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: 3716
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
Comments (1-42) not displayed.
.
.
.
#43. To: Dakmar (#32)
Now what does that mean? Could mean anything, they don't specify. I was just reading about SKorea's efforts to work with NKorea with respect to disarmament for food. That might fit in the 'regional disarmament' category... I think I saw it on 'Newsvine'.
Is the title of the article about disarming Americans, or is it not?
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 call this debate? Weak.
Fine, you argue with the author of the title and I'll continue protesting against being taxed by the UN.
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
Lugar has always been a leading New World Order/One World Government proponent in Congress.
The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke
And the fact that it has 4 Republican cosponsors confirms that there's nothing like that in it. Lugar, Smith, Snowe, and Hagel?
The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke
SKorea to Review NKorea Aid Projects www.newsvine.com/_news/20...rea-to-review-nkorea-aid- projects South Korea's incoming president has raised the possibility of canceling aid projects promised to North Korea by his liberal predecessor if they fail to make economic sense and are not in line with the communist country's nuclear disarmament. SKorean Rice Diverted to NKorean Army www.newsvine.com/_news/20...skorean-rice-diverted-to- nkorean-army Haiti government, U.N. to seek to disarm gangs Program to use money, food, job training as lure for all but gang leaders www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14671719/ FOOD FOR PEACE www.wfp.org/newsroom/benetton /peace/ World Hunger FactSheet (interesting) www.wfp.org/newsroom/bene...lobal_hunger/global_hunge r-E-2003.pdf BTW, John Edwards was on MSNBC Friday morning discussing his involvement in: A National Goal: End Poverty Within 30 Years www.johnedwards.com/issues/pov erty/ Of course, we knows who pays.
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.
Perhaps you can point to the anti-gun provision in Obama's bill. I don't see 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.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA !! Good one O'ari. With World Communist (L.O.S.T.-NAU anyone?) pubbies like THAT...who needs World Communists RATS ? Funny how you point to the RINO-CFR members/types to say give it that 'bi'partisan flavor.
Lugar is CFR. I learned all I needed to know about him when I read in a Rothschild publication that Lugar was an intelligent right winger. I remember when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed one senator after another said that this bill would not become a quota system. And we have been unable to rid ourselves of affirmative action 44 years.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Lugar is CFR. I learned all I needed to know about him when I read in a Rothschild publication that Lugar was an intelligent right winger. I remember when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed one senator after another said that this bill would not become a quota system. And we have been unable to rid ourselves of affirmative action 44 years. Chuck Hagel sure is CFR. Olympia Snowe sure is CFR. Lugar...Top World Class quisling.
Really? Perhaps you can show me one gun control bill any of those four voted against.
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price." Vir Cotto, Babylon 5
You have to be ignorant or intellectually dishonest to support McHillObama, the CFR's Dream Team of bottom feeding puppets...no one on 4um can claim the former.
As is coming soon to Amerika, only the Police State class/UP will be assured of having their/families' needs met in the artificially-induced chaos and misery that's been charted for US...
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. A bump and a TY for another great thread...
Hagel scores A by NRA on pro-gun rights policies. You can read about Hagel's record on gun bills here: Chuck Hagel on Gun Control. That record includes: Stands to reason for a Republican senator from Nebraska.
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.
We've seen it all. It's disgusting. The only relief I get is by looking at the TOSses to see just how much more deep into the chaos they have fallen than 4. Pro-McCain commentary is akin to our pro-Obama commentary.
You think the NRA has credibility as a pro-gun organization? You're a sad, sad excuse for a liberty activist.
We HAVE NO CHOICE but to politically oppose every one of these candidates. I don't recall ever having 3 (THREE) such CFR-One World Monopolists selections as this...people right here on this 4um are moles working to these ends right in front of our eyes.
If you bothered to read the NRA site you so much dislike, perhaps you would see that it provides an answer to your question.
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.
They're just weak-minded. This is the result of the demoralization that Bezmenov talks about in the video I just posted. It's plain to see. These people live in kaleidescope world of self-made morals, artificial rules of physics, and twisted treatment of human language -- letting words mean whatever they want.
Of course, if some other gun organization of which you approve has also rated Hagel, nothing is preventing you from giving the rest of us a link to such a rating.
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.
Thank all that is good for Christine and 4um...I say. Anything pro-CFR puppet is anti-American.
I could care less about these ratings. The important thing here is that you're stumping for a gun control proponent. We won't be distracted by that. You condone gun control by doing so. It's very clear.
Yes. And some are very STRONG minded, working tirelessly their whole lives for a moment like this...an opening where under cover of "You're a racist!" they can pass off their most despicable creatures yet. They are Global-Liberal Utopians...Progressives/Socialists/Communists that love such things as the United luciferian Nations and utterly hate what made America great...especially God, they really hate Him.
It's not strong minded to be a useful idiot.
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.
You can read about Hagel's record on gun bills here: Chuck Hagel on Gun Control. That record includes: Stands to reason for a Republican senator from Nebraska. Nebraska is slipping into the stew quickly now but still there are enough patriots there that when push comes to shove they will kick your ass to the curb if you mess with the 'basics'...Hagel's certainly no dummy. A bright and strongly deluded quisling, yes. Dummy, no.
O-K !! lolol Some of these ARE long term lefty activists/moles here on 4um...
"Hi, I'm Chuckie The Cheese Baldwhine and FOH sucks my rod as well as my little son Timothy did when he was teething as a baby. I let this studmuffin sport my picture in his posts to show my gratitude and thanks because of this dedication by head bobbing he has done so many times for me." I am Chuckie the Cheeze Baldwhine and I approved this message.
Now what does that mean? Could mean anything, they don't specify. The North American regional disarmament has been well underway for some time...
Gun control is pretty much 95% effective now. Next it's word control. What will Chuck Hegel do with Senate Bill 1959?
Keep up the good work, O'turd. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you and what remains of your credibility on the Internet goes up in smoke... They reveal their inspirations with the filth they spew.
H.R. 1955...Senate version? Why, of course it is. You wascally 'domestic terrorist' you...
Another Jewish Protection Racket.
They've been pretty well outed on 4um now though...it won't be long.
The quisling class has covered every single base possible on the way to finishing US off with North American (EU-like) integration...you will like it, shut up or be dealt with. It's the LAW !
Most of these 4 leftists were supporting Ron Paul because they thought he would be friendly to same-sex marriage and illegal immigration.
Of course you like it, you like it a lot in fact. If you're an American, you're a traitor of the highest odor. But then we knew that already, didn't we O'ari...?
Comments (84 - 195) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTo 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, .....
#44. To: Dakmar (#40)
#45. To: aristeides (#44)
#46. To: aristeides (#44)
Is the title of the article about disarming Americans, or is it not?
#47. To: aristeides (#9)
If it were so controversial, do you think Lugar would have signed on as a cosponsor?
#48. To: aristeides (#28)
Your title says the bill is to "disarm Americans." I see nothing like that in the bill.
#49. To: Dakmar (#32)
#50. To: aristeides, Jethro Tull, christine (#28)
Your title says the bill is to "disarm Americans." I see nothing like that in the bill.
#51. To: HOUNDDAWG (#50)
#52. To: aristeides (#9)
(Edited)
S. 2433 (whose 15 cosponsors include 4 Republicans, Lugar, Smith, Snowe, and Hagel)
#53. To: aristeides (#9)
Lugar, Smith, Snowe, and Hagel
#54. To: Horse (#53)
Lugar, Smith, Snowe, and Hagel
#55. To: aristeides (#28)
And the fact that it has 4 Republican cosponsors confirms that there's nothing like that in it.
#56. To: PSUSA (#12)
Obama supporters are insane. So are Klintons and McNuts supporters.
#57. To: Peppa, Jethro Tull (#14)
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.
#58. To: christine (#23)
(whose 15 cosponsors include 4 Republicans, Lugar, Smith, Snowe, and Hagel)
#59. To: orangedog (#55)
(Edited)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record.
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
#60. To: FOH, christine (#56)
You have to be ignorant or intellectually dishonest to support McHillObama, the CFR's Dream Team of bottom feeding puppets...no one on 4um can claim the former.
#61. To: aristeides (#59)
#62. To: buckeye (#31)
This is Obama, unvarnished. If anyone thinks McCain or Clinton would not support these "goals," think again.
#63. To: buckeye (#61)
Perhaps you can show me one gun control bill any of those four voted against.
#64. To: FOH (#62)
#65. To: buckeye (#61)
#66. To: buckeye, christine, JamesDeffenbach, TwentyTwelve, Peppa (#60)
We've seen it all. It's disgusting. The only relief I get is by looking at the TOSses to see just how much more deep into the chaos they have fallen than 4. Pro-McCain commentary is akin to our pro-Obama commentary.
#67. To: aristeides (#65)
Of course, if some other gun organization of which you approve has also rated Hagel, nothing is preventing you from giving the rest of us a link to such a rating.
#68. To: buckeye (#64)
They're just weak-minded. This is the result of the demoralization that Bezmenov talks about in the video I just posted. It's plain to see. These people live in kaleidescope world of self-made morals, artificial rules of physics, and twisted treatment of human language -- letting words mean whatever they want.
#69. To: FOH (#68)
#70. To: aristeides (#51)
Perhaps you can point to the anti-gun provision in Obama's bill. I don't see it.
#71. To: aristeides (#59)
Hagel scores A by NRA on pro-gun rights policies.
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
#72. To: buckeye (#69)
It's not strong minded to be a useful idiot.
#73. To: FOH (#66)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#74. To: Dakmar (#32)
supporting regional disarmament measures
#75. To: FOH (#71)
#76. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
#77. To: FOH (#76)
#78. To: buckeye (#75)
Senate Bill 1959?
#79. To: FOH (#78)
#80. To: buckeye (#77)
They reveal their inspirations with the filth they spew.
#81. To: buckeye (#79)
#82. To: FOH (#81)
#83. To: aristeides (#37)
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.
.
.
.