Obama Sponsors Plan to Ship Billions Overseas Following U.N. Protocols!

[NL7W]

Is this a first sponsorship by Obama? In the U.S. Senate, it just might be. And, it's a humdinger...

Barak wants to send upwards to 1 Trillion Dollars overseas, laying the burden squarely on U.S. taxpayers.

An excerpt from the article:

"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.

"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment."

Reference: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405


I personally think he should concentrate his efforts in-country. Taking care of those he may some day preside over, if he's elected. This bill is pure crapola from the get go, yet takes on an additional activated, yet brown, warmish stink with it's U.N. tailings attached. God forbid we do anything without the U.N.'s approval!

Best of Luck getting this passed, Obama.

[KB1PRQ]

Is it time for the 2nd American Revolution yet?

[NL7W]

Is it time for the 2nd American Revolution yet?

Not hardly.

[KB1PRQ]

Too bad :(

[KB1KIX]

It will only get worse.

Think about it, all the whining about the lending "crisis" and then give money away.

Seems like a great idea to me......not!

Middle income taxes will go through the roof.

Like listening to B. Hussein Obama and Chelsea's momma whine about oil company profits when the government (state and local)make six times as much in taxes compared to the oil company.

Jonathan

[W3MIV]

Is this a first sponsorship by Obama? In the U.S. Senate, it just might be. And, it's a humdinger...

Barak wants to send upwards to 1 Trillion Dollars overseas, laying the burden squarely on U.S. taxpayers.

An excerpt from the article:

"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.

"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment."

Reference: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405


I personally think he should concentrate his efforts in-country. Taking care of those he may some day preside over, if he's elected. This bill is pure crapola from the get go, yet takes on an additional activated, yet brown, warmish stink with it's U.N. tailings attached. God forbid we do anything without the U.N.'s approval!

Best of Luck getting this passed, Obama.


My goodness, such a ventilation of venomous nonsense. Kincaid is a muckraker of very dubious credentials. That said, the legislation being proposed has great merit, though I agree such a program would fail of passage. The tiny brains in the Congress could not easily see past the probable loss of earmarks or the lobbying and incumbent-fostered privileges of working the defensive contractors who cast about for elevated DOD budgets.

In terms of real cost, the proposed investment represents a fraction of the amount we spend seeking to fend off attacks, many of which have their genesis in the lands where daunting poverty and absence of education create the ideal environments in which hopelessness blossoms as fanaticism.

Big problems demand big solutions. Obama, at least, is stepping up to the bar in new and thought-provoking ways that rise above the bomb-and-bullet school of foreign policy.

[n0ov]

Horse hockey. It is hard to justify this type of spend with the amount of problems that exist in our own country, including boarder control and enforcement issues.

Giving up American Rights to appease the UN is also NOT something that is good for this nation, no matter how you cut it. Too many men and woman have died to give us and ensure we can keep these rights to have a congressman just give them a way.

I believe Obama is a decent man who is trying to do what is right. However, this is an example of legislation where someone has not thought out the long-term cause and effects.

You don't have to throw out the baby to get rid of all the bad bath water............

[N3RQ]

The tiny brains in the Congress could not easily see past the probable loss of earmarks or the lobbying and incumbent-fostered privileges of working the defensive contractors who cast about for elevated DOD budgets.


Now, you wouldn't be talking about Babs Mikulski? :)

[N3ATS]

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.

One world government, here we come! All the more reason to keep your guns.

[KB1KIX]

http://liveu-98.vo.llnwd.net/livevideo/image/24/23224/152198_pm.jpg

[W3MIV]

While I do genuinely appreciate this very fine display of neoconservative fidelity to the ideals of humanity, I would remind all of you boys and girls that legislation of this type is hardly ever proposed with a view to being actually passed and signed into law. It is a "puff piece," a statement that is evocative of a policy position.

Though it suffuses your eyes with blood and brings a spray of spittle to your imprecations, it utterly fails to draw any responses of merit or valid ideas in opposition to the thesis that it would be far better, and far more economical in the long term, to seek to fund an elevation in the living and educational standards of the sullen downtrodden than to simply continue to try to eradicate them with costly and marginally effective weaponry.

It is telling, indeed, it speaks loudly and eloquently to the paucity of your assembled arguments against this thesis that none of you can post anything more revealing than puerile jibes and shallow cartoons.

Your polemics reveal glaringly why you will lose come November. If you have nothing more than this to offer, you will lose widely.

[K8YZK]

Is it time for the 2nd American Revolution yet?

YES, I think it is

[n0ov]

While I do genuinely appreciate this very fine display of neoconservative fidelity to the ideals of humanity, I would remind all of you boys and girls that legislation of this type is hardly ever proposed with a view to being actually passed and signed into law. It is a "puff piece," a statement that is evocative of a policy position.

Though it suffuses your eyes with blood and brings a spray of spittle to your imprecations, it utterly fails to draw any responses of merit or valid ideas in opposition to the thesis that it would be far better, and far more economical in the long term, to seek to fund an elevation in the living and educational standards of the sullen downtrodden than to simply continue to try to eradicate them with costly and marginally effective weaponry.

It is telling, indeed, it speaks loudly and eloquently to the paucity of your assembled arguments against this thesis that none of you can post anything more revealing than puerile jibes and shallow cartoons.

Your polemics reveal glaringly why you will lose come November. If you have nothing more than this to offer, you will lose widely.

What's the short version Albert?

[W3MIV]

What's the short version Albert?

You're full of beans.

[N3ATS]

While I do genuinely appreciate this very fine display of neoconservative fidelity to the ideals of humanity, I would remind all of you boys and girls that legislation of this type is hardly ever proposed with a view to being actually passed and signed into law. It is a "puff piece," a statement that is evocative of a policy position.

Though it suffuses your eyes with blood and brings a spray of spittle to your imprecations, it utterly fails to draw any responses of merit or valid ideas in opposition to the thesis that it would be far better, and far more economical in the long term, to seek to fund an elevation in the living and educational standards of the sullen downtrodden than to simply continue to try to eradicate them with costly and marginally effective weaponry.

It is telling, indeed, it speaks loudly and eloquently to the paucity of your assembled arguments against this thesis that none of you can post anything more revealing than puerile jibes and shallow cartoons.

Your polemics reveal glaringly why you will lose come November. If you have nothing more than this to offer, you will lose widely.

Pass or not, the fact that an "American" would even give this crap a second thought is disheartening. Spin it any way you want but your boy is a Socialist to the bone.

[W3MIV]

Pass or not, the fact that an "American" would even give this crap a second thought is disheartening. Spin it any way you want but your boy is a Socialist to the bone.

You wouldn't recognize a "socialist" if it jumped out of the bushes and bit you on the butt.

[AE6IP]

I went and did something considered in poor form on the zed.

I read the actual bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1302rfs.txt.pdf).

H.R. 1302 originated in the house, has been passed by the house, and is now in the senate. It contains none of the nonsense attributed to it and is aimed at using economics to counter terrorism, by helping to alleviate poverty.

Senate 2433 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2433:) is the wording of the Senate's version, cosponsored by Obama and 10 others.

If you are one of the people here opposing the bill based entirely on the rhetoric from the article, or just the opening post of this thread, please do the country a favor and don't vote in November. The electoral system requires an informed electorate to work properly and you have just demonstrated that you are not interested in becoming informed.

[N3ATS]

The above coming from an Obama supporter. :D HA!

[n2ize]

The above coming from an Obama supporter. :D HA!

And did you READ the bill as he did and as i did ? It's not a hard read. And in plain English it contains none of the nonsense posted by 7W.

[AE6IP]

The above coming from an Obama supporter. :D HA!

Unlike yourself, I've done my research. My guess may be wrong, but when I vote, it will be an informed vote.

But by all means, make this about me, rather than about the sort of ignorance rampant in this country that leads people to believe the nonsense in the article.

By the way, did you read either of the links I posted?

I didn't think so.

[NL7W]

And did you READ the bill as he did and as i did ? It's not a hard read. And in plain English it contains none of the nonsense posted by 7W.

Post the bill here, Johnny! Highlight the sections you contend.

Will you do that?

73.

[NL7W]

I went and did something considered in poor form on the zed.

I read the actual bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1302rfs.txt.pdf).

H.R. 1302 originated in the house, has been passed by the house, and is now in the senate. It contains none of the nonsense attributed to it and is aimed at using economics to counter terrorism, by helping to alleviate poverty.

Senate 2433 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2433:) is the wording of the Senate's version, cosponsored by Obama and 10 others.

If you are one of the people here opposing the bill based entirely on the rhetoric from the article, or just the opening post of this thread, please do the country a favor and don't vote in November. The electoral system requires an informed electorate to work properly and you have just demonstrated that you are not interested in becoming informed.

So, do you believe the United States will administer the direction of hard earned funds, or do you believe the money will be transferred to the United Nations? Which is it?

Do you believe this roughly 1% of our GDP will not support this project's "other goals" at the UN?

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/images/mdgs_01.gif

Or not?

Yes, I ask each of you to read and decide for yourself where such vast sums of American wealth will end up. In the pockets of U.N. bastards' pet projects, pockets, and corrupt dictators' grubby hands, or that of the people it is intended for.

Make up your own mind...

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf

[AE6IP]

So, do you believe the United States will administer the direction of hard earned funds, or do you believe the money will be transferred to the United Nations? Which is it?

There's no money in the bill.

Do you believe this roughly 1% of our GDP will not support this project's "other goals" at the UN?

There's no money in the bill.

Have you read the bill yourself?

[nx6d]

There's no money in the bill.



There's no money in the bill.

Have you read the bill yourself?

Of course he hasn't.

This is typical of Frozen Steve and his band of "conservative" crazies outside of QRZ. Tell the big lie, get the rabble stirred up and then try to change the subject.

Which radio host turned you on to this spin, Frozen Steve?

[N2RJ]

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.

Awesome.

I'm sure this burns you.

And because of that, it's something I'd support.

[KI4BNC]

So, do you believe the United States will administer the direction of hard earned funds, or do you believe the money will be transferred to the United Nations? Which is it?

Do you believe this roughly 1% of our GDP will not support this project's "other goals" at the UN?

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/images/mdgs_01.gif

Or not?

Yes, I ask each of you to read and decide for yourself where such vast sums of American wealth will end up. In the pockets of U.N. bastards' pet projects, pockets, and corrupt dictators' grubby hands, or that of the people it is intended for.

Make up your own mind...

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf
II. Peace, security and disarmament :
• To ensure the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as
arms control and disarmament and of international humanitarian law and
human rights law, and call upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.2
• To take concerted action against international terrorism, and to accede as soon
as possible to all the relevant international conventions.

• 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.

that is from one link.
I know I will be informed when I vote.

[N4PRT]

Is it a full moon or something?

[NL7W]

There's no money in the bill.



There's no money in the bill.

Have you read the bill yourself?

Good point! Let's have this "money" discussion now...

My quote from the article referenced, made mention of ESTIMATES and CONFIRMATIONS, such as, "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," and "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." I do not dispute these figures. They are plastered ALL OVER the Internet.

If we delve further, let's look at this "Millennium Project" and what it has merged into, the UN Development Program (UNDP). Even up till now, the UNDP's dreadful mismanagement is astounding. It reminds me of the Oil for Food Scandal that eventually went all the way up to Kofi Annan's family itself.

There a great article picking apart this UNDP here. (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp122606.html) With SEVERAL articles addressing the mismanagement and lack of openness within this U.N. organization (UNDP).

Now, tell me you want OUR percentage of GDP going there? Good God, man! Are you that blind as to NOT acknowledge the dreadful mismanagement of the U.N. and the UNDP in general?

References:

UNDP's Dervis Backtracks on Transparency, Promises Accounting of Funds, Denies Role in Uganda Abuse (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp122106.html)
At Kofi Annan's Farewell, UNDP Transparency is Raised, and Brian Gleeson Steps Up (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp121906.html)
UNDP Will Be Called to Greater Transparency, Says President of Spain, on UNDP's Board, and Flaws of UNOPS (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp121806.html)
At UNDP, Flighty Rhetoric Founders in Mismanagement, MMB's Net, a Genocidaire and Whither ECOSOC (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp121306.html)
In UNDP's Book, Strong's Scandals Are Missing, While Workers Complain, MMB Schmoozes the Korean Mission (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp121406.html)
In UNDP, Questions of Money Wasted, Neutrality Trampled, Russian Office Audits Withheld and Sachs Expenses (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp120606.html)
UNDP Is Important For The Poor, and Therefore Must Be Made Transparent (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp121106.html)
Retaliation Found at UNDP, While Dervis Is Focused on Turkey, In Two Weeks Will Take Questions (http://www.innercitypress.com/retal120506.html)
In UNDP, Drunken Mis-Managers on the Make Praised and Protected, Meet UNDP's Kalman Mizsei (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp113006.html)
From Violent Disarmament in Uganda to the National Bank of Serbia, UNDP Leaves Others to Answer for It (http://www.innercitypress.com/unhq113006.html)
UNDP Sources Say Dervis Fires Malloch Brown-linked Officials, Then Offers Hush-Up Jobs (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp112906.html)
UNDP Dodges Questions of Disarmament Abuse in Uganda and of Loss of Togo AIDS Grant, Dhaka Snafu (http://www.innercitypress.com/undp112406.html)

and...

Should Jeffrey Sachs get $150 billion per year? (http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001933.html)

I will NEVER support the U.N. and Jeff Sachs. It is ineffectual. It is outrageously and grossly mismanaged. It lacks transparency. Geesh, it's worse than the federal government; it is the ultimate boondoggle.

73.



....Africa will not prosper until corruption is checked and governance improves. And that task is first and foremost the responsibility of African countries and people.

[AE6IP]

Good point! Let's have this "money" discussion now...

There's no money in the bill.

My quote from the article referenced, made mention of ESTIMATES and CONFIRMATIONS, such as, "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," and "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." I do not dispute these figures. They are plastered ALL OVER the Internet.

"ESTIMATES" here means: numbers made up by people who've neither read nor analyzed the bill.

There is no call in the bill to fund any new program.

Your sources are making stuff up. Nothing they're claiming is in the bill.

None of this "Millennium Project" stuff is in the bill. The UN cannot "force" the US to spend money -- The UN cannot even manage to collect the US's back dues.

This stuff you're spouting is just more bizarre conspiracy theory nonsense.

I have posted links to the text of the bill -- which is less than one page in length and written in plain language. Read the text and show me where it funds any of the nonsense you claim it funds.

You can't, because it doesn't.

[KD6NIG]

Don't we already send billions of dollars to other countries (called "AID") already?

Just sounds to me like a different term for it.

I personally am of the belief that we should help our sick, our hungry, our people in need first before we help anyone else. Not that we should be inhumane, but if we're going to feed the hungry in other countries that choose not to for whatever reason (many times its because the govt of those countries just spends the money themselves) I'd feel much better about it knowing we're doing as much as possible here first.

Not that I don't think we should help others, but we need to help ourselves first.

If we're going to go into debt, lets go into debt for the good of our citizens first, and let other countries step up and be responsible for the people they represent also. I'm not saying every country with hungry people or in need of aid fleeces their citizens, but they should be held accountable, not supported by us instead.

[W3MIV]

A very decisive and emphatic post, this. :rolleyes:

Don't we already send billions of dollars to other countries (called "AID") already?

Just sounds to me like a different term for it.

I personally am of the belief that we should help our sick, our hungry, our people in need first before we help anyone else. Not that we should be inhumane, but if we're going to feed the hungry in other countries that choose not to for whatever reason (many times its because the govt of those countries just spends the money themselves) I'd feel much better about it knowing we're doing as much as possible here first.

Not that I don't think we should help others, but we need to help ourselves first.

If we're going to go into debt, lets go into debt for the good of our citizens first, and let other countries step up and be responsible for the people they represent also. I'm not saying every country with hungry people or in need of aid fleeces their citizens, but they should be held accountable, not supported by us instead.

[K0RGR]

Don't we already send billions of dollars to other countries (called "AID") already?

Just sounds to me like a different term for it.

I personally am of the belief that we should help our sick, our hungry, our people in need first before we help anyone else. Not that we should be inhumane, but if we're going to feed the hungry in other countries that choose not to for whatever reason (many times its because the govt of those countries just spends the money themselves) I'd feel much better about it knowing we're doing as much as possible here first.

Not that I don't think we should help others, but we need to help ourselves first.

If we're going to go into debt, lets go into debt for the good of our citizens first, and let other countries step up and be responsible for the people they represent also. I'm not saying every country with hungry people or in need of aid fleeces their citizens, but they should be held accountable, not supported by us instead.

Unfortunately, we're already deeply in debt, and going about a $billion deeper each and every day, in order to blow away those poor foreigners, a few at a time.

I remember well a column in the San Fracisco Chronicle by their resident political satirist, who calculated that it would cost far less money if we just dropped bales of $1 bills out of airplanes and tried to smash the enemy with them. Those bales that missed and did not kill an enemy would spill open, making the enemy suddenly rich, which would make them much less likely to want to be our enemy.

The other problem we have here is that those "countries" your talking about exist mostly on paper.