Obama's Global Poverty Act

Comments

[this is good]

GEEZ!

1. America has its own welfare issues to solve, how moronic to be the welfare patron of nations of the Third World that more than likely blame America for their problems.

2. The tax on Americans would effectively go the U.N. which is currently dominated by Third World nations that are influenced by Islamism. This is yet another moronic choice.

3. It certainly appears political goal is the fringe socialist dream of a one world utopian government which decides what is right or wrong for a region. Even if the goal is global beneficence it will definitely negate the American Constitution, the greatest document the world has seen to date pertaining to Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Wake up America! A vote for Obama is a vote for the demise of America.

I heard something even more damning last night but I haven't been able to verify it yet. When I do, I'll post that too.
[this is good]
http://www.petitiononline.com/QuitUN/petition.html
Another reason to promote the petition!! Government must be kept close to home and carefully monitored. We can not afford to let the world vote themselves benefits from our pockets! Copy the petition and paste it into an email to your entire contact list, ask the recipients to forward it.

Then got to www.congress.org, enter your zip code and click the Federal Officers link. Send an email to Shrub, yer Rep. & Sens. telling them to veto/vote Hell No!! on Obama's damn fool global welfare bill.

the Global Poverty Act (S.2433)

Thanks Ben. I went to the link and sent a note to all the Representatives I am constituent to. I've done all I will to get the word out on this one. Being from CA I don't expect Diane and Barbara to stand up for American sovereignty, but maybe the rest will.
You are welcome, Bob. There is another angle I did not tell you about. They also have a link for emailing the Presidential campaigns.
Ooh, I'll be employing that one too, then.
Oh boy. Hmmm. This is interesting. Well, shoot me here. I stand as responsible for some of this. Though I never thought this involved the UN. So count me as one of the morons. Benevolent morons. And I am not being snotty. I am sitting here trying to wrap my head around both views and my own.

Do you know that ONE.org is made up of 2 million Americans of which there are hundreds of thousands of people like me writing to candidates asking them to take on the world's issues of the disenfranchised. Or to heads of world banks? I belong to ONE.org - to promote the eradication of hunger, poverty and AIDS in the world. I, am one of the hundreds of thousands of petitioners who sent to each and every candidate and to President Bush a request that America take a leadership role in helping solve those problems - because in my view, that if we don't - and I don't believe in handouts - wars will continue, genocide will continue in the African nations in particular. I believe in initiatives that I spend my money on like the Heifer Project - which is all about self-sufficiency as the end goal.

I have always maintained as I signed these petitions that this included American first. It is abhorrent that we have 1 in 5 children in OUR country go to bed hungry every night. It is abhorrent that our literacy rate is dropping below other industrialized nations. I do believe that in helping the disenfranchised STAND ON THEIR OWN, the world may end up safer. I don't believe in perpetual welfare in this country for many.

I cannot stare into the faces of starving children and say do nothing. I would rather pay my tax dollars on that than wars that as Bush said in 2000 we should not be in - policing nations - and for this post, I am not referencing Iraq..

We are not talking slacker, druggie, out of work parents collecting welfare. I am talking famine, refugee camps, human trafficking, death by starvation.
I don't know that by asking America to take a leadership role in peaceful initiatives versus bombs, that could help good countries stand on their own is the beginning of evil. Am I missing something? Because it wasn't just Obama who was petitioned it was every Republican and every Democratic candidate for presidency AND George Bush.

I don't see this as a stepping stone for moving from president to world leader. So I accept responsibility as one who felt obligated to help others. I do not believe in handouts that will perpetuate the problem. I believe in helping people to help themselves. But remember all here, this is not just Obama. This was a petition sent to him and many other candidates by many, many Americans.

Again, before I show you these initiatives that I have signed, I have stated to ONE that I am adamant that America is taken care of and I only send money to hunger organizations that help people feed themselves and stand on their own. Like the Heifer Project.

These are initiatives that were sent by a group of 2 million members. This is not MoveOn.org. a political organization. These are people who want to help the world.

Hunger
The world hunger crisis is all over the news this week. In just three years, the price of staple foods like wheat, corn and rice has almost doubled. If we don't do something soon, hundreds of thousands of people face starvation and a hundred million more could fall into extreme poverty.


TB and Malaria:

Petition asking senators to co-sponsor the reauthorization of PEPFAR, America's response to the emergency of global AIDS, malaria and TB.

ONE is trying to get fifty senators to co-sponsor this lifesaving legislation.


Education for All
Around the world, 72 million school-age children are not in school. The Education for All Act would commit the United States to investing in a comprehensive strategy to help these children get access to basic education, and break devastating cycles of poverty in the developing

Hi Beenie;
I expected to light you up on this one. This is a long article so let me point out a few things.

"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."

What happened to the sovereignty of our Constitution? How can you believe that this precedent doesn't open the door for the UN to try and rule us? This is my chief concern. But I am dissatisfied on the whole thing. Here's why: It's Not Yours to Give (story about Colonel Davy Crockett)
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/crockett_not_yours_to_give.asp

"implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year..."

Technically he's correct... after all, it doesn't really cost that much to develop and formulate strategies...

But such a cleverly worded contention begs the question: Why formulate or develop a strategy if there is no intention to follow through on that strategy?

And what would it cost to actually follow through on a strategy to alleviate world poverty?

The bill is misleading on the cost of implementation.

Is this just another ruse to get to our 2nd amendment rights since the effort failed in the courts?


Now, I believe in giving. I believe in giving to those in need in foreign nations. I do give. But I believe it is an abuse of government authority to tax me to give it to somebody else. In the first place, giving isn't giving if it isn't voluntary. If its a tax, its paid legalized graft. In the second place, without choice I have somebody else's hand in my pocket when I may be in need and they take whatever they choose by placing me under threat of incarceration. In the third place, government fouls things up far more than they fix things. Private organizations have always done a better job of it and if they pass this thing, I will resent every penny missing from my budget that I have worked hard to earn and just like I am already doing about government waste, I'll be clucking my tongue at every dollar spent that winds up hurting the very people it was meant to help. As it is, I find joy in giving and so look for opportunities to bless people. Make no mistake, I am not independently wealthy, I work for every cent and it seems to go out faster than it comes in, but I give because it brings me joy.

This idea that government is the great fix all in the sky..er Washington is deadly to our culture which is built on Liberty (freedom) and that equality of wealth, of goods, of lifestyles can be mandated is directly opposed to freedom. That society winds up with less, with immobility, and almost always, with a murderous tyrant. Its called communism. The UN is the worst example of effective leadership at work in the world today. They function pretty well as a humanitarian effort, but when it comes to human rights, policy, or anything else, they are our enemy. Just check their voting record.
additionally, Malaria is a problem that was fixed but the environmentalists outlawed the fix and are literally the cause of 30000000+ deaths.

Education is worst in the world for dollars spent per capita right here. We spend 8% or so GNP on education and what do we get? We will not be competitive in the global market place within 10 years because our education has declined so bad over the past 20 years or so. How can we justify more taxes for other kids when we aren't taking care of our own. A problem tax dollars won't fix and government programs are evidently not the answer.
[this is good]
Good conversation here.
Hi,
I posted here finally. A reply after processing your comments. I don't see it. Did it not register?
Beenie, we are the most giving people on earth. Why would you want to screw that up? Taxes are not benevolence. We are not rewarded in heaven for our taxes. Paraphrasing Col. Davie Crockett, "Tax Revenues are not the politicians to give." It is in stark contrast to what the Constitution says of the authority of the politicians and the founding fathers' intent. To make benevolence a tax makes the giver resentful. This is a legal form of stealing from the workers to give to non-Americans and, and gives a bit of US sovereignty to UN authority.

That's not all. This measure makes our 2nd amendment subject to UN whim. We have not settled this issue inside the US but lately the courts have been leaning toward the personal right of gun ownership. Given the performance of the UN on Human Rights and their performance on taking responsibility for their own resolutions, this would be an open invitation to creating an international relations mess that will never be cleaned up. This is a horrible idea and its wrapped in the glossy package of doing good for all those poor people. I'm sorry, but that wrapping looks bad in its own right in my eyes but then to see what it is meant to cover is frightening beyond words.

Malarial deaths that could have been prevented are somewhere between 30 and 50 million people. But the environmentalists have outlawed the use of DDT. There is another new book out I heard about on Dennis Prager which speaks about how species put on the endangered species list are harmed by responses to that list. Iain Murray, senior fellow in energy, science, and technology at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them... You can listen to the interview here: javascript:launchAudioWindow("/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=4940f2dd-b5ba-4d04-98d6-522136020387")
or podcast here: http://boss.streamos.com/download/Townhall/audio/mp3/4940f2dd-b5ba-4d04-98d6-522136020387.mp3?siteid=PodCast
We cannot create Utopia on earth. We can work to make the world better, but to try to create utopia is to create an environment for a tyrant to rule by force. Centralized power makes power unaccountable. Utopia has no competitive powers. So who corrects the militant tyrant when he takes over and intimidates everybody into submission? Why couldn't the Germans correct the Nazis, or the Iraqis correct Saddam and his sons? So, as Obama's bill is intending to submit America's sovereignty to the UN, so I have to suspect his motives for doing this.

Beanine wouldn't you prefer to give your monies to an organization that you know will really be helping the people they claim to be helping? Governments always seem to want to help but they end up hurting those they intended to help. The bad people in the foreign governments are the ones who keep and use the supplies that our government sends as aide relief. But private ministries can do so much more and actually serve those they intend to help.
Donate your money to Medecins sans Frontieres and their partner organizations if you want to effect real change and bypass state and church corruption. Building a better world starts from the bottom up.
Yeah, the more I read, the more I agree. We can't even fix our roads, educate our children or arm our soldiers and then treat their battle wound trauma back home with anything but substandard equipment, facilities, and workers. Our own taxes are being washed down the drain on boodoggles right and left. Who spends $30 million dollars to investigate? Our senate. I squirm every time they want to investigate something, because you and I will be paying. Though I can't figure what for. They already get salaries. Our own gov't is so mismanaged that it sickens me. I'd say privatize, but I think they skim too. Something has to be done. Tea party anyone? :)))

I agree. I'm a convert. I have though, written to banks through this group and they took over and worked w/country.

By the way, you're question was loving, and kind and respectful. And it left the door open for me to keep reevaluating as I have been as I read more. If only commenters on charged issues on posts would learn that then some good could come about.
Thanks for second post to me about UN, etc. My post that was so long disappeared. And it is ironic because without reading yours I had said, we are not a very charitable country. When I lobbied for the positions, I didn't read UN in what I signed on for. So keep that out of the equation. I totally get your point about why have it go through a system that is poorly managed if even through US where we can't even provide a good education. And I concur with HI and Chumblor. I get it and agree.

I will say, we should stand for mandates for our country to change regarding Global Warming. Bush today finally acknowledges it? Hard to fathom, but true. And violence against women? Fine, I'll go through whatever means I can - lobbying to point of shutting down systems (as emails did for one initiative) (not to US) and it changed the outcome for a country. That's a freedom that inspires. Actually having a vote that is listened to and acted upon vs. getting someone in office!

I agree on the do it through charity. I would have to go back and look at stats, but I don't think we rank all that well on charity. But I could be wrong.

Finally, THANK YOU JUDGEBOB for inviting me and your comments on Constitution. Because now I have to go back and reread it. I need to know what is and isn't constitutional.

:) Blessings.
Drs. w/out Borders? I LOVE THEM!!! Nobel Prize winners. And I love Heifer. For Christmas I gave people "shares" of an alpaca I bought. I bought it because they work this way: they give the animal to a family. The family uses it as a way to transport, plus to earn money from wool, their hooves don't ruin the ecosphere (right use of word?). Then when the alpaca has offspring, they have a ceremony whereby they give it to the next family. And this allows people to make money, extend self-sufficiency through a community, and not be taking handouts, something I refuse.

I will say, we should stand for mandates for our country to change regarding Global Warming. Bush today finally acknowledges it?

On alpacas, I approve any system of help that actually works.

That being said, the caps do not help the global warming issue. All it does is make the US less competitive in the global market. The products aren't not made, they are made outside of controlled environments. Also, the policies are making carbon pollution worse, not better. Apart from driving food costs higher, ethanol and the like produces more carbon emissions than fossil fuels. This do something disease is not helpful to the problem and I am not convinced there is a problem. 31,000 list of scientists who disagree that global warming is man made or if it is affected by man at all, that it is bad for the environment or if it is, that we can do anything effective about it. But such political pressure causes politicians to bend to public concern which was perpetrated by profiteering scare monger environmentalists and Democratic politicians.
The best way to stop biosphere degradation is to reduce consumption in consumer countries.

The Amazon, which produces an enormous amount of oxygen, is being clear-cut to make room for beef cattle and palm tree oil plantations. Reducing your meat consumption hurts the beef industry [this isn't necessarily bad], frees up grains for poor people [since wealthy people can only eat so much grain, and cows eat way more than humans], reduces rainforest destruction, and is better for your health [we all eat too much red meat, lots of sodium and cholesterol!]

Cutting your fuel usage means that oil gets cheaper and less popular, and auto companies have to respond to changing demands by providing eco-friendly, sustainable alternatives [like Ford's under-development hydrogen-fuelled bus line around America]. Biodiesel has to come from palm tree oil and canola oil and more. Using ethanol fuel instead of gasoline only causes the deforestation problems to get worse, as demand for palm oil increases and new plantations are needed. Ethanol is also very nasty to the atmosphere, like fossil fuels [they're all hydrocarbons!] Using less fuel, commuting by carpool or mass transit, walking, driving an electric go-kart, these are ways to reduce fuel impact in the world.

Eat local foods too: imported foods have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles by truck or diesel-fuelled ship. They cause immense damage to the atmosphere. Buying local also helps the local economy, and buying organic can forestall potential food disasters from GMOs or pesticides or such. PLus the priceyness of organic helps the farmers make mad money. Buy from farmer's markets, not from grocery stores - the money goes straight to the farmers and is often cheaper, resulting in a net gain for everyone.

Reduce the amount of waste you produce - not all of it can be recycled, and not all of it can biodegrade.

Reuse your waste - that plastic Evian bottle can hold a million different drinks and last you years, don't throw it out! You don't need to buy a new thing when you have something perfectly useful lying around.

Recycle - landfill spaces are running out, and they leak hazardous material anyway, recycle whenever you can to produce cheap second-hand materiel and protect it from oozing landfills.

clear-cut to make room for beef cattle and palm tree oil plantations.

This practice is done because the farmers are converting their fields to grow biofuel crops. More land is being clearcut to provide more fields for food production. The clearcut is being promoted by biodiesel programs. Less red meat in the diet would be a benefit to American health but would not halt clearcutting.

I am not convinced there is a global warming issue. Recently a list of 31000 scientists signed a petition disavowing the global warming scare. This scare is fueled by profiteering politicians and research scientists who are cashing in on the grant machine.

A machine featured in an article in (I think it was) Mechanics Illustrated recycles everything from turkey ofle to computers to spare tires. We have the technology to reuse all our refuse. There is no need to curb our behavior except that it pleases the people who feel guilty for our wealthy lifestyle. All this environmental scare tactic is hogwash. We need to let the tech market work.

We need to drill here, drill now, and pay less, and pay it to our own instead of entities that hate us and want our economy destroyed.
Anything into oil
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm
1) burning fuel causes more damage than just global warming, it puts pollutants like lead and awesome smoke and smog into our skies. It's a health issue even if it isn't a climate issue.

2) Reducing fuel/biofuel use would still improve things. And reducing meat consumption still frees up wheat, corn and barley for everyone. Maybe then multigrain bread would be cheaper! Also less rioting in Mexico over tortillas.

3) Until universal recycling is universally used, we have to be responsible. We can't keep dumping garbage in prime real estate, and we can't keep throwing our batteries and alcohol and mercury into a hole and hoping it doesn't hurt anything. Garbage crises are not a fun thing to go through, and if everyone wasted less stuff, then we wouldn't have to go through them. I am not a person who feels "guilty for our wealthy lifestyle." I love my wealthy lifestyle. I just care about the landscape I live in, the society I take part in, the economy I participate in, and the wallet I invest in. We SHOULD change our lifestyle because it's horribly inefficient, and isn't inefficiency the enemy of capitalism? We hardly use every part of the deer anymore [although we do use every part of the pig!]

Oil cannot be the solution forever, especially when we live in an age where oil is primitive, and even wind power is becoming a viable alternative to expensive drilling. Fuck Greenpeace, build nuclear! Dump the waste in the mines where you found it! It's not like it was causing any harm there in the first place!
Well, I think we have found some common ground on nuclear. Also, I am a firm believer in overunity. This is a technology I believe is being squelched by our government because of the tax revenues. Last year one oil company paid taxes equivalent to 2/3 the US personal income tax. What will the government do for income without that huge contribution?

For now, pollution has been reduced to levels lower than the 1980's even though we have far more vehicles in use. Oil consumption is not the issue in either global warming or pollution. It is an issue in funding terrorism. This is the only war in history where both sides are funded by one of the parties.

I think if we did convert all automobiles to either burn hydrogen or overunity steam drive, we would still have a global warming scare faction because of all the moisture pumped into the atmosphere. Battery powered cars are not environmentally or economically viable because of the pollution involved with so many retired batteries.

See my article on the various means to overunity available right now.
http://judgeright.vox.com/library/post/breaking-addiction.html

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

JudgeBob

About Me

JudgeBob
United States
Judge others by the quality of their character, but not by appearance.

My Groups

Neighborhood

Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.

Archives

Twitter