[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger

Skateboarding Dog


(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Obama Backs U.N. Bill to Disarm Americans
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/?p=1992
Published: May 10, 2008
Author: FourWinds 10
Post Date: 2008-05-10 05:42:39 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 3917
Comments: 195

This is just in from Sen. Coburn’s office. Obama has authored a bill, and it is now in the Senate, to give the UN .7% of our GNP to be used to feed hungry 3rd worlders, AND to use UN force to disarm you and me and all gun owners. No one in the media has brought this to the attention of the general sheeple out here.

Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 12:48 PM Subject: RE: Obama’s bill S2433 passed the committee and going to the Senate

Senator Coburn is blocking this bill.

Patrick Guinn

Obama’s bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for "food" to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.

The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.

The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.’s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons" but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2433.html

Detailed Summary

Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including: (1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries; (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) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships; (5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and (6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.

Defines specified terms.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 4/24/2008: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718.

http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-barack-obama-s2433-global.html

More on Barack Obama’s S.2433 : Global Poverty Act

We know for a fact that this bill will cost America $845 billion above and beyond what America already spends on global aid in the next thirteen years. America will be locked in to giving .7 percent of the U.S. gross national product. That in itself is scary enough, but there is way more to Obama’s bill. It also locks us into United Nations Millennium Summit. Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media is all over this bill. He writes-(Underlined by me)

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

"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," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development 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," he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.(LINK)

This ladies and gentleman is the Barack Obama vision for America . WND called Obama’s office and the others who support this bill….No comments.

See Obama’s Global Tax Bill (S.2433)

Change Obama can believe in: Socialism?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 51.

#9. To: christine (#0) (Edited)

The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.’s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons" but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.

S. 2433 (whose 15 cosponsors include 4 Republicans, Lugar, Smith, Snowe, and Hagel) would do no such thing. All that it would require the executive branch to do is 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, and to file a report on the strategy with Congress. Everything else in the bill (which makes no mention of Kyoto, the ICC, or firearms, as far as I can see) is hortatory, without legal effect.

If it were so controversial, do you think Lugar would have signed on as a cosponsor?

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-10   10:25:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: aristeides (#9)

(whose 15 cosponsors include 4 Republicans, Lugar, Smith, Snowe, and Hagel)

yeah, it's controversial, but not for the globalist treasonous anti-america establishment politicians Rs and Ds. in case i haven't stressed this to you enough, i see them as the same. it's controversial alright, for WE THE PEOPLE.

christine  posted on  2008-05-10   10:49:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: christine (#23)

Your title says the bill is to "disarm Americans." I see nothing like that in the bill.

And the fact that it has 4 Republican cosponsors confirms that there's nothing like that in it.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-10   11:04:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: aristeides, Jethro Tull, christine (#28)

Your title says the bill is to "disarm Americans." I see nothing like that in the bill.

And the fact that it has 4 Republican cosponsors confirms that there's nothing like that in it.

Virtually every Republican voted for the so called Assault Weapons and Extended Magazine ban.

And, Bush would have renewed it (as he promised as candidate Bush) had it not sunset before the last election when he was hedging all bets.

In fact, every bad gun law that has ever passed did so with the support of Republicans.

So called gun friendly Republicans think it's okay for civilians to own diamond-crusted Elmer Fudd Commemorative Model Double Barreled Wabbit Guns like the expensive Perazzi that a drunken Dick Cheney used to hose that lawyer. But when it comes to the weapons that are suitable for militia use, the Pubs are as afraid of them as the most snivelingly liberal anti gun Democrat.

It makes perfect sense that some neocons would love to allow the blue helmets to attempt to disarm the people. Then the Pubs could hunker down while the blue helmets do the dirty work while the Pubs are blaming the UN and international law. But, they have no intention of surrendering the nukes with which they intend to control the UN and the rest of the world.

In short, the belief that the Republican Party is staunchly pro gun is a myth.

In the past The Pubs opposed Democrat-sponsored gun control efforts, but they'd cheerfully vote for the exact same legislation today if Bush proposed it.

Not one Republican will stand up and say, "The 2nd amendment is intended to serve as the final check and balance against an all tyrannical government."

And, they fear those "ugly black guns" such as semi auto versions of the military M-16 and M4 as much as the Dems, because both "parties" (actually, orgies is a more accurate term) are equally culpable in the systematic destruction of the Bill Of Rights and America as we know it.

The assertion that Republican signatories is a guarantee that the bill contains no anti gun language is thinking from a bygone era, and it certainly doesn't reflect the reality of the past 40 years since the passage (with bi-partisan support) of the 1968 GCA.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-10   12:14:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: HOUNDDAWG (#50)

Perhaps you can point to the anti-gun provision in Obama's bill. I don't see it.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-10   12:16:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 51.

#70. To: aristeides (#51)

Perhaps you can point to the anti-gun provision in Obama's bill. I don't see it.

Well, the bill makes many references to the United Nations Millennium Declaration and incorporates it in the intent of the bill in multiple sections.

And, the United Nations Millennium Declaration reads as follows:

"• To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons."

Now, the language appears to limit any gun grabs to illicit weapons, but it doesn't say that and no such limitation would exist upon adoption of this bill. It is very clear that the presence of some illegal guns (in our inner cities for instance) could be used to not only seize those weapons, but to attempt to close off the source of those guns, the law abiding suburbanites and gun dealers who legally purchased them and had them stolen from us or purchased through straw man transactions then supplied to criminals.

We gun owners are well aware that the 2nd amendment is the final obstacle to their global banker govt, and, just as govt lawyers can "reinterpret" language including the bill of rights to mean something entirely contrary to its original intent, this type of ambiguous language would be elevated to "The Word Of The Almighty" in the wrong hands, while similar language regarding nuclear treaty/monitoring/disarmament would be ignored just as it is in Israel and the US today.

Even though this is a report from Alex Jones (a profiteering scare monger) it has been interpreted and reported by other more reliable sources as a back door threat to our liberties and the means to protect them.

When in doubt all bills should be suspect. We know that all proposed legislation should be viewed in its worst possible light, because history has taught us that this is the likely outcome.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-10 12:46:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 51.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]