« RUSSIAN TROOPS INVADE GEORGIA! | Main | Alternative to Pelosi…Woo Hoo »
August 8, 2008
Obama Wants Global Tax & Control
The following information represents a cautionary warning and provides an excellent reason to just say NO to Barack Obama
Posted by Tina
“Obama Supports Global Tax From United Nations,” by Christine O'Donnell
“Obama Supports Global Tax From United Nations,” by Christine O'Donnell
His Global Poverty Act, currently under consideration in Congress, is just one such policy. Despite its seemingly innocuous title, the Global Poverty Act would force America to adopt the U.N.’s “Millennium Development Goals” as official U.S. policy. This means outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for allowing the U.N. to play the “middle man” in our global war on poverty would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product. That’s right. Barack Obama and his liberal allies such as Senator Biden have signed on to a bill that would allow the U.N. to tax America (and Americans) an estimated $845 billion over the next 13 years. Obama’s plan represents perhaps the greatest affront to our national sovereignty since the War of 1812.
The following WorldNetDaily article provides some Obama quotes on the subject:
“Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty”
"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. *** 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. (article includes links)
One website that favors and supports the legislation actually had the audacity to imply this bill would not cost Americans anything:
Does the Global Poverty Act cost money? ** No. The Global Poverty Act does not allocate any funding.
The Global Poverty Act may not “allocate” funding but the mandated goals that it calls for would only be possible with funding…taxes in one form or another would follow. Sneaky ba*tards trying to sell the public like slimey snake oil salesmen. They then went on to bad mouth talk show hosts for exposing this farce…typical.
Tom DeWeese at enterstageright.com wraps this up nicely:
“Barack Obama and the UN's drive for global governance,” by Tom DeWeese, enterstageright.com
The situation is urgent because the Global Poverty Act has already passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous voice vote on September 25, 2007. The senate version has been passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous consent and ready for a full Senate vote. ** Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. And the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its herd of programs. So what's new about Obama's bill, and why is it dangerous? ** Some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared to be a blueprint for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.
The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed "principles": Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN. ** Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an "international code of conduct" concerning the environment and labor standards. ** Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN - meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the "global commons," meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category. ** Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an "Assembly of the People" which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs "civil society"). Now, the UN says these NGO's will be the representatives of the "people" and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN. ** Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army. ** Principle Six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies "as part of a multinational global security system" under the authority of the UN. (follow the link for the final six) ** Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth's land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN's Commission on Global Governance.
A vote for Obama, coupled with complete control by democrats in Congress, is a vote to have the U.N. become your new governing authority…PLEASE, ignore Libby’s propensity to brush off concerns of this nature as trivial... and do vote wisely in November.
Posted by Post Scripts at August 8, 2008 9:35 PM
Comments
Thanks for your informative blog post!
Here is why I oppose Obama.
Obama SUPPORTS The US Paying a "Global Tax"
Obama OPPOSES Traditional Marriage
Obama SUPPORTS Partial-Birth Abortion
Obama OPPOSES Domestic Oil Production (or did he just flip to McCain's position on that?)
Obama SUPPORTS Doubling the Capital Gains Tax
It's ALL true...research it...or see for yourself at http://DiscoverObama.com
Posted by: Lisa | August 8, 2008 11:47 PM
Thanks Lisa...I hope you will continue to help keep us all informed!
"Obama SUPPORTS Partial-Birth Abortion"
He supports all abortion I believe. He actually said that having one of his girls be "punished" with a baby should she get pregnant out of wedlock was something he couldn't abide. If letting your child off the hook, rather than guiding her toward a responsible solution for the life she has created, is somehow an undeserved "punishment" I'll eat my hat. What a terrible role model for his child.
It's also indicative of a questionable decision making process. What responsibilities might he avoid when things get seriously uncomfortable?
Posted by: Tina | August 9, 2008 12:41 AM
You futile Conservatives better just get used to it. Obama WILL be the next President. With Obama as President and Congress controlled by the Democrats, all your fears of high taxes, global taxes for the poor, loss of national sovereignty, surrender to Muslim terrorists, paid abortions for everybody, open borders for undocumented aliens, gay marriage, legalized drugs, pornography, getting God out of the schools and everywhere else, incarceration of Karl Rove, George Bush, and Rush Limbaugh, will finally be realized. You've had your day. Now it is the Liberals' turn at bat.
Posted by: Dan | August 9, 2008 7:48 AM
Well that makes my day... think I'll just go jump off the bridge now.
Posted by: Jack | August 9, 2008 8:52 AM
Dan...thanks for the commercial.
Our readers are now better aquainted with the type of person who supports the Democrat Party and it's goals. That you make light of these things when the evidence comes not from my mouth but from the mouths of your party leaders is quite telling.
It isn't fear by the way...it's patriotic passion. I love freedom, I love the country that provides it, and I will fight to keep it for my posterity.
Posted by: Tina | August 9, 2008 9:34 AM
Take Obummer with you and use a high bridge.
Posted by: Mickey | August 9, 2008 10:44 AM
Mickey thats a mixed message or don't you like Jack who is a conservative?
Posted by: Fred Dred | August 9, 2008 2:53 PM
I just had a thought...Dan Said, "You've had your day. Now it is the Liberals' turn at bat."
politics by "turns"...same old "fairness" ploy, eh Dan?
Posted by: Tina | August 9, 2008 3:43 PM
Yes, Tina. You laugh now, but your time is coming. After Obama's glorious victory, Libby and I will be deputized by the New World Order, and we will frog-march you off to the gulag to get your mind straight.
Posted by: Dan | August 9, 2008 3:51 PM
Dan...you wouldn't be that same person I once accused of having his tongue firmly placed in his cheek are you? Cause you're having way too much fun with this!
If not...if you really are this "enamored" with Obama (and the leftist agenda) you may be in for quite a shock your own self if he wins.
I will continue in my passionate patriotic posting regardless the outcome of the election...unless of course I find myself in that gulog :-) But then, with Rush, Bush, and Rove as my cell mates I can't go wrong there either...good company!
Posted by: Tina | August 9, 2008 4:28 PM
Hey Tina. Whether I am the same ultra-consevative writing tongue-in-cheek or not is for you and your readers to decide. As a couple of hints, I will tell you that the gulag reference refers to the recently deceased author Alexander Soljenitsin, the Russian dissident who spent many years in one and later wrote a book called The Gulag Archipelago. As for getting your mind straight, that is a line from Cool Hand Luke, one of the best movies ever made.
As for Obama, yes, I seriously do think he will be the next president. Telling Americans not to vote for him is like telling your teenager not to smoke pot or have sex with strangers. They can only learn through direct personal experience, usually negative experience.
Posted by: Dan | August 9, 2008 5:38 PM
Hey Dan...as for me I kinda like the embellished style of your last offering...keep up the good work!
Alexander Soljenitsin...God bless him...RIP
"getting your mind straight"...I always got a kick out of the character actor that uttered those words...do you recall his name? How many eggs could you eat in...was it an hour?
Posted by: Tina | August 9, 2008 6:23 PM
Sure, the actor who uttered the line about getting your mind straight was Strother Martin, a very talented character actor playing the role of "Captain," who was the boss of the prison where Luke (Paul Newman) was sentenced for cutting the heads off parking meters. Luke defied all attempts to make him conform to the prison regulations and was eventually killed by The Man With No Eyes (he wore sunglasses), just after he mocked the Captain by repeating that same line. Dragline (George Kennedy) gave Luke the moniker Cool Hand Luke after Luke bluffed a poker hand with nothing in his hole cards. As Luke said, "Sometimes, nothing can be a real cool hand."
Posted by: Dan | August 9, 2008 7:16 PM
Tina: "I love freedom, I love the country that provides it, ..."
But when it comes to the freedom to choose abortion ... well ... No.
"... we will frog-march you off to the gulag to get your mind straight."
No, we won't. I promise. Unless, of course, you insist upon it ... and you do, repeatedly, insist upon it.
Posted by: Libby | August 11, 2008 11:16 AM
"But when it comes to the freedom to choose abortion ... well ... No."
Yes...asking that Roe v. Wade be overturned so that individual states can decide on this issue is sooooo radical and soooo unreasonable. How dare we ask "the people" to decide locally instead of having unelected (activist) men in black decide. What do the people know? Who cares about representative government when it comes to issues of murder.
I guess from your perspective we're not allowed to discuss the importance of having a reverence for life. We shouldn't concern ourselves with that part of the population that thinks life begins at conception. It shouldn't be a matter of serious discussion that we might be condoning murder. And we shouldn't concern ourselves with the rise in STD's and infertitlity that abortion and "free" lifestyles have encouraged. As long as women can do what they want and men are invited to indulge in free for all fashion...and please at this point don't give me one of those "rare" speeches...there's too much history.
Instead, we should just comply with the wishes of spoiled indulged women who have, in very large numbers, refused to be responsible for their "accidents" and the consequences of their choices. We should instead follow the advice of self-interested parents who don't wish to deal with the complications, embarrassment, and inconvenience of a teenage pregnancy in the family...like the demiocrat candidate for president who doesn't want to "punish" his girls with a baby...he called it a "BABY" for heavens sake...not a tissue mass!
Libby: "'...we will frog-march you off to the gulag to get your mind straight.' *** No, we won't. I promise. Unless, of course, you insist upon it ... and you do, repeatedly, insist upon it."
HOW REVEALING! I suppose this is meant to be funny but given your inconsistent positions one never knows.
Posted by: Tina | August 11, 2008 3:16 PM
"Yes...asking that Roe v. Wade be overturned so that individual states can decide on this issue is sooooo radical and soooo unreasonable."
You live in California. You know how it would go. So what's the beef? The only reason Missouri gets to be so self-righteous is because Chicago is two hours away. The hypocrisy of "the movement" is just ... extremely irritating.
And I will not discuss any "reverance for life" with anybody who will not pay for school lunches, let alone federally funded daycare. And my closing sentence, I deleted.
Posted by: Libby | August 11, 2008 10:13 PM
You live in California. You know how it would go. So what's the beef?
I've already explained it...on several occassions. so why the question?
The hypocrisy of "the movement" is just ... extremely irritating.
What hypocracy? Individuals make stupid decisions sometimes, even "law abiding" citizens, and they commit murder. Are you suggesting that because people do stupid things sometimes we shouldn't have laws?
"And I will not discuss any "reverance for life" with anybody who will not pay for school lunches..."
I already do pay for them. Can I help it if government wastes our hard earned money on unnecessary administrators and buruaucrats, and mismanages the rest, instead of making sure the students and teachers needs are met first?
"...let alone federally funded daycare."
And what makes this a taxpayer problem? Women have many options...one of them is birth control and another is abstinence. They should be able to make at least one of these options work for them until they can afford children. Some women find themselves abandoned and without training...I suggest joining a good local church and going to school for training...there are hundreds of programs already in place to HELP...we don't need more.
This of course seems harsh to you but how will women ever wise up if there is always someone there to take care of their problems for them. Talk about hypocracy...all that women's lib c**p on the one hand...I am woman hear me roar...and on the other, a bunch of needy little girls with their hands out. Tell you what, maybe the women that think "women's rights" would "liberate" women can pass the hat for daycare funding. Go ask Jane Fonda or Oprah for some cash...they have plenty. At least they'd be acting like "women with a pair" doing it a mans way instead of wasking big "daddy" government to provide. What a da** joke.
"And my closing sentence, I deleted."
That's OK, I've deleted a few of my own lately. Post Scripts thanks you, sincerely, for your consideration.
Posted by: Tina | August 11, 2008 11:03 PM
"This of course seems harsh to you ..."
It does indeed. I can only hope that you continue to be outnumbered ... and we will continue to be ok.
Posted by: Libby | August 12, 2008 9:06 AM
Libby: "And I will not discuss any "reverance for life" with anybody who will not pay for school lunches, let alone federally funded daycare. And my closing sentence, I deleted."
You are an absolute joke.
So by your standards you would discuss the "relevance of human life" with Hitler before you would John Adams.
Your standards not mine Libby. You are the perfect spokesperson for your side Libbs.
Posted by: Nick Freitas | August 12, 2008 3:06 PM
Libby: "It's not a perfect world. What you have to do is just accept the fact that there is nothing you can say, nothing at all, that will persuade me that abortion is worse than giving birth to children you are not fit to raise. Bringing people onto this planet to live lives of the "nasty, brutish and short" variety is absolutely the worst thing a person can do, in my somewhat-less-than-humble opinion. So you go your way, and I'll go mine ... and all will be peaceful."
Keep telling yourself that this is a zero sum game where you are merely preventing horrible lives for children.
Reality proves you wrong hourly. There are literally millions of people, who grew up in very hard circumstances, circumstance where you would considered them were better off dead, and have risen above to accomplish great things.
The practice you support is barbaric, period. And no Libs, I'm not going to stand idly by why you try to divert attention away from the real issue. I'm going to continue to bring it up, because every time I do, your responses demonstrate the morale and intellectual bankruptcy of your argument.
Posted by: Nick Freitas | August 13, 2008 3:20 AM
Nick: "There are literally millions of people, who grew up in very hard circumstances, circumstance where you would considered them were better off dead, and have risen above to accomplish great things."
And many, many, many more ... who simply died. Some of us think Calcutta's Sister Teresa gonna get quite a jolt when she hits the Pearly Gates.
But here, now, in America, such things are a matter of individual choice, Praise be to the Goddess, a woman's individual choice.
Not yours.
Posted by: Libby | August 15, 2008 11:20 PM
Except for the individual being murdered right...
your not concerned about that choice.
Posted by: Nick Freitas | August 16, 2008 10:22 AM
"Some of us think Calcutta's Sister Teresa gonna get quite a jolt when she hits the Pearly Gates."
What the H**l is this supposed to mean? If you're going to say something...say it!
"But here, now, in America, such things are a matter of individual choice, Praise be to the Goddess, a woman's individual choice."
I suppose if women, and people in general, WERE their bodies, and nothing more, you might have a point. But we are not our bodies.
Women are priviledged to bring "life" into the world...not "bodies".
The "godess" can't be too bright if she does not know this simple, universal, truth.
Posted by: Tina | August 16, 2008 11:29 AM
I'm sorry. I just presumed I was speaking to people who were, more or less, informed. Sister Teresa's order does not condone birth control at all, in any form. Consequently, a substantial number of people [their parents living under the Sister's influence] have been born, and died, in misery.
In my little theocracy, God does not approve.
Posted by: Libby | August 20, 2008 10:57 PM
I'm beginning to wonder who, in your little theocracy, is really in charge. Certainly not big "G" God...he made us without birth control devices and obviously has a much greater viewpoint than do you or I. Born into poverty a child can serve a greater purpose...to be an inspiration to others or appeal to their better natures if nothing else. Who are we to decide what another persons life or value should be...that is definitely God's alone to know. We can and should honor each one as if he were ourselves.
In my humble existence God wouldn't approve of intervention in a new being's possibility.
Posted by: Tina | August 20, 2008 11:14 PM