The American body politic is being suckered on a very dangerous globalist elite trajectory which is carrying us far afield from the Madisonian constitutional moorings of independent sovereign national governance subordinate to control by three separate co-equal branches.
In exchange, we appear are all too willing to cede these checks and balances to diktats of international bodies of technological ''experts'' who assiduously divine to represent a consensus of worldwide ''imperatives.''
Operating through cover of ''multilateral instruments'' which sidetrack such pesky requirements as formal treaties which require problematic Senate approvals, we witness de facto obligatory executive branch commitments to international policies which escape public debate or scrutiny, yet which fundamentally impact broad aspects of our national economic and social well-being.
There is likely no better example of this — or the consequences — than the Paris Agreement regarding climate accord. Established on the premise of a ''climate change emergency'' ginned up by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. is being conned into a global wealth transfer scam that, in the process, is bent upon villainizing and terminating America’s fossil fueled prosperity and energy independence.
Don’t just take my word for this.
IPCC official and lead author Ottmar Edenhofer said, ''Basically, it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization ... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy ... But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.''
And as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff and Green New Deal architect Saikat Chakrabarti told Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director Sam Ricketts: ''The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t a climate thing at all ... Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? ... Because we think of it as a how-do-you-change-the entire-economy-thing.''
Biden administration Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is now proposing a global regime that would essentially subordinate U.S. corporate taxing authority — a primary pillar of democratic governance and lever of economic influence.
The plan would establish a minimum standardized corporate tax rate across the developed world along with authority for participating member nations to tax multinational corporations.
The White House proposal accompanies plans to raise the U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% which, which in combination with additional taxes in some states, will be one of the highest rates in the developed world.
Thomas Duesterberg, former U.S. assistant secretary of commerce for international economic policy, suggests that the proposal to create a new as-yet-unnamed international taxing regime is intended to provide Biden domestic political cover for future big spending tax hikes in the spirit akin to carbon emission reduction pledges of the Paris Agreement regarding climate accord.
Doing so can duck congressional debate and Senate approval which are essential for a tax treaty.
Accordingly, team Biden is eager to organize the international tax tribunal under guidance and authority of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of 37 high-income countries, including the U.S.
Duesterberg suggests that the Biden administration also sees OECD cooperation as a benefit in helping leverage China to support the administration’s centerpiece climate change agenda within the World Trade Organization (WTO).
We can bet that Europe, China and Russia are giddy about the Yellen Treasury Department’s proposal to establish an international standard tax which will give them long-awaited trade advantages.
Since Europe and most developed countries rely more heavily than the U.S. on value-added taxes than corporate taxes, raising the latter would give their firms a cost advantage over U.S. firms, especially since most of the VATs are refundable for exported products. Past WTO rulings have stymied U.S. attempts to match such export advantages.
As pointed out by Duesterberg: ''Such erosion of [U.S.] sovereign democratic oversight should be recognizable. It has long characterized Europe and is part and parcel of the European Union’s ambition to become a global regulatory superpower.''
During his first hours in the Oval Office, President Biden recommitted U.S. funding to the World Health Organization, as well as pledging America to rejoin the Paris Agreement regarding climate accord which President Trump had also terminated.
Recall that Trump had providently shut down U.S. flights from China in distrust of a mid-January 2020 assertion by WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus regarding the COVID-19 virus that "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission."
Also perhaps recall that then-presidential candidate Biden had branded Trump’s actions as ''hysterically xenophobic.''
President Biden has now responded to WHO and WTO pressures with a proposal to strip away intellectual property rights of U.S. companies that accomplished Trump’s Project Warp Speed COVID-19 vaccine miracles.
Rather than licensing foreign countries to produce them, patent wavers are to be freely granted to every drug company in the world as an example of what WHO Executive Director Tedros commended as a ''monumental moment'' of ''leadership to address global health challenges.''
This charity, of course, includes the original virus source China, a country that routinely steals U.S. technology with impunity.
As observed by reliably insightful Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel, ''The [vaccine patent] move is also in keeping with the administration’s attitude that Congress exists solely to rubber-stamp its spending proposals.
Congress has spent decades wrangling over contours of patent protections, producing bipartisan legislation from the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and the Hatch-Waxman Act of 2011.''
There’s a huge difference between humanely making vital vaccines available to COVID-plagued countries that desperately need them versus eliminating intellectual property incentives for companies that have invested enormous amounts of money at great uncertainty of success to develop them. Moderna, for example, spent 10 years developing its mRNA technology, and only recently turned its first profit.
This free government giveaway of costly intellectual property rights establishes a dangerous disincentive for American pharmaceutical companies to risk losses in developing new vaccines, cancer drugs, Parkinson’s therapies, or even new antibiotics.
Incidentally, the U.S. isn’t the only country that, until now, has held out against World Trade Organization pressure to support the vaccine patent waiver. The EU, Switzerland, Brazil and Norway have also resisted the push.
Strong pressure to waive those patent rights has also come from Biden’s Democratic far-left flank, including socialists Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC.
It’s time to recognize that Trump’s ''America First'' free market policy was right.
The U.S. must never cede sovereign rights and interests to socialist-backed global tribunals and agendas.
Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and the graduate space architecture program. His latest of 10 books, "What Makes Humans Truly Exceptional," (2021) is available on Amazon along with all others. Read Larry Bell's Reports — More Here.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.