Obama Advisor’s Call For Global Tax Part
Of UN Agenda For Transfer of Wealth
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, February 13, 2012
Obama himself introduced global
tax bill in 2007 under UN
auspices
Director of the White House’s
national economic council Gary
Sperling’s announcement that a plan
for a “global minimum tax” is in the
works continues the efforts of
Barack Obama himself to oversee a
massive transfer of wealth under the
auspices of the UN.
The call also echoes similar rhetoric out of the United Nations which recently announced an
agenda to impose a world tax on all financial transactions to “help the poor”.
WH Economic Adviser: "This Is A Democratic Budget" And "We Need A Global
Minimum Tax" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO5B1378P54
“We need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing
their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and
facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens,” Sperling said today at an official meeting.
He added that more details about the proposal would be forthcoming before the end of the
month.
The fact that President Barack Obama’s economic
advisors are now pushing a global tax should not be a
surprise given the fact that Obama himself introduced
a bill when he was in the Senate, the Global Poverty
Act of 2007, which would have committed 0.7% of
America’s gross national product, or an additional
$845 billion over 13 years in addition to existing
foreign aid expenditures, for the purposes of “reducing
global poverty.”
Obama’s bill was introduced with the aim of satisfying
the “[U.N.] Millennium Development Goal of
reducing by one-half the proportion of people
worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than
$1 per day.”
The United Nations has repeatedly tried but failed to
piggy-back a global tax onto the back of climate change
deals at successive summits in Copenhagen, Cancun and
most recently in Durban.
The UN has also invoked the plight of the world’s poor in
its bid to establish a system of global taxation.
The Commission on Social Development met earlier this
month at UN headquarters in New York to advance the
agenda for a world tax imposed on all financial
transactions to fund a global model of social services that
will provide “needy people” with a basic income, free
healthcare, education and housing.
According to the report, the new global tax is designed to
be a progressive scale, with higher earners paying more to
help provide “all needy people with a basic income,
healthcare, education and housing.”
The Obama administration’s plans for a global tax are in complete synergy with the United
Nations agenda to achieve the same objective, which as a chilling 2010 UN blueprint made clear,
revolved around a $45 trillion transfer of wealth from richer countries as part of a process that
would enable the United Nations to build a structure of global governance in pursuit of a “Green
World Order,” while lowering living standards in the west.
The timeline by which this goal had to be accomplished was June 2012, the date of the UN’s
World Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio, which will mark the 20th anniversary since
the notorious “Earth Summit” held in the same city.
Detroit Columnist Calls for Sterilants in
Drinking Water to Curb Poverty Numbers
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
February 13, 2012
Proposal that aims to stop welfare dependents
from “breeding poverty” would poison
everyone with birth control spiked in public
water.
Water fluoridation was always just a gateway for
a greater drugging of society.
The Detroit News has published a call to add
contraceptives to the water supply, a dangerous
and repugnant proposal for gross state power
over life and death– all in the name of fighting
the “breeding poverty” of the welfare class.
Editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes:
“Since the national attention is on birth
control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring
down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in
Michigan’s drinking water.“
This arrogant proposal– straight from the classic Eugenics model– will not curb the dependency
in the welfare class. Instead, if implemented, it would cause a spike in the cancer rate, exacerbate
the presence of gender-bending compounds in our common provisions, all while serving to
legitimize nanny state control over all of us– not just those taking handouts or “breeding”
irresponsibly.
In the first sense, Finley is airing class warfare
arguments designed to play off segments of society
under a larger climate of anger about the economic
crisis or the socialistic takeover under ObamaCare
(now couched in a debate about subsidized birth
control). No doubt Detroit is plagued with problems,
but this proposal is an elitist problem-reaction-
solution ploy (whether the author realizes it or not)
aptly geared at drawing ire from its readers about
paying out the dole to the undeserving, all while
instead cheering for their own destruction via
drugging the water supply.
Why?
Let’s breakdown a few key points here:
1.) BIRTH CONTROL AND OTHER
HORMONAL DISRUPTORS ARE
ALREADY IN THE WATER &
CAUSING PROBLEMS
A few years ago, investigations by the
Associated Press and others underscored a
little talked about problem. Hundreds of
different pharmaceuticals and modern
chemical compounds are ALREADY
inadvertently polluting our drinking water.
Runoff and toilet-to-tap systems allow excreted and disposed pharmaceuticals and pills of all
sorts to enter right back into our water supply. These dangerous compounds are affecting all
stratas of society– from wealthy, “responsible” families on down. Even if targeting the dependent
class was morally acceptable and desirable, there’s no way to limit the exposure.
Toxic and gender-bending hormonal endocrine disruptors are destroying the environment and
triggering cancer and other health problems. Spikes in prostrate cancer, breast cancer, thyroid
problems and more are attributed to these chemicals, even as much of the media tries to
downplay the effects as being at “safe levels.” Some ludicrously act as if turning a blind eye to
hormonal pollution will make the problem go away.
Breast Cancer & The Environmental Estrogen Connection
MAKE-UP: Breast Cancer & The Estrogen Connection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI2V3jHuiQs
Instead, these artificial sex hormones, along with known carcinogens like arsenic, uranium,
radium, and tetrachloroethylene
1. not only violate the Safe Drinking Water Act, but coincide with increased reports of
“‘intersex’ animals that live in or near the water: male alligators with undersize penises, male
fish that produce eggs as well as sperm, male
sea birds with female trait,” as Susan Kim at the
Huffington Post writes.
Steroids, Birth Control, & More In Our
Drinking Water VIDEO BELOW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHc5AD1CSgQ
2.) DETROIT OP-ED JUST
REGURGITATING LONG-ESPOUSED
COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL
MEASURES
The Detroit News‘ Nolan Finley is not presenting
original ideas. Proposals to add sterilants to the
water are not new; instead there are long-standing
calls from eugenicists for covert mass sterilization,
and this article gives reason to believe these
poisonous ideas are gaining acceptance among a
sheep-like and deeply divided population turned
against itself.
Current White House science advisor John P.
Holdren co-wrote the 1977 textbook Ecoscience,
which lays out in detail a wide-array of coercive
and voluntary-submission population control
methods. One of the most drastic is that of
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple
foods” (p. 787). Other drastic proposals include
starving the poor by consolidating the global food
supply and depriving nations who don’t meet
population reduction goals of proportionate food
rations (p. 942-3).
Putting sterilants in the water, though, dates back further to a 1969 memo sent in private from
Planned Parenthood VP Frederick S. Jaffe to the Rockefeller-created Population Council’s
President Bernard Berelson. It advocated drastic coercive measures including “Fertility control
agents in water supply” and “encourage increased homosexuality.” But much of the one-page
memo also aimed to dangle state benefits over expectant mothers to encourage abortions,
sterilization and birth control through payments, tax credits and public housing policies. There is
no doubting the racist tinge in this language, just as in this current editorial aimed at Detroit’s
large minority populations.
Both Jaffe and Berelson are recipients of the Margaret
Sanger Award for their population control work.
Rockefeller-funded Sanger is a classical Eugenicist, and
the founder of the Birth Control League that later
transformed into Planned Parenthood. She was a key
player in the highly inflammatory “Negro Project” (to
reduce numbers in the black population) wherein she
bluntly wrote in 1939 that “We do not want word to go
out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,
and the minister is the man who can straighten out that
idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious
members.”
More recently, “bio-ethicists” like Oxford professor
Julian Savulescu have called for adding other drugs to
the water supply, too. Savulsecu, and many others like
Irish Psychiatrist Dr. Moosajee Bhamjee, have advocated that lithium could be spiked in water to
curb suicides, using the acceptance of water fluoridation to legitimize more and more mass
drugging by the state.
Extremists like Dr. Eric Pianka have resurrected elite cries to sterilize everyone in the world, and
only offer the antidote those willing to work for it. Plastic estrogen mimickers like Bisphenol-A
were already making this possible, he indicated according to the transcript. Indeed, it is a very
real proposal, that includes policies to implant a removable sterilant under the arm, reinstating
the ability to reproduce if authorized by the state.
3.) IT’S ABOUT SCAPEGOATING THE POOR & DEPENDENT CLASSES, NOT THE
ROOT CAUSES
The fall of Detroit has already been analyzed. It was victim to globalization and elite policies to
de-industrialize America. In fact, Planned Parenthood’s National Medical Director, Dr. Richard
Day, was one of the biggest advocates of this policy.
As ground zero of the U.S. manufacturing base, Detroit, like many other hotspots in the rust belt,
was dismantled by trade policies building up new Asian partners and other exploitable, low wage
countries. When Detroit was booming, the middle class was growing rapidly, and all groups in
society had the chance to prosper– a prosperity that studies show typically correlates with smaller
families and greater independence. Black, White, Hispanic– it doesn’t matter.
But now that the larger economic crisis has set off, it is again trendy to blame the dependent poor
for all their abuses of the welfare system. Nevermind that the same elite class who advocated de-
industrializing the West also purposely triggered the 2008 implosion.
Detroit News‘ Nolan Finley gives an example of a woman on welfare who has had 12 children.
“The woman’s womb is a poverty factory,” Finley writes. “In the 1990s, Michigan considered
penalizing women who had more babies while on welfare, but pro-life groups killed the idea
out of fear it would lead to more abortions,” he also states.
The truth is that the crony-capitalists who control the government don’t want the dependent class
to be self-supporting. They’ve just targeted the poor and minority communities because they are
most vulnerable and least likely to defend against the attack. Ideally, this collectivist system
wants everyone to be under state control- with allotments that allow government leverage over
behavior. The end result is not a hostage-taxpayer upset over paying for welfare; it is a hyper-
corrupt government that wants to decide who can breed, how many children they can have and if
an individual’s life is even worth living. And no, that is not a joke or exaggeration.
It can be labeled socialism. It can be labeled communism. It can be labeled fascism, or a host of
other loaded names. But under globalism, our nations are pursuing planned societies, and
everything from the economy, the food supply, housing, education and our own bodies are to be
regulated and apportioned by the “experts” in control. Fabian Socialist planner George
Bernard Shaw embodies this plan, and takes it to the logical endpoint:
“Under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed,
lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not
character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly
manner; but whilst you were
permitted to live you would have to
live well.”
4. CLASSICAL EUGENICS EN
VOGUE AGAIN?
There’s an entire history underscoring
how Eugenics was sold to the
population in the early parts of the
20th century on the basis of relieving
the burden to taxpayers by reducing
forcibly the number of dependents. The
historical photo posted here will do
enough to highlight the point– put
pressure on populations by propagandizing about the cost of the poor to taxpayers.
Consider what the Eugenics Archives writes about Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act, from
the 1920s, one of more than 27 states who passed Eugenics laws based on Cold Spring Harbor
head Harry Laughlin’s Model Law: “It was adopted as part of a cost-saving strategy to relieve
the tax burden in a state where public facilities for the “insane” and “feebleminded” had
experienced rapid growth.” Hundreds of other pro-Eugenics publications of the era made the
same, or similar, pitches– to save taxpayer money. Detroit’s Nolan Finley has undoubtedly
channeled this sentiment again. But the intention is not really to save public money; it is to give
the state more power. Besides, what cost would intentionally adding sex hormones to the water
have on all of us? Just think about the dangers of this proposal. How much would be saddled on
taxpayers once governments were sued for inducing cancer? Again, fighting dependency is not
the true intent. The same Jaffe-Berelson discussed above that hoped to reduce U.S. fertility by
sterilizing the water also advocates “Discouragement of private home ownership.” If this was
about cutting the number of government dependents, why would this policy be on the books?
Instead, it implies that the “targets” of population reduction should be UNDER government
housing, so that benefits can be dangled over those in need– forcing a decision between bearing
children and getting enough money to survive.
But go ahead: blame the indigent, dependent poverty class for our problems. No doubt it could
score some political points. Meanwhile, some of us are facing up to the war against humanity
itself.