New Health Minister To further Promote Agenda 21 Implementation
by Terry Wilson
Canadian Awareness Network
August 19, 2013
Nearly one year ago I wrote about sustainable development being repackaged as a health issue.
Health Canada And Agenda 21
“At a recent United Nations event that we covered at the McMaster Innovation Park in Hamilton, the panel was discussing how climate change and environmental issues had to be repackaged as health issues. “Quote” because they effect human health. Climate change has gone from a environmental issue, to a poverty issue, and now it is a health issue. All within a year.
Since that event I have been looking into the health industry in Canada, to see if they are implementing policies that back this new re branding and this is what I have found.
Health Canada our main federal health institution has implemented a sustainable development strategy. Which reads exactly like any other sustainable development protocol. With goals that include:
Theme 1: Addressing Climate Change and Air Quality
Theme 2: Maintaining Water Quality and Availability
Theme 3: Protecting Nature
Theme 4: Shrinking the Environmental Footprint – Beginning with Government”
They even use an almost exact duplicate of a graph that the United Nations uses to promote agenda 21.
Now the new health minister is showing how she plans to move that agenda forward.
New health minister says public health care must innovate to be sustainable
The best way to maintain and strengthen Canada’s medicare system is to invest in innovation and research, Canada’s new health minister says.
“Our policy challenge – one which I plan to lead in my tenure as health minister – [is] improving our system in a way that will maintain the integrity of our publicly-funded system but capture productivity gains so our system is sustainable,” Rona Ambrose told delegates to the Canadian Medical Association annual meeting in Calgary on Monday.
“Innovation is very important when it comes to the long-term sustainability of our health care system.”
Ms. Ambrose, in her first speech since being appointed to the health portfolio, described herself as a “policy wonk” who has immersed herself in the issue of health innovation.
She was vague, however, on what sort of innovation she wanted to promote, other than pointing to the importance of technology, “improving the efficiency of the health delivery system and incentives for more cost-effective health care interventions.”
The minister described the federal government as the “largest single investor in Canadian health innovation,” notably with $1-billion in annual funding for the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.
Ms. Ambrose also stressed that innovation is an area “worthy of federal leadership and an area where I believe we can make gains together. “The consequences of not acting are staggering.” She said details will be worked out in discussions with the provinces and territories.
Continue Reading
New face, same agenda. Can we really be surprised?
Justin Trudeau On Bill C279, GMOs, U.N NWO, UNPA, Syrian Rebels and Decriminalizing Pot
by Frankie Gotz
Canadian Awareness Network
July 22, 2013
In the past the Canadian Awareness Network has had opportunities to ask Justin Trudeau some questions. Some past questions were about Bilderberg Group also if he became Prime Minister would he change what his father did with the policies of the Bank of Canada which allowed private banks to create national currency, we’ve questioned him if he was involved with Power Corporation of Canada to find out if he’s following his fathers footsteps and a whole lot more. In fairness majority of the questions C.A.N has asked Trudeau were questions about things he has not done yet.
For two previous questioning sessions please click the bolded titles below:
On June 20th 2013, Justin Trudeau paid a visit to the city of Hamilton at the Dundas Farmers Market. C.A.N and friends were there to great him with political questions pertaining the U.N New World Order and much more.
THE QUESTIONS ASKED (CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER IN FILM):
1. Dex asks Trudeau if he supports Bill C 279 (controversial transgender bathroom law)
2. Since Trudeau paid a visit to Dundas Farmers Market which had venders selling organic foods Anthony asked him if he supports banning GMOs.
3.Jay gave Trudeau a sincere “good luck” for his career as being a politician and informed him that he does not want to be ruled by the United Nations New World Order..
4. Since Trudeau told Jay that the NWO is a bad thing I confronted Trudeau about him being signed onto the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA).
5. Jay asks “Justin, do you think Canada has any business supporting United States proxy war in Syria?” … Jay informed Trudeau that the rebels in Syria are Al Qaeda and CIA is shipping weapons to them which they are using on the Syrian population.
6. I ask Trudeau if he supports decriminalizing marijuana.
Please click play on video below for Trudeau’s answers (and check description of video on YouTube for more links):
Could 9/11 Truth Topple the American Empire?
Just Wondering – Alternative News and Opinions
July 13, 2013
by Zen Gardner
I’ve thought about this quite often since hearing the idea on one of Freeman‘s talks. As these exposes, staged and otherwise keep rolling out, it appears we’re being steered toward a major breaking point leading to the dissolution of America as it once was.
What if a 9/11 inquiry were held in the European or World Court in The Hague and the real truth came out and was publicly validated? It’s not that far fetched. It would be purely by design of course, as perhaps these latest NSA revelations are scripted to be part of as well; the deliberate downfall of America, its false facade and eventually its infrastructure.
Remember the end game: the establishment of a One World Government. American sovereignty and what it stands for in the world mind stands in the way of this. Wouldn’t it be peachy if this new, benign defender of the rights of humanity that arises out of an indignant “World Court” saved the day and brought justice to the American War machine via 9/11 truth, and via the collapse of its image and sovereignty converted into a subordinate fiefdom of the new world state?
I don’t put anything past these psychopaths. They kill their own when they need to and would gladly sacrifice Americans and even Israelis in their quest for world dominance. It wouldn’t be the first time. They’d then repackage whatever was left in North America as one of their already designed world zones and just relabel the American military apparatus as international peacekeepers, something already well under way with even the infusion of foreign troops on American soil, while converting the government to some international substate.
Not only do you get this legacy of supposed freedom deleted but the world elites behind this would come off looking like the saviors of humanity. World everything would easily follow and the sheep would march into it proudly.
Israel Lobby Controlled Size of UN General Assembly
SyriaNews
June 19, 2013
source: http://DDees.com
Documents unearthed from the voluminous archived files of the CIA provide evidence that in the 1960s, leading pro-Israeli members of the administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon sought to limit the size of the UN General Assembly by redefining the definition of what countries could qualify for membership in the world body. In the 1960s and 70s, successive U.S. ambassadors to the UN, the first and foremost being the arch-Zionist former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Arthur Goldberg, who represented the United States during the Israeli-Arab Six Day War, extensively lobbied the UN Secretariat to create a second-tier of «associate membership» for countries considered «too small» to have a full vote in the UN General Assembly.
The U.S. proposal, backed by the Israeli Lobby, was in direct contravention of the principal of universal membership pushed by countries like Australia during the tenth anniversary of the UN in 1955. However, the United States and Soviet Union never addressed the issue of universal membership of the UN or the issue of small states becoming members, preferring instead to admit new members based on a de facto understanding that a balance would be maintained among pro-Western, Soviet bloc, and neutral nations.
Between 1954 to 1956, new member nations were admitted to the UN that reflected a continuation of the status quo between pro-Western, Soviet bloc, and nonaligned nations. These nations were Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Ceylon, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Portugal, Romania, and Spain.
It was not until the early 1960s, when France and Britain conferred independence upon a number of colonies in Africa that Israel and its Zionist supporters became worried. Many of these African nations severed diplomatic relations with Israel after the 1973 Israeli-Arab War and in 1975, Israel’s worst fears were realized when the General Assembly passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism.
Goldberg saw a more nonaligned-oriented UN General Assembly becoming a permanent adversary of Israel in mid-1960s. By trying to create a second-tier of UN membership, Goldberg’s gambit was to prevent a permanent working majority among largely African and Asian nations of the Third World that would consistently vote against the interests of Israel in the General Assembly and other specialized agencies. Those fears were realized in 1975 with the Zionism as racism resolution in the General Assembly. Israel and its supporters have always been assured of a U.S. veto in the UN Security Council against anti-Israeli resolutions but that guarantee never extended to the UN General Assembly and other bodies where the vote of the United States was equal to the vote of Malta.
The Zionists’ concern about mini-states being admitted to the UN also involved Israel’s concern that Jerusalem might be recognized as an international entity and be admitted to the UN as either a full member or state observer, the latter similar to the status of the Holy See in Rome. There was some basis for Israel’s concern since even its major supporter, the United States, had, during the Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy administrations, pushed for an international regime to govern Jerusalem. An example of such American support for an independent Jerusalem was an aide-memoire, dated July 9, 1952, that stated: «The Government of the UnitedStates has adhered and continues to adhere to the policy that there should be a special international regime for Jerusalem». The idea of an independent Jerusalem, composed of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim officials, having a seat at the UN, along with the real potential of an internationally-recognized Palestine sharing a UN seat, was too much for the Zionists. The UN, once supported by Zionists like Goldberg and Bernard Baruch, became overnight a perceived enemy of Israel and a target for the Israel Lobby.
Goldberg and his deputy representative, William Buffum, later to become the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs and UN Undersecretary General for Political Affairs, first sought to apply a system of «associate membership» for small states. On July 14, 1969, Buffum raised the issue of associate membership with the President of the Security Council Ibrahim Boye of Senegal. Nixon’s ambassador to the UN, Charles Yost, proffered the concept of associate membership for «micro-states» in an August 27, 1969 speech. The idea received the support of UN Secretary General U Thant after he received a letter from Goldberg in December 1967.
U Thant called for a «study of the criteria for membership with a view to laying down the necessary limitations on full membership for the emerging states which are exceptionally small in area, population, and human and economic resources, while also defining other forms of association which would benefit both the ‘micro-states’ and the United Nations».
Prior to Yost’s speech, the CIA planted a story in its favored propaganda conveyor, The Washington Post, by Robert Estabrook, a former Army intelligence agent in Brazil and former editor of the Post’s editorial page titled «Ministates Raise UN Question: What Qualifies as a Country?» Details of Goldberg’s and Yost’s UN Charter changes included membership qualification changes based in «population, area, and economic resources».
In 1969, the CIA, relying on two agents of influence, Premier Eric Gairy of the British West Indies semi-independent state of Grenada and Jack Holcomb, a CIA adviser to the unilaterally-declared independent Anguillan government of President Ronald Webster, inquired about associate membership status for their respective island nations in the UN.
The associate status was seen as critical as a way to handle potential UN membership for Pitcairn, with a population of 90, along with possible independent status for the islands of the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the inhabited atolls and islands of which could have resulted in as many as 20 new members from Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Marianas Islands, and Caroline Islands, alone.
When the associate membership idea was rejected, the United States offered up a system whereby members would be able to cast weighted votes based on their financial contributions to the UN and its specialized agencies. Goldberg and Yost had earlier argued that in the late 1960s, the smallest of the then-126 members of the UN could barely afford the $50,000 minimum annual membership dues. Why should they have the same vote as the United States or India, with its half-billion population?
The United States, the largest contributor to the UN, with 25 percent of the organization’s budget paid for by Washington, wanted its vote to carry an equivalent weight to its financial contributions. During the Reagan administration, the weighted vote idea was pushed by Washington and its man in the UN Secretariat, Buffum, one of the original supporters of a change in how the UN counts its votes. However, Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar was opposed to any changes even though his political deputy Buffum had long favored such a move. The Reagan administration responded by withdrawing from the nonaligned-oriented UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, exempting the United States from compliance with political decisions of the World Court, and ordering the Soviet Union to scale down its diplomats in Washington by limiting the New York staffs of the missions of the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republics to the UN. Congress adopted the Kassebaum Amendment, named for its chief sponsor, Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, which slashed the U.S. contribution to the UN to 20 percent of the body’s total dues.
Although the General Assembly last year voted to upgrade Palestine’s status to a state observer, the 193-member General Assembly has seen a working majority able to approve American-backed resolutions on Syria and Libya. In March, an Israeli-Iranian singer named Rita sang in Hebrew and Farsi in the UN General Assembly with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wishing everyone shalom and General Assembly President VukJeremic vowing to be the first General Assembly president to visit Israel. Ha’aretzreported that Israeli delegates were dancing in the aisles of the assembly hall and 140 delegations clapped in unison to Persian-Israeli songs.
In the early 1990s, when the UN saw its largest increase of membership since the early 1960s, there was a change of heart by the Israel Lobby about UN membership. Rather than limit the size of the UN based on size and population, there was a realization that micro-states like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Kiribati, Nauru, San Marino, Monaco, Malta, Samoa, Tuvalu, Palau, and the Solomon Islands could be controlled as far as their UN votes are concerned. The Israel Lobby and the United States was able to cobble together a working bloc of votes in the General Assembly. The last two members admitted to the UN, Montenegro and South Sudan, received support only because they were assured to be pro-Israel votes in the world body. The U.S. and its allies have pushed for Kosovo to be the 194th member, which would also be a pro-Israel vote but has met resistance from Russia, Serbia, Spain, and China.
The litmus test for support for Israel has kept out of the UN Western Sahara, Somaliland, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Among the pro-Israeli bloc’s first actions was repealing the UN Zionism is racism resolution in 1991. Except for last year’s Palestine state observer resolution, this bloc has largely served the interests of Israel and the United States, culminating this past March with klezmer music blaring throughout the General Assembly hall.
Author: Wayne Madsen
Source: strategic-culture.org
VIDEO — These Uprisings Might Bring Us A NWO – Morris
108morris108
June 21, 2013
We are vulnerable to being homogenized, having our senses removed from us, imagining we have a global identity and battle.
VIDEO — Bilderberg Exposed: Leaks, Whistleblowers, and Secrets
By James Corbett
BoilingFrogsPost.com
June 4, 2013
It is the first week of June, and that can only mean two things. Firstly, that 130 or so of the world’s most richest and powerful figures will be gathering at a 5-star resort near London to discuss some of the most important topics in global finance and geopolitics. And secondly, that the so-called “fourth estate” whose very reason for existing is supposedly to keep the public informed on issues of importance will be doing their best to label anyone who so much as raises questions about the meeting as a delusional mental patient.
That the BBC would smear those interested in this annual meeting as believers in “inter-stellar lizards” is especially odd considering the network’s own coverage of the group just a few years ago. Back in 2003, the BBC aired “Club Class,” a half hour exploration of the group and the secrecy surrounding it. The program even presented the documentary evidence that the group was committed to forming a European Union from the time of its inception in the mid-1950s, decades before the term was ever normalized in mainstream discourse.
By the BBC’s own logic, BBC presenter Simon Cox is clearly a delusional believer in inter-stellar lizards for daring to talk about the conference. The characterization of those interested in this meeting as mentally unhinged individuals is so obviously flawed that it is not even offensive. It is self-parodying. Better yet, exactly as the rare moment of lucidity on BBC’s Club Class program a decade ago demonstrates, there is ample documentary evidence, including leaks and confessions from Bilderberg whistleblowers and insiders, proving that the meeting is, contrary to its self-characterization, a policy-setting conference at which important global policies and agendas are not only discussed, but later implemented.
Over the years, a smattering of documents have been leaked, discovered or otherwise obtained giving glimpses into the meeting and its discussions. The documents cited by the BBC in the Club Class documentary were later leaked online and made available for download, detailing how the 1955 edition of the conference stressed the need ““To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of [European] integration, beginning with a common European market.”
Bilderberg, Google and the G8: New Global Tax Regime Already in the Works [video included]
by Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
May 28, 2013
–
This year’s annual Bilderberg conference is rapidly approaching – where the world’s political and business elite meet in private to discuss their agenda which will determine future policies that govern global affairs.
Some aspects of this year’s Bilderberg agenda are gradually coming into view, and have the potential for directly affecting not only big multinationals like Google, but every business on the planet.
The secret gathering has been gradually forced into public view in recent years, and the run-up to Bilderberg 2013 has been one of great anticipation and not without its share of news. First came the false start from the alternative media regarding the meeting’s actual location, with many claiming it would be held again at the Westfield Marriot in Chantilly, Virginia. Two months after, the announcement arrived that the meeting would take place 30 minutes north of London, at the Grove Hotel in Hertfordshire, England, and small media circus is expected the year following the announcement that a ‘Bilderberg Fringe’ festival is being organized adjacent to the venue – an event certain to attract hundreds, if not thousands of revelers, press and alternative media personalities. Add to this the news that long time Bilderberg sleuth and American Free Press correspondent, Jim Tucker had passed away on April 24th. Few people would even know the Bilderberg meetings ever took place if not for 30 years of digging and reporting by veteran journalist Tucker.
PHOTO: The Grove Hotel in Hertfordshire, North London – hosts to Google and Bilderberg summits.
Beyond all the fanfare, however, the central question still remains: what items will be on the agenda at this year’s ultra-secret transatlantic steering committee? The answer to this question may be hidden in plain site.
Google is currently engaged in a battle over unpaid taxes in the UK, and which has led political commentators to now call for a new system of global taxation. Not surprisingly, this has become the chief topic of discussion at a series of global summits taking place during May and June.
Here’s how this major issue rose out of the Google debate, and how it will be folded into Bilderberg’s 2013 agenda, and later to the G8 Summit shortly thereafter…
Google’s Big Tent: ‘A Digital-Davos’
This past week witnessed another major global conference held at the very same Grove Hotel in Hertfordshire. The parallels to Bilderberg are striking – they share the same guests, the same venue, observe similar codes on conduct, and no doubt have similar items on their agenda. Google’s ‘Zeitgeist’ Global Summit, or “Big Tent” event, is effectively the internet’s version of a ‘Digital Davos’, where ‘the best and the brightest’ are invited to hear the latest ‘big ideas’, with debates and keynote speeches from the likes of Bill Clinton (Bilderberg member), UK Chancellor George Osborne, UK Labour Party leader Ed Miliband and other celebrities including Stephen Hawking.
It’s worth pointing out here that both Osborne and Miliband have played the role of Google’s adversary in public during their corporation tax row, yet they are the corporation’s VIP guests in private.
Beyond the high profile talks and entertainment, there were of course, some serious discussion about ‘big ideas’ taking place under the big tent. This year’s event also required participants to observe ‘Chatham House Rules’, meaning key conversations should be held in the strictest of confidence and not be leaked to the outside world. As with Bilderberg, Google’s Big Tent discusses serious global changes that affect present and future generations – all behind closed doors.
Other persons of note at this year’s Google retreat were former US attorney general and Bush legal brain, Alberto Gonzales, alongside former Secretary of State Hillary ‘innovation’ adviser, Alec Ross, key Putin advisor Arkady Dvorkovich, and Swedish foreign affairs minister, Carl Bildt (Bilderberg attendee 2006-2012). The profile of Google and Bilderberg guests has seen an incredible overlap in recent years, which is a testament to the corporation’s own stated ambition to achieve a global dominion, not only over its marketplace, but over cultural and political life as well. The reality in 2013 is that Google is poised to manage nearly every aspect of our lives – our communications, our work, our social life and even our history.
Bilderberg’s Digital Tycoons
As Google’s global summit runs smoothly into Bilderberg this year, so have the two meeting agendas. Recent years have seen an increase in the influx of digital tycoons present at Bilderberg. Alongside software moguls like Craig Mundie, Head of Research and Strategy Officer at Microsoft (Bilderberg attendee 2006-2012), and Google CEO Eric Schmidt (Bilderberg attendee 2007-2011), thesocial media kingpins have also moved in to occupy key positions in Bilderberg’s top steering committees.
A key player in amongst them is Peter Thiel (left), head of Clarium Capital, the digital investment house that provided the financial clout which allowed for online ventures like Paypal, Facebook, LinkedIn and Friendster to dominate their digital marketplaces. Thiel was promoted to Bilderberg committee head in 20ll and has emerged as a key player not only in the online industries, but also as an influencer in US political spheres, gaining attention recently as a prominent backer of Kentucky’s Republican junior Senator Rand Paul.
New global ‘Google Tax’ already in the works
The convergence of the Google Summit, its tax battle, and Bilderberg 2013 may seem innocent enough on its surface, but the timing is no mere coincidence. UK leadership have whipped up a frenzy in the media over Google’s alleged tax sins, leaving the public clamouring for a solution. The words “never let a good crisis go to waste” certainly chime in well here.
Two weeks ago, a major UK clash erupted between No. 10 Downing Street and Google over the issue of corporate tax evasion. Google’s Matt Brittin was grilled by the UK’s Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and its chair Margaret Hodge, who accused Google “doing evil” by using an elaborate array of offshore entities in a “smoke and mirrors” financial maze designed to avoid paying any significant tax into UK coffers. Both PM David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne also came out loudly in public accusing Google of being ‘immoral’. Google is said to have only chipped in 6 million GBP in 2011 out of its 3 billion GBP turnover in that same year. Google’s Peter Baron claims its in full compliance with UK law, issuing the public statement last week that, “None of the allegations put to us change the fact that Google pays the corporate tax due on its UK activities and complies fully with UK law.”
Will Google throw in the towel and submit to a British tax resolution?
The fact of matter is Google is powerful and with a net worth that trumps some countries. These days much of the world’s commerce runs through Google in some way, and their brand recognition and money buys influence in Britain, and everywhere else it seems. So it’s doubtful that any British politico could strong-arm Google. Behind the scenes both Google and Britain’s political elite share a place at central planning’s top round table – as members of the Bilderberg Group and that’s where the really ‘big ideas’ are not just discussed, but actually transmitted into policy.
As the public feud between Google and Downing Street takes centre stage, backstage both UK Chancellor George Osborne and Google CEO Eric Schmidt – both committed fellow Bilderberg members, are said to have met in private at the Google event, and are poised to do so again at Bilderberg 2013. Both have attended the annual meeting almost continuously since 2006.
George Osborne: Attacks Google in public, but VIP guest and fellow Bilderberger to Google CEO Schmidt in private.
So this apparent Punch ‘n Judy match between Google and Downing Street appears just three weeks before this year’s Bilderberg summit, and four weeks before the G8, and suddenly the UK government and media outlets have become infested with a the new talking point: “we need for a new ‘global profit tax’.
While addressing the Google tax loophole, the UK’s Independent newspaper led by its liberal-leaning economics editor Ben Chu, goes on to essentially lay-out what is likely to be at the top of the agenda at Bilderberg 2013:
“The cascade of revelations in recent months showing multinational companies doing a huge amount of business here and yet paying virtually no corporation tax has provoked widespread public demands for something to be done.
National governments could and should try to put a stop to this egregious “profit shifting” on their own. But a unilateral approach is plainly second best.
The natural solution is to secure an agreement by all the world’s governments to tax the profits of multinational firms collectively and to divide up the revenues fairly between them. This division could be based on the amount of business done by the multinational in their various territories as revealed by their turnover and number of employees.”
Global tax means global government
So is Google supplying the Trojan horse needed to implement a global taxation system that many have been warning about for so many years? Maybe.
Will Bilderberg’s global elite use this perfect crisis moment as a pretext to build the framework for global taxation? Most likely.
If the idea passes through Bilderberg in June, will it then be rubber stamped later at the G8? Highly likely.
Although happy to float such a revolutionary idea in the media in advance of back-to-back Google and Bilderberg summits at the Grove Hotel, and later at the G8, one thing which global taxation advocates fail to mention here is that if you institute a global taxation system then you would then need a global government to administrate it. Yes, you heard that right: global taxation = global government.
It would be naive to think that any tax could be levied without a government standing behind it. That is, after all, part of the definition of a tax. Campaigners will deny it exists, but the reality is that global governing bodies have already been put into place long ago.
UK Column Editor Mike Robinson explains, “I think that the embryonic global institutions are already in place, and we’re going to see them being given more and more real ‘jobs’ to do as time goes on, and collecting corporation tax is clearly going to be one of those”.
History can certainly prove one thing: that the world’s wealthiest individuals corporations have consistently exploited all international tax loopholes for years now. Whatever commentators like Ben Chu and others are proposing will obviously be much easier to enforce on small to medium size businesses, as well as individual traders – all of whom have significantly less political leverage (and no invitations to Bilderberg) than the Googles and Facebooks of the world.
Post-Bilderberg: G8 Summit
Following the ratification of Bilderberg’s 2013 agenda in Watford on June 6–9th, the next step is normally to disseminate this same agenda on to the G8 heads of state. Conveniently, this year’s G8 summit will held June 17-18 at the Lough Erne golf resort in Fermanagh, Northern Ireland. David Cameron and George Osborne’s new plan for Google is already expected to be very high on the agenda at the G8 meeting, where world leaders including Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin will be in attendance. Henceforth, ahead of the G8, the UK government is expected to play their key role in promoting the new global tax system, by publically advocating, “new strong international standards to make sure that global companies pay the tax they owe.”
Coincidentally, this year’s G8 in Northern Ireland will be the biggest police operation in country’s history (and that’s saying a lot), with an estimated 8,000 officers from the surrounding counties, and from as far as England and Wales, all drafted in to secure the area for what many now believe has essentially become a global government operations meeting in all but name.
Other recent attempts at a global tax
The financial component of this global tax and government equation is actually already in place, and that is the World Bank. The first administrative working model for a global taxation structure was originally unveiled in 2009 at the United Nations Climate Summit in Copenhagen. Delegates at that event floated their plan for a global carbon tax that would be collected and then deposited into a slush fund which was to be administered by the World Bank. There plan also entailed the poorer, developing nations footing most of the bill for this operation, while the wealthier nations would receive a free pass. The secret plan was thwarted at the last minute thanks to the infamous Danish Text Leak, which were serialized in the Guardian newspaper at the time.
Although popular in socialist circles, few have dared reveal the true picture of a global tax regime for fear of triggering a public backlash. Another such tax proposals have been pushed into the public sphere through the Occupy Movement in 2011, with called for a global tax on financial transactions, or a global “Robin Hood Tax”. As was the case in Copenhagen two years earlier, proponents called for a tax structure without borders, yet few dared mention who would be in charge of administering and distributing the revenues. Such plans pose the very real danger of further centralizing power into the international banking community who would be asked to handle and perhaps hypothecate on these enormous slush funds.
Which brings us back to this latest global ‘google tax’ proposal, which ultimately begs the question: when will their global government structure be unveiled?
Serving the global collective
The media and political elite will have the public believe that there are not enough laws and regulations already in place to deal with apparent problems like large multinationals avoiding corporation tax. The fact is there are regulations in place, and all that is needed is to tighten them. So why jump ahead to insist a global tax system is necessary to solve the issue?
Plans for erecting an entirely new global tax system should worry anyone who values the concept of national sovereignty because any solution that entails the collection of tax by way of elite international “collective” of nations, and where “revenues are to divided up fairly between them” is suggesting a form of global collectivism, or communism. This is also the fundamental problem with EU plans to levy new taxes on member nations – for any citizen it’s simply another master to serve.
It starts with corporate tax, and once that door is opened, it’s anyone’s guess how wide their new regime will stretch.
Shocking as that may be, these issues are exactly what is being discussed behind closed doors at each of these global summits taking place in May and June of 2013.
What’s worse, is that this entire construct could be ushered in without any vote being cast by an citizen in the individual countries – which is about as undemocratic as it gets. This remains one of the fundamental flaws at the heart of the ultra-liberal utopian ideal which is global government.
–
PN 