Wednesday, 09 April 2014 07:00

UN May Tax and Censor Post-U.S. Internet, Experts Warn

Written by 

Following the Obama administration’s deeply controversial decision to cede U.S. control over key elements of the Internet’s architecture, experts and former officials are warning that the United Nations and its largely autocratic member regimes are already plotting to tax and censor the World Wide Web. According to analysts, the UN would almost certainly start small — perhaps levying tiny “fees” on certain Web-based activities, or regulating content that virtually everybody would find objectionable — before quickly expanding the global Internet regime to raise vast sums of taxpayer cash while censoring free speech. The battle, however, is likely to be fierce.

Among the most troubling scenarios envisioned by multiple experts is the very real possibility that, by imposing taxes on Web use, the UN would finally be able to free itself from the last remaining constraint on its growth and power — the fact that it currently depends on member governments for funding. Indeed, at least one university professor is even sounding the alarm about the new “robber barons” at the UN, salivating over the prospect of imposing planetary taxes via control of the Internet. However, Prof. Karl Borden, who teaches financial economics at the University of Nebraska, warned in a Wall Street Journal column that the threat posed by UN taxers would be even more severe and hard to fight.

The original “robber barons,” he explained, were 13th century extortionists along the Rhine River who forced passing ships to pay tribute in exchange for passage. If the UN gets its way on global Internet taxes, though, the damage would be far worse than the havoc caused by powerful German thieves of centuries past. “Should the U.N. end up in charge, it would have a chokehold on the global economy and a vast stream of revenue that would make it even more unaccountable than it already is,” Borden explained, adding that global Internet taxes would start modestly before ballooning out of control, much like the U.S. income tax. 

“Power follows the money, and bureaucratic appetites are voracious,” he continued. “Who will there be to stop the process, after all? Where is the elected legislative body that will answer to the world's population that finally pays these ‘fees’?... With constitutional government it becomes at least possible for citizens to say ‘No—No more!’ No such checks are in place for a global bureaucracy that will have the power to reach into every pocket on earth.” With the Internet set to become the essential infrastructure for participating in the global economy, Borden said, controlling the “rivers” of the future will permit the financing of a perpetually expanding international bureaucracy.

The implications are frightening — especially because getting rid of the global extortion would be extraordinarily tough once it got going. “The robber barons of the 13th century were finally stopped only when the Rhine League, consisting of merchants and aristocrats, banded together to tear down their castles and hang them,” Borden concluded. “The robber barons of the 21st century may be much more difficult to deal with.”

Indeed, as The New American and countless critics have been warning for decades, if and when the UN gets the power to impose its own taxes, it would be able to fund its own “peace” army, police, tax collectors, regulators, bureaucrats, and global tyranny without any remaining constraints. While the outfit, often blasted as the “dictators’ club,” has floated proposals to tax everything from billionaires and financial transactions to “carbon emissions” and air travel, the prospect of a global Internet tax could be even more appealing.

Former U.S. officials have also issued similar warnings in recent weeks about the potential for Internet mischief if the UN were to ever be allowed near the levers of online power. “This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal — only with possibly much worse consequences,” former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told the Daily Caller last month after the administration announced the end of its constitutionally dubious ties to the California-based organization that manages crucial components of the Internet’s architecture.

“While the Obama administration says it is merely removing federal oversight of a non-profit, we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations,” Whiton continued. “If the U.N. gains control [of] what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes. It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.... What little control there is over the U.N. would be gone.” Also alarming, Whiton noted that under “invariably incompetent U.N. control,” a hostile foreign power might even be able to disable America’s Internet access — with potentially devastating consequences.

Of course, as The New American has documented extensively, the UN and numerous “member” dictators around the world — from Communists and Socialists to Islamists — have been scheming for years to take over and regulate the Internet. Multiple ploys have been attempted, with globalists and autocrats particularly pushing an effort to have the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) seize control over the Web at a series of globalist conferences. One proposal even called for the creation of an Internet “kill switch.” Another would have created a global surveillance regime to monitor everyone’s online activities. Taxes, too, have been high on the agenda for the would-be planetary Internet regulators.     

All of those schemes failed at the time, partly due to resistance from the West, but the threat never dissipated. In March, though, with global outrage boiling over lawless and unconstitutional NSA spying, the Obama administration’s Department of Commerce made a stunning, quiet announcement. Building on plans first developed under former President Bush, the U.S. government revealed that it would be relinquishing all remaining control over the so-called “root” or “keys” of the Internet next year to a non-profit multinational organization known as Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN.

As part of the plan to “transition” toward Internet control by so-called “global stakeholders,” U.S. officials vowed to keep online freedom alive. “I want to make clear that we will not accept a proposal that replaces the [Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration] role with a government-led or an intergovernmental solution,” said NTIA chief Larry Strickling, echoing past statements by administration officials.

As The New American reported last month, the ICANN organization has also promised to keep the Internet free. However, a statement by its current director, Fade Chehade, about “the world” wanting to “participate” in “shaping” the Web has sparked concerns — especially the notion that the “global community” would be replacing U.S. stewardship of the Internet with “appropriate oversight mechanisms.” Chehade signed an international declaration last year that also alarmed critics, saying that stakeholders, “including all governments,” would be allowed to participate in the “globalization” of ICANN on an “equal footing.”   

Meanwhile, numerous experts and officials are already warning that the upcoming “transition” in Internet governance risks allowing the UN and its mostly dictatorial “member states” to seize control over the Web, as they have been plotting to do for years. Think the Communist Chinese regime’s “Great Firewall of China” — but imposed on the world, eventually. Citing a wide array of concerns, however, countless critics, including many in Congress, are examining the issue and considering various options to ensure that the dictators’ club and its mostly tyrannical members never get the opportunity to tax or censor the global Internet.

“While I certainly agree our nation must stridently review our procedures regarding surveillance in light of the NSA controversy, to put ourselves in a situation where censorship-laden governments like China or Russia could take a firm hold on the Internet itself is truly a scary thought,” said Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), one of many concerned Republican lawmakers. “I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee and with the Commerce Department on this, because — to be blunt — the ‘global Internet community’ this would empower has no First Amendment.”    

The U.S. government, of course, has no constitutional authority to control, oversee, or regulate the architecture of the Internet. If online freedom is to survive, though, the Web and all of its components must be kept completely out of the hands of the out-of-control UN and its dozens of ruthless “member states.” Indeed, aside from punishing actual crimes that may involve the Internet in some way, experts say there is no reason for government to have any role at all in managing the Web.

 

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

United States to Give Up Its Control of the Internet

UN Bid to Seize Internet Fails but Threat Remains

After UN Internet Grab Fails, China Seeks to End Online Anonymity

UN Using Propaganda to Defend Proposed Internet Regime

UN to Seek Internet Kill Switch Next Month, Documents Show

Secret UN Document Lays Out Plan to Seize Control of Internet

UN Seeking Global Internet Surveillance for Terror, Propaganda

Obama Quiet as UN & Dictators Push to Control Internet

UN, Islamists & Communists Push Global Internet Regime

The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government

4 comments

  • Comment Link Nora Friday, 11 April 2014 10:06 posted by Nora

    The U.S. government has been running its own Quantum Internet for decades. There is only the one reason for taxing the people's Internet, and that is the amount of power and control that influx of funds would mean to the global scumbags. We will resist this intrusion and when we do the U.N. dictators club will fall as nations see the error of their ways and exit this illegitimate, evil organization. This is the work of the devil himself. Too many jobs and businesses have been lost already thanks to the greedy globalists who will stop at nothing to end freedom and prosperity for the masses. We know who these people are. We know where they live. I don't understand why we don't march into their armored redoubts and take them into custody. I believe this is going to happen very soon. There are too many good people who are fearless in America for a small bunch of evil miscreants to destroy our Republic.

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Thursday, 10 April 2014 20:10 posted by Heidi Preston

    "UN taxers would be even more severe and hard to fight."


    The Republic of Plato-
    In this hypothetical, political society, (to put it simply) there are ultimately three classes of people (which are theoretically simplified to gold, silver, and bronze). The ‘gold’ class would consist of the most elite – a small part of the population who are ‘fit to rule’. According to Plato, this class is known as the ‘philosopher-kings‘. The ‘qualification’ to belong to this class is the element of Reason (logos).

    The ‘silver’ and ‘bronze’ classes are subject to the ‘reasoning’ of the elites. Silver is equated to the status of the military class (which Plato named “guardians”) – men or women – who share the duty to basically moderate between the interdependent gold and bronze class and enforce the will of the elite. The Bronze class consists of the majority of the population (average citizens) who are the “workers” (basically, the economic class of producers and consumers) who’s duty it is to produce a surplus to sustain the ‘kings’ and the ‘guardians’ – to keep the system functioning.
    -online information

    We are being sorted, categorized and "branded" by our economic status through healthcare and taxation all by our "own" hands of course...that is our choice in this "democratic" mandatory society, make no mistake about this. Are you an elite ruler type, a worker bee, bottom feeder, dispensible live stock? Choice which one you think you can afford to be. And those who abstain? Those are the ones watched for anarchy and rebellion....but of course it's all your own choice.

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Thursday, 10 April 2014 17:34 posted by Heidi Preston

    “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of Many, one)
    This scenario is a lot closer then we think (not fear mongering but realistic). April 15 is the deadline to file taxes, so what does the IRS do in Austin Texas? The most illogical thing (unless you see the grand picture) which is to lay off (furlough) a whole department right before tax season with new insurance regulations coming into play. They were told to find a new job (last day is April 19th for this department) and will be REPLACED by computers.

    Does this make any sense when the Government say they will do everything possible to get people back to work? Of course not, but it makes sense when you implement a new system .

    May 1, 1776 was when the Illuminati in Bavaria Germany through Adam Weishaupt was established. with his revolt against his Jesuit upbringings in exchange for the movement of free thought (the Enlightenment). Preferring deism and a universal system, he eventually founded the movement of the Illuminati at age 28, in Bavaria (Germany). Founded on May 1, 1776 – two months before the American Declaration of Independence – his secret society spread like wildfire across Europe, eventually reaching the United States – without Weishaupt even being there.

    “I am proud to be known to the world as the founder of the Illuminati.” – Adam Weishaupt)

    Universal control through a centralized system probably in Switzerland (for money) and government international connections in Belgium. With a full dossier on people and friends (through social networks) and government documents it will be easy to hold the keys to our survival as "individuals" because as a group we have power. Kinda like the mafia..we know where your relatives live and we can hurt you through them. A world Fraternity which only a few get to HELP the cap head of the pyramid who hold the keys to the kingdom of gold. They think they are building an empire where there families are safe...think again.

    Historical facts:
    "1708 Queen Anne on ADVISE (me-adviser have more power then the position itself of leader) of her Ministers withheld Royal assent of the Scottish militia Bill for fear that the proposed militia created would be DISLOYAL. There was also concern that France could pose a threat to the REALM through the militia."- The British -Israel World Federation (John Sadler published accounts of the theory of royal linage begins at home England that is, with the help of Oliver Cromwell, Menasseh ben Israel ,Chief Rabbi Adler and Lord Rothschild, Sir Edward Sassoon MP.

    The money changers hold the keys to your account and we freely give them all the information they need to keep us in prison and that's why they don't want militia's as stated above. They know as a group we own them...individually we don't stand a chance in hell.

  • Comment Link Diana Wednesday, 09 April 2014 17:46 posted by Diana

    This has been the plan from the beginning of Obama's first term. The Obama administration knew that the massive stimulus spending signed into law at the beginning of President Obama's term would produce record deficits. They hoped to use the deficits to force large new tax hikes and promote income redistribution. Many commentators believe that the goal of the administration was to force a value added tax—a type of national sales tax—that would mimic the social democracies of Europe. This alternative, a "VAT," has been widely discussed in Washington. In effect, it was hoped that the record deficits would create a "debt bomb" that could only be defused by a new and far-reaching tax regime—or, at a minimum, by substantially higher effective tax rates.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in