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: 3706
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine, All, *SHTF - Survival* (#0)
But, what about Obamas' ass .... I mean boot lickers on this forum? Do they support this "lesser of 3 evils"? Are they willing to sell me (us) out? You're damn right they are. Obamas' cheerleaders can't bend over fast enough. Good luck with your plans, fella. I really hope you try. I am not getting any younger, and I dont want the kids to have to do it.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. ------- http://policestateusa.net/
"If you don't support Obaba, you're supporting the killing of innocents." - boot licker
Well, here we go. This must be Obasmic for the commies.
The PILES will find a way to rationalize this, after all he is the color of mocha, therefore pure of heart.
I need to buy another bag of UN blue balloons for interactive target practice.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
B-b-but all of Obama's supporters on here said he wasn't a communist. Now I feel like they may have been mislead (or something).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Or trying to mislead.
The irony being that much of the aid given to the third world is used to buy guns.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
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?
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.
I stayed up all night, sick over the thought of the Myanmar junta not allowing humanitarian aid into their country. Maybe we can divert it to New Orleans?
Why don't you read the bill before you go off half-cocked?
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.
That is their "logic" in a nutshell. False choice. For some reason, people believe him when he talks about "change". Every other candidate from time immemorial has promised change. No one ever delivered, except changes for the worst. What's that definition of insanity? Something about doing the same things over and over again, while expecting a different result each time? Obama supporters are insane. So are Klintons and McNuts supporters.
http://policestateusa.net/
Does Alex Jones still get wild eyed and spittle dripping about Bush having Bin Laden frozen in some meat locker? I haven't listened to the guy for a while.
.
I heard this morning that food aid was in fact being diverted to meet other government contractual obligations. Some of the food boxes distributed were given to various Generals to distribute as they saw fit, as there is an election or referendum going on.
Jones has become incoherent of late. Once one knows the govt is rotten, minor details become less important, to me at least.
I'm guessing population control. Nothing new under the sun.
Minor details like inaccurate quotations from Michelle Obama's senior thesis?
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.
I'm not sure how this works. I should believe the claim above, but disregard the one about Bush having Bin Laden frozen? How do I tell which of his stories are real and which are just loony?
.
That's putting it mildly.
Selective population control. Those who do are not starved to death, will vote for the right General.
What I do is take in all info, and do my own research.
She appears to be an angry racist, so I want to read her thesis for myself.
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.
These programs never work. Instead of reducing poverty all they achieve is increasing population.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Might have something to do with Lugar being a puppet of big agriculture.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
OK. I prefer to go off fully cocked. So lets read the bill. (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. This worthless platitude was prominent in several places in this bill. So, we make it possible for them to live on $2 per day and declare "mission accomplished", with banners? Perhaps W could land in Darfur in a F18, flight suit and all, and the people there will be so grateful to have their income doubled. Our own war on poverty has been a great resounding sucess. Perhaps they can use it as a template for further efforts. Throw $$$ at them, that will solve it. Everything .gov touches turns to gold. Want to end poverty? Get rid of the corrupt governments that use OUR money, food and medicine as weapons. But we cannot do that, because they are some of our very best allies.
http://policestateusa.net/
{{{{applause}}}}
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.
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.
The bill may well be a boondoggle, but the article here presents it as something much worse than that.
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.
He's also a senator from a state with voters who would not appreciate being disarmed.
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.
Section three: We HAVE NO CHOICE but to politically oppose every one of these candidates.
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 what does that mean? Could mean anything, they don't specify.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Perhaps. There are 2 topics here; foreign aid and small arms. I dont know how they got their numbers relating to foreign aid. I'd need to look more closely at it, to decide. AJ does, imo, have a tendency to exaggerate sometimes. There have been times that he said something, and I check it out, and I have no idea how he reached his conclusion. Other times, most times, he is right. About small arms: Treaties take precedence over the Constitution. This is dangerous. That small arms treaty, while supposedly trying to stem violence in other developing countries, will be used to disarm us here.
http://policestateusa.net/
For their unabashed "goals" to be achieved, it must be done, and it shall be done one small step at a time, one way or another. These "goals" are not new. They've always been the same. The American people were once free. But they have to be completely dominated and emasculated before the global government machine can swing into unfettered action.
Obama's bill mentions the Millennium Development Goals, but nowhere does it give them the force of law. It directs the executive branch to take account of certain named goals among those Millennium Development Goals in developing and implementing the strategy it mandates, but nothing about disarmament measures or making arms transfers more transparent is among the goals that it names.
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.
Ignoring your fantasy of legal interpretation (as if that matters in Congress anymore) it's what Obama wants that indicates his unacceptability as a candidate any freedom-loving citizen should support. That goes for the others, too. Maybe this concept is too harsh for you.
This article is about how scary Obama's bill allegedly is. I point out that it's not scary. So you tell me it doesn't matter what Obama's bill says.
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.
I agree. It has been going on for years. I am "only" in my 40s and it's a different country from what I grew up in. I talked to my dad not too long ago and I asked him if he has ever seen things this bad. He hasn't. The only thing he said was that he had trouble finding work in the early 60s after he left the service. But on the whole, he hasnt seen it this bad before. The "men" in this country have already, imo, been emasculated and dominated. There aren't that many real men out there. They can act against us at any time.
http://policestateusa.net/
That's what you said, not I.
You are using the disarmament issue as a red herring. At the core of the issue is that Obama (and Lugar) feel it is the proper role of the US government to aid those in the third world, with multinational corporations taking a healthy cut along the way, at the expense of US citizens. It was meddling by western governments and corporations that caused most of the problems to begin with, how is more of the same going to help?
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
I agree. Thank you for the illustrating the code.
Comments (42 - 195) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestObama Backs U.N. Bill to Disarm Americans
#2. To: PSUSA (#1)
#3. To: christine (#0)
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.
#4. To: christine (#0)
#5. To: christine (#0)
#6. To: Peppa (#3)
Lord Acton
#7. To: James Deffenbach (#6)
B-b-but all of Obama's supporters on here said he wasn't a communist. Now I feel like they may have been mislead (or something).
#8. To: christine (#0)
#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.
#10. To: Dakmar (#8)
#11. To: PSUSA (#1)
#12. To: angle, all (#2)
"If you don't support Obaba, you're supporting the killing of innocents." - boot licker
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
#14. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
I stayed up all night, sick over the thought of the Myanmar junta not allowing humanitarian aid into their country. Maybe we can divert it to New Orleans?
#15. To: ... (#13)
#16. To: Peppa (#14)
Generals to distribute as they saw fit
#17. To: Jethro Tull (#15)
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#15)
Jones has become incoherent of late. Once one knows the govt is rotten, minor details become less important, to me at least.
#19. To: PSUSA (#12)
Obama supporters are insane. So are Klintons and McNuts supporters.
#20. To: Jethro Tull (#16)
Generals to distribute as they saw fit I'm guessing population control. Nothing new under the sun.
#21. To: ... (#18)
#22. To: aristeides (#17)
Minor details like inaccurate quotations from Michelle Obama's senior thesis?
#23. To: aristeides (#9)
(whose 15 cosponsors include 4 Republicans, Lugar, Smith, Snowe, and Hagel)
#24. To: aristeides (#9)
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.
#25. To: aristeides (#9)
If it were so controversial, do you think Lugar would have signed on as a cosponsor?
#26. To: aristeides, all (#11)
Why don't you read the bill before you go off half-cocked?
#27. To: PSUSA (#26)
#28. To: christine (#23)
#29. To: PSUSA (#26)
#30. To: Dakmar (#25)
#31. To: PSUSA, christine, FOH, Peppa, Jethro Tull (#26)
You Hippies and give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again --Tool "Vicarious" 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...
And what might those goals be?
This is Obama, unvarnished. If anyone thinks McCain or Clinton would not support these "goals," think again. The 8 Millennium development goals
Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger [Massive redistribution of wealth and central (even corporate) planning, which is WHAT CAUSES POVERTY.] 
Achieve Universal Primary Education [Centrally-organized "one world government" Indoctrination]. 
Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women [Destroy all Natural Law, biologically-based notions of the Family]. 
Reduce Child Mortality [Except at Abortion Clinics]. 
Improve Maternal Health [Except at Abortion Clinics]. 
Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases [Innoculate EVERYONE with the latest, untested vaccines]. 
Ensure Environmental Sustainability [Luddite, anti-growth, anti-HUMAN ideology with a massive dose of CENTRAL ENFORCEMENT at a GLOBAL LEVEL, which has always been the goal]. 
Develop a Global Partnership for Development [Development permitted only by the CENTRAL PLANNERS for their CENTRAL GOALS, subjugating HUMAN CREATIVITY AND INGENUITY for the COLLECTIVE].
#32. To: aristeides (#30)
From the United Nations Millennium Declaration:
#33. To: aristeides (#29)
The bill may well be a boondoggle, but the article here presents it as something much worse than that.
#34. To: PSUSA (#33)
That small arms treaty, while supposedly trying to stem violence in other developing countries, will be used to disarm us here.
#35. To: Dakmar (#32)
#36. To: aristeides (#35)
#37. To: buckeye (#36)
#38. To: buckeye (#34)
But they have to be completely dominated and emasculated before the global government machine can swing into unfettered action.
#39. To: aristeides (#37)
#40. To: aristeides (#37)
This article is about how scary Obama's bill allegedly is. I point out that it's not scary.
#41. To: buckeye (#31)
This is Obama, unvarnished. If anyone thinks McCain or Clinton would not support these "goals," think again. We HAVE NO CHOICE but to politically oppose every one of these candidates.
.
.
.