Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Trojan Horse, O'bama's Global Poverty Act

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Trojan Horse, O'bama's Global Poverty Act
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 24, 2008 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So now, we see just how far left the Marxist radical O'Bomber really is.

O'Bomber has submitted a bill in Congress to tax Americans about 1 trillion dollars, (1,000,000,000,000) to eradicate world poverty.

But that's not all this bill does. Hidden within this bill which empowers the United Nations are provisions to disarm American citizens, give the UN taxing authority over US citizens and create a standing army for the UN. Also included are provisions for the US to sign on to the International Criminal Court and give them jurisdiction over US citizens. There is also a provision to adopt the now thoroughly discredited Kyoto global warming Treaty.

The Marxist controlled House has already approved O'Bomber's legislation, mostly because eliminating world poverty sounds so good that members didn't bother to read all the provisions of the bill.

This legislation is now being considered by the US Senate.

This bill is a blueprint for the overthrow of the United States by striking straight at the heart of the United States Constitution and turning US sovereignty over internal matters and constitutional law over to the bungling, incompetent, corrupt and power mad United Nations.

I can't think of a bill more detrimental to United States interests or the interests of citizens of the United States and O'Bomber, the leftist Marxist radical is it's author.

May 24, 2008
Obama on Food and Gas Guzzling: Just Political Pandering?
By Pamela Meister

Like many Americans, I'd like to lose a few pounds. The diet industry in America is worth billions of dollars as Americans plunk down their money for this pill or that diet program, hoping their latest purchase will finally do the trick and the unwanted pounds will simply melt away.

Barack Obama shares our pain. Not literally, of course, as the man is quite obviously fit and trim. But he took the bull by the horns in Oregon just a few days ago, giving flabby, gas guzzling Americans more of his famous prescription for hope and change.

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen.

What exactly does he mean by that? Will Americans be forced to lose weight, give up their car of choice, and have no say in how they heat or cool their homes? How will this all be accomplished? Ration cards? Personal minders? Microchip implants?

Yes I know that sounds a bit extreme, but I take umbrage when government threatens to stick its nose into how I live my life and uses the lame excuse that "other countries" don't approve of the American standard of living. I don't recall Britain asking us what we think about their growing weight problems; nor do I remember being consulted by India or China about their increased demand for fossil fuels.

Yes, modern conveniences and technological advances in the last century mean that most of us do not have to physically toil day after day to make our living, and an abundance of food (also due to modern technology) often means that we are consuming more calories than we burn off. But it's up to us to take care of that problem ourselves, not the government. Good old American ingenuity and personal responsibility, right? Right?

Columnist Kathleen Parker had similar thoughts on the subject:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2008/05/21/oh_yes,_he_will_make_us_better

By all means, let's roll out the hybrids and hold the fries, but are other countries now the judges of American lifestyles? Perhaps while human rights investigator Doudou Diene is in the United States the next few weeks probing racism for the United Nations, he can take a measure of American gluttony. What would Senegal have us do?

I realize that it's quite popular in other countries to badmouth Americans for all sorts of reasons, but it bothers me that a man running for president of America would use their sour grapes on the campaign trail. Sure, he was pandering to the crunchy granolas in Oregon when he made his proclamation about "other countries" not being okay with how we live our lives. But should we really be surprised at his stance? Obama has gone beyond pandering with his support of the Global Poverty Act, which could be voted on in the Senate at any time, and with little notice by the American public.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405

The bill, which could cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars in order to help end poverty around the world, could also "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations," according to Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media.

But there's more, Kincaid warns, as 0.7% of the U.S. GNP would go toward "official developmental assistance."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

In other words, our Second Amendment rights, along with legislation regarding energy usage, parental rights and a whole host of other issues related to American sovereignty would be at the mercy of the UN. Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Who doesn't want to give the entity that brought us the Oil-for-Food and the Congo peacekeeper sex fiascos more opportunity to bring us (and the rest of the world) under its scandal prone thumb?
http://www.heritage.org/research/Internationalorganizations/bg1748.cfm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

America already forks out nearly one quarter of the UN's budget. Should we shell out more for what results in a reduction in our rights here at home while the UN bureaucracy bloats beyond all recognition? (If you'd like to make your thoughts on the Global Poverty Act known to the Senate, click here.)

Meanwhile, Barack Obama wants you to know that real leadership means listening to other countries complain about what Americans do here at home and use that to mold and shape domestic policy. It's the nosy neighbor syndrome taken to a whole new, frightening level.

Forget the diet and pass the mashed potatoes...I could use some comfort food right about now.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/obama_on_food_and_gas_guzzling.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 24, 2008 09:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member.

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."

The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the 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 bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."

It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

IP: Logged

venusdeindia
unregistered
posted May 26, 2008 10:32 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"O'Bomber has submitted a bill in Congress to tax Americans about 1 trillion dollars, (1,000,000,000,000) to eradicate world poverty.

But that's not all this bill does. Hidden within this bill which empowers the United Nations are provisions to disarm American citizens, give the UN taxing authority over US citizens and create a standing army for the UN. Also included are provisions for the US to sign on to the International Criminal Court and give them jurisdiction over US citizens. There is also a provision to adopt the now thoroughly discredited Kyoto global warming Treaty."

i dont think its Marxist..... Demented more like.... how dumb does the public need to be to actually let him get away with this.and he's not that lucky .

IP: Logged

Luvly
unregistered
posted May 26, 2008 12:41 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Funny how this does not make it on CNN, MSNBC......and all those web sites or cable news channels.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a