Posted on 01/01/2009 10:44:22 AM PST by shielagolden
That nitwit Odumbo will cede America’s sovereignty to the U.N.
Obama’s $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
‘Global Poverty Act’ to cost each citizen $2,500 or more
The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.
The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.
Barack Obama
S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.
WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop “and implement” a policy to “cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief” and other programs.
Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could “result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States” and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending “subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”
(Story continues below)
He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion “over and above what the U.S. already spends.”
The plan passed the House in 2007 “because most members didn’t realize what was in it,” Kincaid reported. “Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.”
A recent statement from Obama’s office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces,” Obama said. “It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.
“Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere,” he continued.
Another critic, however, has been commentator Glenn Beck, whose YouTube video critique can be seen here:
“Not one dime would go to fixing America,” the commentary said.
Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, “I’ll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease.”
Beck and Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety of treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.
Objections have remained strong. Duane Lester, writing at the All American blogger, warned that the U.S. has yet to be able to win its own war on poverty.
“On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” This “all-out war” would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?”
He continued, “Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor.”
Despite that performance, “Obama is ready to take the fight global,” said Lester.
“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,” he wrote.
Tom DeWeese at NewsWithViews said the plan “is very telling” about what Obama would do as president.
DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, warned the over-arching plan includes the ideals of consolidating all international agencies under the U.N., regulation by the U.N. of all corporate environmental issues, license fees charged by the U.N. to use air, water and natural resources, a restructuring that would give hand-picked non-governmental organizations huge influence, authorize a standing U.N. army and require registration of all arms
Supreme Court internationalists
By Joseph Farah
As if it weren’t bad enough that the U.S. Supreme Court majority pays little heed to the U.S. Constitution, now it is becoming clear five or six members of the court are being influenced by the constitutions and courts of foreign countries.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg blew the court’s cover in a speech to the American Constitution Society, explaining that her colleagues are looking beyond America’s borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and homosexual rights.
In a decision earlier this summer in a Texas case in which anti-sodomy laws were overruled, the justices first referred to the findings of foreign courts. Last year, the court said executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel, noting the practice was opposed internationally. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in June to uphold the use of race in college admissions.
In condescending language undermining the principle of American sovereignty, she said, “our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change.” Justices, she said, “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.”
Last month, Ginsburg, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Breyer discussed the death penalty and terrorism with French President Jacques Chirac during a European tour that included a conference on the European constitution. France outlawed the death penalty in 1981. Five members of the court attended the conference.
“While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world,” she told the group of judges, lawyers and students. “We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others.”
Ginsburg also tipped that the Internet is making it easier for the justices to keep up with the decisions of foreign courts.
Back in July, a New York Times story explained that extensive foreign travel has made both Anthony Kennedy and O’Connor “more alert” to how their peers on other constitutional courts see similar issues.
“Justices have always traveled, teaching or taking part in seminars,” the story said. “But these are trips with a difference.”
The story said Ginsburg, Breyer, O’Connor and Kennedy have held extensive sessions with judges in Europe. Kennedy, it said, has met with numerous Chinese judges – both in the United States and in China. O’Connor has been involved in the American Bar Association’s reform initiative in Eastern Europe.
“With emerging democracies groping toward the rule of law, with colleagues on the federal bench volunteering for constitution-writing duties in Iraq, it is not surprising that the justices have begun to see themselves as participants in a worldwide constitutional convention,” the New York Times story said ominously.
“Worldwide constitutional convention?” No thanks.
Justice Antonin Scalia has it just right: In his dissent on the Texas sodomy case, he wrote that the court should not “impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans.”
This is an extremely dangerous trend by these activist judges. Seemingly fresh out of any pretense of constitutional justification for their illogical and misguided decisions, now they are seeking justification in foreign constitutions and from foreign judges and attorneys. Comparing notes with foreigners might be a valid technique for legislators writing laws, but what insight do these folks have into the meaning, interpretation and intent of our own Constitution? What does any of this have to do with the rule of law here in America?
Our founders fought a long and bloody war for independence from Europe and the Old World so that we could govern ourselves in a revolutionary new way. If Ginsburg, O’Connor, Kennedy, Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter are so enamored of the laws in foreign countries, they always have the option of resigning their lifetime appointments and moving themselves to one of those judicial paradises.
Until they make that decision, I would advise them to spend more time talking to Americans and reading the U.S. Constitution.
Why did no one but ACCURACY IN THE MEDIA and possibly a few others report Obama’s global poverty bill ever, muchless during the campaign?
This is nothing more than the African Dictator European Villa Procurement Act.
Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. DODD, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. SNOWE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. SMITH, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
Millennium Development Goal
It wouldn't take 100 Million Americans to pull off a successful tax revolt, and besides, it would be almost impossible to get that many Americans to link arms in solidarity all at once.
No, 10 million Americans - just one tenth of your proposed number, would easily do the trick, and give the power of government back to the people.
10 million is also a reachable and realistic goal for such a project. It's possible to get the commitment of ten million individuals to simultaneously withhold all payments to the US Treasury, if the effort is broadly promoted.
10 million is also a number large enough to ensure each individual participant's safety from government reprisal.
In my opinion, it's our solution of last resort, short of armed rebellion.
“I was never much of a religious type, but I thank God everyday for the Church family we have found and have been brought into.”
Amen and Praise God, Jesus.
Obama probably looooooovesss NGOs.
.................Obama said. “It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. ..........................
OK Zer0! Just how much did you contribute to your half brother living in a cardboard hut in Kenya??
We’re listening.....
??Did you say Zero, Zer0??
We thought so, you POS!
debt relief? at a time when the USA is so far in debt we should be calling ALL loans to those that owe us! hmmm...ok, well fair is fair - I hereby proclaim that the USA is now debt-free in the spirit of erasing 'global poverty' !!
I saw Egore not long ago explaining to Hillary how a new payroll tax would force citizens to pay this carbon tax - she was eating it up.
4 later
This Goverment take from you and your FAMILY and give it to the world
You are most likely right. I would do it too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.