Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 11:28 pm
You last visited January 20, 2017, 11:12 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Beware the Obamanable Hope-Man

Published:

Last Edited: February 25, 2008, 3:17 pm

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56959

This explains why Obama aims for emotion rather than substance. If sensible people knew what they were gonna get, they'd be heating up the tar and getting out the feathers. This piece of dreck is called the "Global Poverty Act", which is appropriate since it would act to create global poverty.

For the blind defenders of communism, here's the links: Senate version S. 2433 & House Resolution H.R. 1302
The word 'treason' comes to mind ... along with some less polite words. Of course, there are people who think it's perfectly fine to take from the productive and give to those who produce nothing but more mouths they cannot feed. These same people also think that real wealth is a geographical phenomenon, that the West is 'rich' because of where we are, not what we have done. They would be the ones baffled by the last two vids I linked to.

In the socialists' version of "hope & equality", we are all rendered equally poor & wretched and hoping we don't starve to death.


Obama's sovereignty giveaway plan - by Phyllis Schlafly

Why are Republicans in Congress trying to help Barack Obama?

Republicans allowed a bill that carries his name, among nine others, to pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by voice vote last week – without any hearings. That means there was no roll-call vote so no member can be held accountable. The same bill passed the House by voice vote last year.

The Obama bill passed out of committee with the cooperation of the co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. A Rhodes scholar like former President Bill Clinton, Lugar has never seen a United Nations enhancement he didn't like.

Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts, which is at least $30 billion over and above the exorbitant and wasted sums we already give away overseas.

The bipartisan bill would require 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's other co-sponsors include Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., Charles Hagel, R-Neb., and Robert Mendez, D-N.J.

We should be on guard any time politicians use the word "comprehensive," an umbrella word that always shades a lot of mischief. The notion that U.S. taxpayers should or could cut in half the number of people worldwide who live in poverty by 2015 is ridiculous.

The scariest phrase in the bill is "Millennium Development Goal." That refers to the declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly and Summit in 2000 (blessed by President Bill Clinton), which called for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution (of) wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries," and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" (from the United States to the rest of the world, of course).

The Millennium project is monitored by Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist. In 2005, he presented then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan with a 3,000-page report based on the research of 265 so-called poverty specialists.

Sachs' document criticized the United States for giving only $16.3 billion a year in global anti-poverty aid. He argued that we should spend an additional $30 billion a year to reach the 0.7 percent target the U.N. set for the United Sates in 2000.

Sachs says that the only way to force the United States to commit that much money is by a global tax, such as a tax on fossil fuels. Empowering the United Nations to impose a direct international tax on Americans has been a U.N. goal ever since the 1995 Copenhagen Summit embraced the so-called Tobin Tax.

By adopting the Millennium Goals in 2000, the U.N. escalated its demands to impose international taxes. Specifically, the Millennium called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection – oil, natural gas, coal," "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

It doesn't bother U.N. sycophants that most U.S. handouts go into the hands of corrupt dictators who hate us and vote against us in the U.N., and that only 30 percent of American foreign aid ever reaches the poor. U.N. bureaucrats accuse the United States of being "stingy" in its handouts to underdeveloped countries.

There is much more to the Millennium Goals than merely extorting more money from U.S. taxpayers. The goals set forth a comprehensive plan to put the United States under U.N. global governance.

These goals include a "standing peace force" (i.e., a U.N. standing army), a "U.N. Arms Register" of all small arms and light weapons, "peace education" covering "all levels from preschool through university," and "political control of the global economy." The goals call for implementing all U.N. treaties that the United States has never ratified, all of which set up U.N. monitoring committees to compromise U.S. sovereignty.

To achieve this level of control over U.S. domestic law, the plan calls for "strengthening the United Nations for the 21st century" by "eliminating" the veto and permanent membership in the Security Council. The goal is to reduce U.S. influence to one out of 192 nations, so we would have merely the same vote as Cuba.

The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans. Tell your senators to kill this un-American bill.

Entry #67

Comments

1.
Comment by Lee123 - February 25, 2008, 7:30 pm
Who do you think is putting all the money in his running for pres.
2.
jarasanComment by jarasan - February 25, 2008, 7:34 pm
Yes, globalism shlomolism, another black hole for U.S. tax dollars. Maybe we need to start tough love, because after 50 years nothing has worked.
3.
time*treatComment by time*treat - February 25, 2008, 7:52 pm
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.asp
4.
Comment by scorpio - February 25, 2008, 7:52 pm
it's ironic.the american women have a chance to put a woman into the whitehouse,and they are swayed by tv,news shows,leaders,black,white,spanish.i don't think the women know what power they could have if united,and that's what everyone is afraid of.
5.
Rick GComment by Rick G - February 25, 2008, 8:13 pm
Excellent entry. Thanks for enlightening those that might not be aware of this "Poverty" bill and the one world government being foisted on us by the UN and our own Congress.

For a country that fought wars over communism, there's sure a lot of people who embrace its concepts with a passion.
6.
ToddComment by Todd - February 26, 2008, 9:10 am
Thanks for posting this time*treat. I think once the silly primary is over people will (hopefully) begin to focus on substantive issues like this, and it will become apparent why Obama would be a danger to our country. Like many people have said, change can be a good thing, but change for the sake of change is not. At the level of President, decisions for change must be carefully weighed, because of the rippling effect they can have on the country and the world. Just look at Carter, who had similar, but perhaps less all-encompassing, ideas for change and peace. The same kind of idealistic view on world leaders and events. He made decisions based on his heart rather than his head, and we all suffered for it for a long time. In the case of Iran, we're suffering for it more than ever.
7.
justxploringComment by justxploring - February 26, 2008, 7:05 pm
Anyone who watched the debate in Texas should be frightened and incensed. Obama says what people want to hear, and it should be obvious. It's beyond me why would anyone who has worked his/her butt off to send their children to school would vote for someone who wants to send illegals to college for free. I love all children, but his "Dream" is going to be a nightmare to hard-working taxpayers. I keep asking people who have watched the debates with Sen Clinton if he keeps changing what he chants, but I guess I'm the only one who can see that, unless I'm hallucinating. Everyone points their finger at Hillary, but he does it on national TV and nobody seems to notice.

Todd, I disagree that Carter was a lousy president. (and I miss those 18% interest rates. lol) I remember life was better then. Carter was/is a great humanitarian and cared too much about being a peacemaker, which was his biggest weakness. He cared about energy conservation & human rights. He's been blamed for a lot of failures and Reagan was given credit for many of Carter's successes. A president inherits both failures and successes from a previous administration. I just don't think we can compare the 2 men.
8.
emilygComment by emilyg - February 26, 2008, 7:35 pm
Nancy - good post.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.