See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: OBAMA'S GLOBAL TAX PROPOSAL UP FOR SENATE VOTE
Source:
News With Views
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff207.htm
Published: Feb 13, 2008
Author: Cliff Kincaid
Post Date: 2008-02-13 12:47:30 by _______
Keywords: Obama, CFR Certified, NWO Approved
Views: 854
Comments: 69
By Cliff Kincaid February 13, 2008 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. • Americans who would like their senators to know what they are voting on can contact them through information at this official Senate site.
NewsWithViews.com
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-4) not displayed.
.
.
.
#5. To: _______ (#0)
I had to stop there... Dear God - what next?
Join the Ron Paul Revolution Come celebrate CFR-NAU-NWO diversity with us.
The mask is off and the flight is in orbit! All that's left is to see who picks up the Kool Aid from this point forward.
Rupert It really does not matter who wins. Discussion of lesser of two evils is really in vain. The ruling elite wins every time. Years ago I gave up on "doing my duty by voting". Do I have an alternative? No. We will have the choice of two people out of 300 million Americans, are there really no better people available than what we are offered? everyone will have to follow their own conscience, vote or not vote. It really makes no difference.
As has been repeated many times now, we know that a McCain presidency would be worse. Got it?
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! They're all exactly the same and are playing you.
Of course you're free to feel defeated if that's what you wish. I dare to dream.
It's a dementor.
I will still try to pick the shell w/o the grenade under it.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! There isn't one.
If they each have a grenade under them, then I'll try to pick the one that does the least amount of damage.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! You're playing the NWOists game. Have fun. Take care.
No, I am looking for the one with the greatest chance of not being as bad a puppet as we have had for the last 7 years.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! The bill does mention the UN's Millennium Development Goal, but the bill itself defines the goal stated in that document that the president's strategy is supposed to encompass: reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. Under the bill, this would be stated in U.S. law, by force of this act. But that would be by act of Congress. The UN may have set the goal initially, but Obama's bill does not give the UN any power, under this bill, to change that goal, so that the president's strategy has to include a new, presumably more ambitious goal. Thus, it is not true that this bill, if it were to become law, would give the UN any power to compel spending by the U.S. and taxation enforced by its government.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Obama is the NEW 2008 CFR model. Same interior and dependable engine, modern exterior. Low mileage, snappy urb appeal. Promises a safer drive, however test results are insufficient. Even so, a team of mechanics come with the new model, no worries. One owner always.
You must smoke the really good sh*t. No schweg for you, unless of course it's vaporized?
You do know that self-delusion is the strongest kind.
Obama Beat the Republicans by Devilstower Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:10:25 PM PST Barack Obama didn't just beat Hillary in Virginia. He didn't just get more votes than John McCain. In "red" Virginia, Obama got 142,000 more votes than all the Republicans put together. And that was with Hillary Clinton taking 100,000 more votes than John McCain. He kicked butt, took names, and did it with both hands tied behind his back. Oh, and in Maryland, with 40% of the vote in, Hillary is beating all Republicans put together while losing by 27%. You could probably limit Democrats to only left-handed voters, or red-haired voters, or left-handed red- haired voters whose names start with 'Q,' and the Republicans would still be in trouble.
He kicked butt, took names, and did it with both hands tied behind his back. Oh, and in Maryland, with 40% of the vote in, Hillary is beating all Republicans put together while losing by 27%. You could probably limit Democrats to only left-handed voters, or red-haired voters, or left-handed red- haired voters whose names start with 'Q,' and the Republicans would still be in trouble. The Republican Party is in huge trouble.
If that posting of mine was mistaken, why don't you point out my mistake(s)? I cited the text of the bill.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You are a proponent of the United Nations. Why waste my time with you?
I doubt any "compelling" will be necessary. The Marxists (Obama, Hillary) will be all too willing to redistribute American tax money. For the "global" good, I'm sure.
If that's your best argument, I rest my case.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If it's done by U.S. authorities, then no surrender of sovereignty is involved.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You're a case alright.
Shouldn't hold Maryland up as any type of benchmark, my friend.......probably most of the population either works for feebleguv or has a relative or someone else on the public hog's teats! The only way Morella was able to be an elected 'r' there was to be a demon in disguise! I think Gilchrest is from there, and he, who has recanted the war, lost his shot at retaining his seat in the house. I think he's one I've never been impressed with....for some reason I think he is the one who is in bed with environuts--could be wrong, but I don't think so. :(
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
When you have no arguments, attack the person. Psyops 101, right?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You sound so, so, so.........sinkspurish!
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
Notice, that is my point. The U.N. will not need to compel ObamaHillary to go along with its global objectives.
The Republican party is going to be utterly crushed at the polls this fall. The margin of defeat will be so extreme that there will be no way to steal the election, even with Diebold machines. Thanks to the "leadership" of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republican brand has become fundamentally unelectable and will remain so for the next twenty years.
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.”
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity
#6. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
#7. To: lodwick (#5)
Dear God - what next?
#8. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#2)
With Obama, with get a blacker version of Jimmy Carter. Would you rather have skin cancer or a bad rash?
#9. To: _______ (#1)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#10. To: robin (#9)
#11. To: Cynicom (#8)
#12. To: robin (#9)
Got it?
#13. To: _______, angle, FormerLurker (#10)
They're all exactly the same and are playing you.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#14. To: robin (#13)
I will still try to pick the shell w/o the grenade under it.
#15. To: _______ (#14)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#16. To: robin (#15)
If they each have a grenade under them, then I'll try to pick the one that does the least amount of damage.
#17. To: _______ (#16)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#18. To: _______ (#0)
(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.
#19. To: angle (#12)
#20. To: aristeides (#18)
#21. To: robin (#17)
No, I am looking for the one with the greatest chance of not being as bad a puppet as we have had for the last 7 years.
#22. To: All (#19)
(Edited)
www.dai lykos.com/storyonl.../13/01025/8051/970/455673
#23. To: Peppa (#22)
Barack Obama didn't just beat Hillary in Virginia. He didn't just get more votes than John McCain. In "red" Virginia, Obama got 142,000 more votes than all the Republicans put together. And that was with Hillary Clinton taking 100,000 more votes than John McCain.
#24. To: _______ (#20)
#25. To: aristeides (#24)
#26. To: aristeides (#18)
Thus, it is not true that this bill, if it were to become law, would give the UN any power to compel spending by the U.S. and taxation enforced by its government.
#27. To: _______ (#25)
#28. To: Vitamin Z (#26)
#29. To: aristeides (#27)
#30. To: Peppa (#22)
#31. To: _______ (#29)
#32. To: _______ (#29)
#33. To: aristeides (#28)
If it's done by U.S. authorities, then no surrender of sovereignty is involved.
#34. To: TwentyTwelve (#23)
The Republican Party is in huge trouble.
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#35. To: TwentyTwelve (#23)
I heard something interesting on Neil Boortz this morning ;P... 2 RepublicaCritters were unseated in MD. 1) for being toooo conservative #2) for being too liberal. Both were taken out by their own party for not towing the 'party' line.
The Republican Party is in huge trouble.
#36. To: _______ (#25) (Edited)
There are two groups struggling for power in the New World Order: the pro-UN globalists (people like Obama, Brzezinksi) and the anti-UN Zionists (Bolton, McCain, Wolfowitz). Both want to make our national sovereignty a thing of the past, the only difference is whether the UN or Tel Aviv will be calling the shots. I also believe that the Zionist faction of the NWO is more likely to start a nuclear war than the UN globalists.
#37. To: Elliott Jackalope (#34)
I believe your assessment to be right on the mark. Those who would crawl through broken glass to support the likes of these bastids never stop to think that they lost any control of the house for something like 40 years, got it back finally, and newtie worked like hell to screw that all up; and never stopped to think that the idiot who called Jesus Christ a philosopher or the bastid that shoots friends in the face would actually take their country to the brink of ruination; and they certainly wouldn't give an inkling of a thought to the destruction of their own friggin party by these same 'powers'. They deserve every single bad thing that comes their way; alas, at the same time, the common man in 'merika is gonna suffer, too, but in a much more severe sense than just losing their 'party'.
The Republican party is going to be utterly crushed at the polls this fall. The margin of defeat will be so extreme that there will be no way to steal the election, even with Diebold machines. Thanks to the "leadership" of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republican brand has become fundamentally unelectable and will remain so for the next twenty years.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
#38. To: Elliott Jackalope (#34)
What's really strange about this is that I know a lot of people who hate Bush but love McCain, and there are a lot of Bushbots who hate McCain's guts. What this means is that even though Bush and McCain are basically xerox copies of one another (George is dumber, Mac is crazier, but that's about it), this election is still up for grabs. Somehow, voters just don't associate McCain with Bush - it must be because people look at style instead of policy issues.
#39. To: rowdee (#30)
The only way Morella was able to be an elected 'r' there was to be a demon in disguise! I think Gilchrest is from there, and he, who has recanted the war, lost his shot at retaining his seat in the house. I think he's one I've never been impressed with....for some reason I think he is the one who is in bed with environuts--could be wrong, but I don't think so. :( Good to know, I'm not familiar with the area, but just wanted to pass along the numbers. Just heard this morning that 2 pubs were unseated (I guess the Gilchrest you speak of was one of them), because one was too liberal, and the other one too conservative. That both were removed by their own party for not towing the partayy line. !! Ve must have a better squad of synchronized swimmers. (No Kennedy pun intended).
Shouldn't hold Maryland up as any type of benchmark, my friend.......probably most of the population either works for feebleguv or has a relative or someone else on the public hog's teats!
#40. To: Peppa (#35)
That sort of thing is old news, Peppa.........hell, look at how the demons turned against Jim Trafficant.......him and his damned 'beam me up Scotty' minute speeches!! And the republocraps who when in power wouldn't even do more than an 'eye' glance Bob Dornan's way when loretta sanchez took his seat with illegals voting! They were delighted to get rid of him because he was very vocal about right to life and some other stuff. This is why the republocraps will also be targeting getting rid of Ron Paul---they'd be satisfied to lose to a demon just to get rid of him. Tell ya what......back when the current liar in chief ran in 2000, one of the groups down in Texas stated they were not donating to Ron Paul because he doesn't stand behind them all the time (name of the group was something like Century 2000 I think). Of course the media picked that tidbit up and ran with it to his campaign. His campaign graciously denied any fracture (it was during the time he was having a BBQ get together as I recall). So it dropped off the radar screen as being a 'story'. I happen to have a friend who was working with some in Ron's office regarding a couple of issues, and she asked about this one day.....and the staffer told her it was true, that they withheld funds because they wanted him defeated and someone more in lockstep with party ideas, but that Ron wouldn't give the media the satisfaction of trying to wedge they and he.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
#41. To: Peppa (#39)
Yup.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
#42. To: rowdee (#40)
And the republocraps who when in power wouldn't even do more than an 'eye' glance Bob Dornan's way when loretta sanchez took his seat with illegals voting! They were delighted to get rid of him because he was very vocal about right to life and some other stuff. This is why the republocraps will also be targeting getting rid of Ron Paul---they'd be satisfied to lose to a demon just to get rid of him. What a story! It's the same as it ever was I guess. What do ya think of Cynthia McKinney? ;)
That sort of thing is old news, Peppa.........hell, look at how the demons turned against Jim Trafficant.......him and his damned 'beam me up Scotty' minute speeches!!
#43. To: Peppa (#42)
You don't want to go there.......literally or figuratively. If I could use a food product as a description: Fruit Loop or maybe, Mixed Nuts. Do you recall the name Carol Mosley Braun? Cynthia reminds me of a wild-eyed, high on something version of Carol.
What do ya think of Cynthia McKinney? ;)
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
#44. To: Peppa, (#43)
And that is just my 'nice' version of what I think.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
#45. To: angle (#11)
Perhaps you will share your dream so I may comment on it???
Of course you're free to feel defeated if that's what you wish. I dare to dream.
.
.
.
Comments (46 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest