The bill would require our president "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 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."

The bill would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts above what we already contribute around the globe.

NOTE:
This figure of 0.7% was codifed in a United Nations General Assembly Resolution and states:




But the real frightening part of the bill is its "Millennium Development Goal" which is also mentioned in a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly and Summit in 2000 that called for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution (of) wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" i.e. from each [meaning the U.S. Taxpayer] according to their means, to each [meaning the rest of the world] according to their needs.

Keep in mind this is Obama’s plan, and it would enslave the American Taxpayer to third world nations, and it is also supported by his running mate Biden! Do we really want these World Class Marxists in charge of our government?



WAKE UP AMERICA! This is not the change we want.

JWK



If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation on American soil and send its wealth abroad.

Better than the republican plan, concentrate all wealth in the top 1 percent. Be calm. I doubt you are in the 1 percent based on your idiotic scare mongering rhetoric.

Certainly no Obama supporter here, but where does the $845 bill. figure come from? According to CBO, it's only $1 mill/yr
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9082/s2433.pdf

The foreign aid we give is less than 1% of our federal budget (and this includes economic assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan). LINK, see page 19 & 22
Way too low, IMO, but I'm not an isolationist...I'm for aggressive foreign policy. Failed states are usually poor states. And failed states are dangerous to global security.

SEE:

Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor




JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation on American soil and send its wealth abroad.

Do you really consider World Net Daily a valid source of information? Read the bill, there's absolutely nothing in it concerning a global tax.

Look, Obama's bad enough as is, as he has already admitted he wants to raise both corporate and individual taxes, there's no need to embellish facts. Chris Kincaid is an avowed critic of not only the UN, but also USAID and other US-based foreign assistance organizations. Sorry, Chris, but some problems require international cooperation. I'd rather see Africa get assistance from us so they won't turn into terrorist havens...which is what's happening right now in some African nations.

0.7% - that's not nearly enough for foreign aid.

I posted a link to the bill. You read it.

In addition see: Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote





JWK

Obama fine with new tax - UN taxing the United States!

For those who do not believe Obama is working to allow the United Nations to impose a 0.7 percent tax upon the gross national product of the United States, here are the facts.


Under Obama’s bill, the president is required to devise a "comprehensive strategy" to meet 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.


The ultimate aim of the Millennium Development project is to have the American Taxpayers submit to the United Nations imposing a tax upon them amounting to 0.7 percent of the GNP of the United States. In one report a UN panel asserts that membership on the UN Security Council “be required to fulfill international commitments to official development assistance, including the 0.7 target” which is to be imposed upon “rich-countries”


Obama’s bill is designed to legislatively require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to “achievement of the Millennium Development Goal ” which includes the 0.7 targeted tax upon the GNP of the United States!


But I guess these pesky little facts mean nothing to those who are very much in favor of enslaving the American People to a United Nations goal of imposing a 0.7 percent tax upon America’s GNP


Bottome line is, Obama is working to enslave the American people to a United Nations tax!


What I don’t understand about Obama is, we have children living in Harlem who go to bed hungry at night and Obama wants to allow the UN to tax hardworking fathers living in Harlem, who can barely meet their own economic needs, and then have the U.N. redistribute their paychecks to poor countries, as opposed to the “rich-countries” [meaning the United States] which Obama agrees ought to be taxed by the U.N.


Question is, will McCain ask Obama why he wants to commit the American People to a new tax --- a UN tax of 0.7 percent of America‘s GNP?.


Why has our establishment big media [NBC, CBS, ABC CNN, MSNBC , The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., ] not reported on Obama’s plan to commit the American People to a new tax --- a United Nation’s tax of 0.7 percent of America’s GNP?


JWK



``Change`` we can believe in if Obama is elected ---- tax our dollars and leave us with change.

Looks like we need to coordinate our posts. See September 11 here.

I agree with your post! And now, the question is Why has our establishment big media [NBC, CBS, ABC CNN, MSNBC , The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., ] not reported on Obama’s plan to commit the American People to a new tax --- a United Nation’s tax of 0.7 percent of America’s GNP?

Thank God that we have the opportunity to meet on the internet and discuss the plans which Obama has for our country should he become the President of the United States. Keep in mind Obama attempted to silence a talk show on WGN two times! See: WGN-AM again target of Obama Campaign Do we really want a president who intentionally attempts to silence those who may want to publicly express their disagreements with the president?

Regards,

JWK


``Change`` we can believe in if Obama is elected ---- tax our dollars and leave us with change.

I agree about the internet. Thank God!

His followers, in their glee to get a Democrat of any persuasion elected, either have not taken the time to be educated about his socialistic purposes, or agree with him. On both points, they are wrong.
Sad.

Obama`s $845 BILLION Global Poverty scam!



Look what I just found!


Obama's Plan To Spend Billions Overseas

NRO: Democrat Rails At Billions Spent In War But Supports Bill That Would Mandate Billions More In Foreign Aid Each Year

Sept. 19, 2008

(National Review Online) This column was written by Andrew C. McCarthy.





Sarah, please ask Biden about his United Nations 0.7 % tax on the GNP of the U.S.!


JWK

``Change`` we can believe in if Obama is elected ---- tax our dollars and leave us with change.

Here, let me help. I'll post the whole story for those that may want to ignore it.

Obama's Plan To Spend Billions Overseas
NRO: Democrat Rails At Billions Spent In War But Supports Bill That Would Mandate Billions More In Foreign Aid Each Year

Sept. 19, 2008

(National Review Online) This column was written by Andrew C. McCarthy.

What happens when Democrats get their wires crossed?

What happens when drivel like “Change you can believe in” collides with such malarkey as “our commitment to the Rule of Law”?

Fraud happens. The etymology, by the way, traces to the Latin word fraus - which the Obama campaign might bear in mind if it’s planning to whip up any more of those mock presidential seals.

Or, for that matter, mock presidential addresses. Sen. Barack Obama has just bestowed another of these upon us: a two-minute political ad on a Wall Street upheaval so sudden the campaign didn’t have time to dust off the seal or the Greek columns.

Explaining “what I believe we need to do,” the Anointed One decreed the need for “a responsible end to this war in Iraq so we stop spending billions each month rebuilding their country when we should be rebuilding ours.”

Where to begin with such a whopper? Let’s start with the felony, since it leads seamlessly to the fraud.

Thanks to reporting from Amir Taheri, the gist of which the Obama campaign has confirmed, we now know that while Obama is telling the American people he wants an end to the war, he has secretly negotiated with the government in Iraq to extend the U.S. military mission there. That is a black-and-white violation of federal criminal law.

Very simply, in our system the president is responsible for conducting foreign policy. President Bush is thus negotiating with the Iraqi government for a “status of forces” agreement that would clarify the rights and responsibilities of U.S. forces in Iraq after the current U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year.

Yet, during Obama’s heralded trip to Baghdad in July, he asked Iraqi leaders to ignore Bush and delay resolving the legal status of our forces until next year - by which time the Senator hopes no longer to need a phony presidential seal.

Under the “Logan Act” (now codified at Section 953 of the federal penal code) it has been against the law since the late 18th century for U.S. citizens to carry on “intercourse with any foreign government” that is aimed either “to defeat the measures of the United States” or to influence the foreign government’s dealings with the United States. Being a senator is no immunity from this statute - as any Republican senator would find out in a hurry if he dared to pull a stunt like this during an Obama administration.

Naturally, the Waxmans, Conyers, Leahys, law-professor legions, and Democrats everywhere who’ve harangued us for eight years about “the rule of law” have fallen silent. No one is issuing subpoenas, talking about special prosecutors, or holding top Obama advisers in contempt until they tell us “what did you know and when did you know it.”

That’s fine. The episode is a welcome reminder of what we learned in the Clinton years: When these folks say “no one is above the law” they really mean “no Republican is above the law.” If a Democrat president, or mock president, decides to violate statutes, order national-security searches without warrant, kidnap uncharged suspects for extraordinary rendition to countries that practice torture, detain captives indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, and launch attacks without congressional or U.N. approval - all and more of which were staples of Democrat governance in the nineties - it’s anything goes.

But more to the point, Barack’s Baghdad Bonanza surfaces his seamy, Tony Rezko side. If successful, these secret negotiations with the Maliki government would add months to the U.S. military mission in Iraq.

Let’s put aside that Obama’s tactic makes cynical use of our troops in harm’s way, placing them in legal limbo while the resolution of their status is delayed. Obama’s sleight of hand further promises to cost American taxpayers untold billions of additional dollars - and for no better reason than allowing him, rather than Bush, to claim credit for success in a war Obama tried his damndest to have us lose.

And all this at a time when Obama’s latest audacity consists of looking Americans in the eye and decrying the billions spent each month rebuilding a foreign country. Those billions, he now says, should be kept at home for “rebuilding” our own country.

Nice try. The Candidate of Hope is hoping that while he caterwauls about our lost billions, you won’t notice that he has already proposed the most jaw-dropping transfer of wealth in American history: taking nearly a trillion dollars out of the pockets of American taxpayers and doling it out to the world’s worst regimes through its most corrupt intermediary, the U.N.

The scam is better known as Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Sen. Joe Biden, his trusty running-mate, recently tried to slam it through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - the better to address the rarely discussed fact that Obama, having achieved nothing noteworthy as an Illinois state senator, is similarly without accomplishment after three years in the Senate.

The GPA is a monstrosity. Thanks to Obama’s praetorian guards in the mainstream media, it is a better kept secret than most covert intelligence programs. But Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid has been digging (see here). If the GPA became law, the United States would be required to fork up for foreign aid 0.7 percent of its gross national product through 2015. That is, Obama would skyrocket U.S. largesse from its current annual level of about $21 billion (the world’s most generous) to - you’ll want to be sitting down for this - $85 billion per year.

This week’s new and improved “let’s take care of Americans first” Obama is a fraud. The real Obama is post-sovereign, transnational progressivism personified. His 0.7 percent figure comes straight out of a 1970 U.N. General Assembly resolution, and the 2015 deadline was dreamed up by a gaggle of international community organizers at the U.N.’s “Millennium Summit” in 2000.

Are you worried about the $85 billion AIG bailout? Well just imagine doing it once a year for about a decade … except with no return on your investment and with the U.N. (the people who gave us “Oil for Food”) doing what passes for the oversight - i.e., presiding over the transfer of American dollars to the very freedom-hating despots who have kept the third world poor in the first place.

The price tag by 2015 for Obama’s international trough is estimated at about $845 billion. And that, you can be sure, is just the start. Harvard’s Jeffrey Sachs, who advises the U.N., anticipates that the funds needed “to put real resources in support of our hopes” would be raised by “a global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.” With a Democrat Congress at his back, a President Obama would surely repeal the Bush tax cuts for Americans, but does anyone see him repealing the global tax on Americans? Dream on.

Obama is all for taking billions out of our pockets to give it to the world. He is only against taking billions out of our pockets to give it to Iraq. There, after all, it stands to promote American national interests and military success - which Obama and Democrats have worked to undermine in both the halls of Congress and, we now learn, the Green Zone.

Back before he perceived the expedience of costuming himself as sentry of the American pocketbook, a more forthright Obama justified his GPA proposal this way:

[T]his 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 corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere.

That’s the real Obama, the guy who decries corporate profits for Americans and thinks we elect a president to help the workers and small farmers of the globe.

Does he not know that the country he wants to lead is an investor society which thrives on corporate profits? That corporate profits allow Americans, both privately and through their government, to provide more foreign aid than any other people in the world?

Of course he knows it. Obama and his wife have made plenty of money in America. He’s not ignorant. He’s fraudulent.

Yea, this is the guy I want for President. If his lips are movin', he's lying.

This is scary stuff, especially if you’re Jewish.


Nation of Islam Leader Louis farrakhan calls Obama the messiah!


Also see Obama's Minister Honored Farrakhan

Monday, January 14, 2008 7:49 PM
By: Ronald Kessler



And let us not forget Barack Obama gets Fidel Castro's support

Do we really want to place the world’s most powerful military force in the hands of someone that was virtually unknown to the America People until two years ago when our socialist big media gave Barack Obama its full propaganda support?

JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation on American soil.

You notice, jwk, that no loyal supporters of the Socialist Obama have bothered to reply to any of your threads, including this one.

Wonder why? My guess is that they approve of his dishonest methods such as voter fraud, lying, dishonest tactics to dig up dirt on opponents to the point of ignoring legetimate outcomes (I could go on and on) much in the same way that the Germans approved of Hitler, but later complained innocently they didn't know what was going on despite the smell of human flesh for years in their back yard.

Complicit and willing dupes.

Yes, it is scary. They are like the men that hold down a woman while she is being raped by the rapist.

Hey john: After watching this video, how can you go against what John McCain has to say about Barack Obama? If you feel differently than John McCain does, than how can you still support him?

If you have something to say, then say it.

JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation on American soil.

You're my kinda guy, JWK.

According to John McCain, Barack Obama is a good decent man; you, however, have him as being corrupted. Do you agree with John McCain or what you are saying about Barack?


Really? What do you call what the people are doing now with Dubya's debt--wise investing?

No. McCain is trying to be conciliatory, much to his supporters' dismay. I don't guess you've seen the news clips where his supporters are asking and pleading for him to be more aggressive with Obama and his connections to terrorists? No, of course not.

You constantly find these obscure points on which to base your allegations.



CLUE: Dubya's not running for President.

And, if you'd been reading the posts I've made on WHO's created this mess, you'd be ashamed to continue to try to hange this albatross around Bush's neck. It was the Democrats, who were the major authors of this latest fiasco of a bailout. Trying to be bipartisan and trying to bailout the mess the Democrats have made, some Republicans grudgingly went along. I agree that Bush's decision to go along with the Dumocrats was disappointing, but I guess he thought he had no choice, as did many others. But, this is NOT a Bush problem. It's B. Franks, C. Dodd, Barry Obama, and all the Clinton associates that headed these programs.
See here

The MSM won't report on it, and unless you are on the Net or listen to certain talk radio programs, you'll not hear about it.

However, you will hear that McCain helped Bush cause the collapse of Fannie and Freddie.

And,

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administrationto expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Or, you could just go back and read my other posts on this subject.
You need to stay on top of the news, Grizz. Unless you just want to continue being a robot under Obama's control. Your choice. Sad.

Are you just a bot on someone's program that they periodically turn loose on the internet?

Than why in the world would those voters knowingly continue to vote for someone that they feel are not getting what they should from their hopeful, presidential candidate? Brain damage is a suspect here with those voters and yourself, perhaps? What happens if John McCain starts to get all mushy--concillatory?--toward Russia or North Korea, or Iran next? Don't worry. I'm sure if McCain becomes concilatory with those countries the whole matter will be obscure, huh.

True. But Phil Gramm has been reported to being his economic adviser, and that alone is enough to scare the sh*t out of me. Read on:

The Gramm Connection




And Paul Krugman got his source from Politico.



The article goes on to say that Phil never responded to an email about this while at UBS. Hm...wonder why?

Oh by the way--it's October 12, 2008 and I'm still waiting for your wit and wisdom on a question that I asked yesterday, something of which a third grader would have understood.

Come on, john w k. Be bold! Make those posts 150! Don't be frightened! Participate! Quit coming in here and making threads and then just disappear. Do you know what, john? Consider this: You joined in December 10, 2005 and have successfully made 149 posts as of the time that I am writing this; of those posts, 36 of them were threads you started, while the other 113 were pieces of actual involvement. Actual involvement with discussions, john.

And you have the audacity to inform me that if I have something to say than say it?!

Why don't you come out with another thread; that way you can continue feeling like the loquacious SOB that you believe your self to be, OK?