2nd Amendment alert!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the Global Poverty Act, sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States.

In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obamas Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. 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. It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now put a hold on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080213/pl_usnw/aim_says_media_cover_up_obama___s_socialist_orient ed_global_tax_bill

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

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.


Time to start writing your local, state and federal officials..... :help:

[PatrickHenry]

That source is not reading the same declaration I am Osborn.

The text: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf
It does not seek to ban light arms but to end the illicit trade.

Ever see Lord of War?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Pat, I have seen Lord of War but this isn't a movie, and it is about setting precedent.

Think about this please.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you favor trying to end the trade in AKs and ammo that results in third world militias creating chaos as in the former Zaire?

Nearly five million dead?

The Declaration is not about disarming US citizens, but about ending a worldwide trade in weapons that undermines settled village life...

[Alonzo]

You're not going to win PH. Freedom is good, no matter how many it kills.

[Tessy]

Why are we talking about guns in a global tax thread? Just because that's stuck
into the bill as a side issue? This is clearly a marxist piece of legislation and the
fact that the U.N. is involved at all spells danger.

If socialism (aka collectivism) brought us the soviet union and created the iron
curtain all under the same pretenses as this bill why do we insist on repeating
the same error over and over to our assured doom? Marxist socialism has failed
in almost every instance (the larger the model the more failed) yet over the past
few years we seem to be in a rush to implement it on a global scale.

Insane!

[Tharagor]

Pardon me, but nothing you've posted has anything to do with our constitution. If you think it does, please have the courtesy to explain how.

[Tharagor]

S 2433 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433)

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES


December 7, 2007

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To 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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Global Poverty Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) More than 1,000,000,000 people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1,600,000,000 people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.

(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward goals to improve life for the world's poorest people by 2015.

(3) The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.

(4) The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.

(5) On March 22, 2002, President George W. Bush stated: `We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.'.

(6) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.'.

(7) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `America's national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world's poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.'.

(8) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'.

(9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight participating countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations.

(10) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

(11) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(12) In January 2006, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring of the United States foreign assistance program, including the creation of a Director of Foreign Assistance, who maintains authority over Department of State and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding and programs.

(13) In January 2007, the Department of State's Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance added poverty reduction as an explicit, central component of the overall goal of United States foreign assistance. The official goal of United States foreign assistance is: `To help build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.'.

(14) Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. These principles have become the core of several development programs of the United States Government, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.


SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to promote 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.


SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

(a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall 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.

(b) Content- The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

(c) Components- The strategy required by subsection (a) should include the following components:

(1) Continued investment or involvement in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.

(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.

(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.

(8) Integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

(d) Reports-

(1) INITIAL REPORT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the strategy required under subsection (a).

(B) CONTENT- The report required under subparagraph (A) shall include the following elements:

(i) A description of the strategy required under subsection (a).

(ii) An evaluation, to the extent possible, both proportionate and absolute, of the contributions provided by the United States and other national and international actors in achieving 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.

(iii) An assessment of the overall progress toward achieving 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.

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS- Not later than December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2015, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees reports on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.


SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--

(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `extreme global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).


The legislation obviously requires nothing more that we "look into the problem" and describe a strategy to help resolve it.

There is nothing in the bill what so ever that commits the United States to devoting a certain amount of funds or, in any way, undermines our sovereignty.

I strongly recommend that you actually read source material before posting to avoid further wild inaccuracies.

:thumbsup:

[Osborn F. Enready]

I suggest you do a bit more reading on the history of this type of "looking into problems" and where the directives come from, that regard "the direction the nation should take".

As I said Tharagor, do some research on the CFR and UN ties, regarding prior agreements, treaties, etc.

This is exactly what the forefathers were talking about when they said "entangling alliances", and all it does is hinder American individual rights, and our global relationship to actual CITIZENS, not GOVERNMENTS of those other nations.

[Wndrtch]

I see it as being a constitutional issue too.

But I see it as such in very different way than you
might at first expect. If Hiltery wins the election
and the fix is indeed in for her to win, then by her
second term we will be under UN law. If the USA
enters a treaty that is now unconstitutional and our
law is "harmonized" with UN law once she dissolves
US sovereignty then where does that leave us?

What I think we should be doing instead is encircling
the UN building and placing every person in it or having
anything to do with it under arrest and in prison for
subversion!


Holy Sh1t! are you realy a Democrat? That sounded like something I would say!

[Tharagor]

I suggest you do a bit more reading on the history of this type of "looking into problems" and where the directives come from, that regard "the direction the nation should take".

As I said Tharagor, do some research on the CFR and UN ties, regarding prior agreements, treaties, etc.


I am quite familiar with the Council for Foreign Relations. Living in Austin it's difficult not to be familair with Alex Jones' pet conspiracy theories.

How about you provide some evidence to support your wild accusation about the bill?


This is exactly what the forefathers were talking about when they said "entangling alliances", and all it does is hinder American individual rights, and our global relationship to actual CITIZENS, not GOVERNMENTS of those other nations.


The United States government doesn't have a global relationship with citizens of other nations, nor should it. That would undermine the sovereignty of foreign nations. Nothing in the bill or any United Nations resolution inhibits U.S. citizens from engaging in business except for citizens of countries on which United States government has levied trade sanctions or bans.

:thumbsup:

[Tessy]

I suggest you do a bit more reading on the history of this type of "looking into problems" and where the directives come from, that regard "the direction the nation should take".

As I said Tharagor, do some research on the CFR and UN ties, regarding prior agreements, treaties, etc.

This is exactly what the forefathers were talking about when they said "entangling alliances", and all it does is hinder American individual rights, and our global relationship to actual CITIZENS, not GOVERNMENTS of those other nations.


I was just about to post the exact same reply. ;)

[Osborn F. Enready]

Tharagor, drop the Alex Jones connotations, and try picking up a book by those who actually have investigated and articulated the issue.

Try the FIRST EDITION of "Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley to actually understand what I am talking about, or have you, and you simply disagree with Quigleys contentions about the CFR, roundtable group, etc.??

[Tessy]

I don't think he can Osborn. I'm on ALLOT of political
sites and there are just some people who for whatever
reasons, CANNOT bring themselves to actually do any
real research and who CANNOT admit that the state has
anything but their best interests at heart. They ignore
history. They ignore fact. They ignore all of the official
whistle blowers no matter how high they came from the
organizations and no matter how credible they are.

I'm not being facetious either. Seriously. I have no idea
if these are government agents acting to squelch the
signal, if they are just too scared or weak to admit it to
themselves (which might be a self preservation mechanism
as there ARE recorded cases of otherwise stable people who
have mental breakdowns after finding out on their own by
accident some of the things our government is into), if it's
evidence of just how well the brainwashing (conditioning,
mind control, call it what you will) from media and other
sources works, or if they are politically aligned with those
same ideals and want desperately at any costs to fulfill or
have fulfilled the perceived agenda. I guess the only other
explanation I can think of is that they just have "this opinion"
however unfounded it is, and are under the impression that
this is the way to discuss politics - by just having this gut
feeling about something and arguing it's case over and over.

They are usually very vocal, seem otherwise reasonable,
but have a view of our government that comes right out
of 1950 Happy Days. You can (and I have) hurled mountains
of evidence including official government documentation,
independent investigation and research work, eye witness
accounts, public and historical record, and combinations
of all those things together at them and they still refuse it
or laugh it off calling it conspiracy theory or craziness.
Occasionally they seem to wake up but then a week or two
later it's as if they unlearned everything and convinced
themselves that it was all a dream. They also seem to
travel in pairs or in small groups and reaffirm each other's
ignorance via mutual laughter and back patting. It's seriously
disturbing to watch.

I haven't been on this particular site long enough to know if
Tharagor is in this category but the symptoms are strong with
him so I'm just bringing it up as a possibility.

[firefox]

As far as I'm concerned, the CFR is little more than a 1st gen think-tank. Yes, they are very politically connected, and there's a revolving door going on there, but the same can be said of more mainstream, less controversial TTs like Heritage and Brookings. IMHO, we need to stop worrying about who is planning this crap and focus more on preventing the implementors from implementing it. Who's with me?

[Osborn F. Enready]

I think its hard to stop the implementation of that which is not understood by those who take action.

“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.”
-Louis D. Brandeis

“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.”
-Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, in a 1928 decision[hr]By the way, points noted and taken Tessy.

I too have come across the same exact obstacles repeatedly, but, I refuse to go down without a fight, and until the guns are drawn, information is my tool for those who can be saved from apathy or ignorance.

I can respect apathy and ignorance, if its admitted and a temporary condition. We all experience it. 157 years of it is beyond respect, beyond reasonable and beyond rational.

Time to wake them up or suffer the consequences, I am prepared either way.

[Tessy]

As far as I'm concerned, the CFR is...


Doesn't matter, the fact is that it's illegal for an elected official of the USA to belong
to the CFR or the UN with their current designations. The offense is on the books as
impeachable.

So even if all they do is talk about what kind of kitty litter they use, it's still a crime in the eyes of the law!

Just thought I'd mention that. :) For sure and without a doubt it needs to be stopped. With our courts as corrupt or even moreso than our leaders I wonder how tho??

[firefox]

No one's going to impeach anyone so does it really matter?

[Tessy]

I hope you're wrong. :) I'm really hoping these guys go to prison!

Well, I can hope can't I?? :D


Did you hear about the Academy Awards? They gave it to a film called:
"Taxi To The Dark Side" which is all about the war crimes those bums
have committed surrounding the secret prisons and etc.

http://www.taxitothedarkside.com/

HBO purchased the rights to it (I hear) right after the awards.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Prison would be too good for these traitors.

[Tessy]

I agree! A firing squad is suitable and just! But I don't think that'll happen.

[firefox]

The DC case is being taken up today: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ah_1ixq3MnxA&refer=home

[Tessy]

Yeah, I'm listening to that on CSPAN HD-Radio. The whole thing is pretty minor but the case itself is a step in the right direction. It's basically about being allowed to have a handgun in your house. The case seems only to cover behind closed door ownership as no carry laws are to be discussed or considered. And even at that it may be ruled that you may own one but only if unloaded & unassembled or unloaded & locked.

I hope DNA cloning technology hurries up and becomes viable. Then we resurrect as it were, the founding fathers and kick some butt! :D