a choice--it is a legal obligation. Our Constitution demands that our elected representatives pay attention to petitions from constituents.

You and I would think, "Right. From people." The problem is that corporations have legal status as people: Artificial Persons. Look it up.

The difference between us and large corporations is that we don't have the time or the money to hire someone to represent our interests to our own Congressional representatives. Corporations do--and they can lobby each and every one for each and every congressional district where they do business. Pick your top ten reprehensible members of Congress, and there will be at least seven that don't have to listen to you because you don't live in their district.

And it doesn't help that wealthy corporations can offer our representatives a good time. Think for a moment about how corporate tax breaks fund these expenditures.

You think the UN issue is bad? Look more closely: If your elected representatives are acting in your interest, it's almost certainly a coincidence.

We are not the customer. We are merely the consumer. The customer is always right, and in this case, the customer is the multinational corporation.

The UN issue is a just a symptom of the problem. If you think it's a good idea to invest in multinationals because they'll give you a good return so you can retire comfortably, you might want to reconsider what you consider to be comfortable.

We get what we tolerate.

March 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterBrad Eleven

Well, Brad, I agree with what you said. I regularly chastise Congress--both parties--because I think we have the most corrupt inept Congress possibly in our nation's history.

My problem is they're handing our country over to foreign entities. And that will pose a problem for our Republic--it already does.

Thanks for your well-thought post. best, Kay

March 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKay

The United States pays for the largest portion of the United Nations budget and has since it's inception. So, even though we may not have a "line item" on our pay-stubs right now, we - the American taxpayers - have always been paying for the United Nations. I don't see what all the hub-bub is about.
This has proven quite useful to American imperialism, giving the United States vast amounts of control over world policy. So, it's either we keep paying all this money to the UN - legitimizing our actions abroad - or we bail on the UN and try to pretend that the rest of the world isn't keeping our economy afloat....

March 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJones

Well, Jones, I disagree. Read the column. The amendment was put in place by Bill Clinton and served us well through two presidents.

As for our being an imperial power, had you thought to mention Russia, China, Great Britain, France, and other countries? Would you not agree those countries have a far longer history of imperialism--and I don't agree btw the US is an imperial power in the sense of dominance. Otherwise we'd be running Germany and Japan.

As for bailing on the UN, I believe that would be in the best interests of our country. I respect your right to disagree.

I also believe in protecting our sovereignty--it's all about the constitution, you know.

March 19, 2009 | Registered CommenterKay B. Day, Editor

The UN is a far-left organization, an obvious attempt at one-world government after the League failed so miserably. Leftists Woody Wilson(D) and Teddy Rose(R) both pushed for severe limitations on our Constitutional provisions for individual rights, in favor of blatant Statism. Thus the League, now the UN.
Not only is the UN the intentional precursor to global socialism and the end of the USA, they treat us like dirt, for all we have done to make the UN possible. What a bunch of hypocritical parasites; but just like most of the the unable, ignorant, noncontributing, pseudointellectuals of the left, they think it is their right and duty to punish those who carry their weak carcasses. - Dick

June 25, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterRichard

Kay, thank you for this excellent piece; altho it is now June 25, it is every bit as relevant today as in March.
While welcoming the leftists to join, it's worth mentioning that the vast majority of them are devoid of any real knowledge of history, of the Constitution, or of the world. Further, most of them have no use for the Constitution, being much in favor of Marxist dictatorship. They missed their time when Stalin was in power - perhaps they can help bring back a Stalinist regime. Oh - and a small point for all you lefties who actually excuse Stalin - did you know that Stalin and Hitler had a treaty in place to divide up Europe? It all went by the wayside when Hitler attacked Poland, of course. The point is, there is little fundamental difference between Stalinist Communism and Hitler's National Socialism.

You lefties are supporting, knowingly or un-, a would-be totalitarian regime.

But maybe that is what you want.

June 25, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterRichard

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>