Obama Backs U.N. Bill to Disarm Americans

bhkad · #1 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Obama Backs U.N. Bill to Disarm Americans

Four Winds 10
May 7, 2008

This is just in from Sen. Coburn's office. Obama has authored a bill, and it is now in the Senate, to give the UN .7% of our GNP to be used to feed hungry 3rd worlders, AND to use UN force to disarm you and me and all gun owners. No one in the media has brought this to the attention of the general sheeple out here.

Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: Obama's bill S2433 passed the committee and going to the Senate

Senator Coburn is blocking this bill.

Patrick Guinn

Obama's bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for "food" to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.

The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.

The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons" but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.

WashingtonWatch.com - S. 2433, The Global Poverty Act of 2007

Detailed Summary

Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, 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 United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including: (1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries; (2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate; (3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate; (4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships; (5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and (6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.<br>

Defines specified terms.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 4/24/2008: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718.

Spark It Up!!!: More on Barack Obama's S.2433 : Global Poverty Act

More on Barack Obama's S.2433 : Global Poverty Act

We know for a fact that this bill will cost America $845 billion above and beyond what America already spends on global aid in the next thirteen years. America will be locked in to giving .7 percent of the U.S. gross national product. That in itself is scary enough, but there is way more to Obama's bill. It also locks us into United Nations Millennium Summit. Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media is all over this bill. He writes-(Underlined by me)

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.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

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.(LINK)

This ladies and gentleman is the Barack Obama vision for America . WND called Obama's office and the others who support this bill..No comments.

Does Obama want .7% of the GNP for the hungry & your guns?

Why won't Obama's office comment on this bill? Why won't the MSM mention it?

Obama's plan for Global socialism marches on......the War on Poverty failed in the US, so if we are going to fail, lets fail on a global scale!

CHANGE!

$845 BILLION

The UN takes our guns

We give up part of our sovereignty to the United Nations

Government grows larger

Socialism expands throughout the world

And we still aren't sure about Obama's true allegiance?

CHANGE!

faithful_servant · #2 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 03:34 PM

First of all. let me state VERY clearly that I think this piece of legislation has but one useful purpose - tiolet paper.

BUT - the idea that it opens the door to fully committing us to the United Nations Millennium Declaration is over-reacting. The only mention of the UNMD directly refers to it's poverty reduction goals, not anything else. So while the bill is a pure loser, the response to it is being overblown as well.

bhkad · #3 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

First of all. let me state VERY clearly that I think this piece of legislation has but one useful purpose - tiolet paper.

BUT - the idea that it opens the door to fully committing us to the United Nations Millennium Declaration is over-reacting. The only mention of the UNMD directly refers to it's poverty reduction goals, not anything else. So while the bill is a pure loser, the response to it is being overblown as well.

The point is that Obama has a Global Socialist agenda to take our guns and money and give away a bit of our sovereignty to the UN.

And the way he introduced the bill shows how deceitful he is.

He and his many and varied rogues, rats and roaches belong nowhere near the Oval Office.

And the fact that the Mainstream Media hasn't mentioned it means they are working against the principles of what this country was founded on.

But your response is eye opening.

Mikeyy · #4 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 05:54 PM

Why its a conspirosy don'tcha know

bhkad · #5 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Why its a conspirosy don'tcha know

What are your thoughts and feelings regarding this bill?

What are your thoughts and feelings about how this bill was kept quiet?

What are your thoughts and feeling about Barack Obama and about his suitability to be President of the United States now that you know he introduced this bill...and never mentions it publicly?

saltwn · #6 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 07:25 PM

The theory of "Can't we all just get along?" is just that a theory. And if you remember that cliché is the result of police action, not private citizen action.
To take away our small arms is-well look at the word DISARM. A disarmed mind is one who pulls the wool tight every night and pretends the boogy man can't get in through a Walmart door latch.
This is a bad bill and even if it doesn't pass, it shows us something about Mr. Obama. He doesn't trust Americans with their own money or their right to protect personal property (if we have any left after giving it to the UN).

Oh hell no. I wouldn't vote for him before for other political reasons, but I cannot believe he -or anybody-thinks this kind of bill is right for America.
Question: Can the good people from the state of Illinois put him in office again now that he's shown his true colors?

Mikeyy · #7 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 07:31 PM

I will bet anyone a thousand dollars that POTUS Obama never approves anything that has anything to do with taking Americans guns. This threads will be like dust.

faithful_servant · #8 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

The point is that Obama has a Global Socialist agenda to take our guns and money and give away a bit of our sovereignty to the UN.

And the way he introduced the bill shows how deceitful he is.

He and his many and varied rogues, rats and roaches belong nowhere near the Oval Office.

And the fact that the Mainstream Media hasn't mentioned it means they are working against the principles of what this country was founded on.

But your response is eye opening.

My point is that there's no mention anywhere of guns being taken away.

Here's the section of the UNMD regarding this subject:

Quote:

• To strengthen respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs and, in particular, to ensure compliance by Member States with the decisions of the International Court of Justice, in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, in cases to which they are parties.

• To make the United Nations more effective in maintaining peace and security by giving it the resources and tools it needs for conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peace-building and reconstruction. In this context, we take note of the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations and request the General Assembly to consider its recommendations expeditiously.

• To strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Charter.

• 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.

• To take concerted action against international terrorism, and to accede as soon as possible to all the relevant international conventions.

• To redouble our efforts to implement our commitment to counter the world drug problem.

• To intensify our efforts to fight transnational crime in all its dimensions, including trafficking as well as smuggling in human beings and money laundering.

• To minimize the adverse effects of United Nations economic sanctions on innocent populations, to subject such sanctions regimes to regular reviews and to eliminate the adverse effects of sanctions on third parties.

• To strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim, including the possibility of convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers.

• 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.

• To call on all States to consider acceding to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, as well as the amended mines protocol to the Convention on conventional weapons.

IMO, the UNMD as a money grabbing program is one of the worst things we could ever sign on to, but don't try to make it something it isn't. The only part that even mentions the kind of arms you're referring to talks about UN CONFERENCE ON THE ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS and it's states right from the get-go:

Quote:

The focus of the United Nations Conference is on illicit trade in small arms, not the legal trade, manufacture or ownership of weapons.

Assault rifles and other small arms and light weapons have become the weapons of choice in many internal conflicts waged around the world. They are weapons manufactured to military specifications for use as lethal instruments of war. These weapons often end up in the possession of organized crime syndicates, drugs traffickers, and warlords who promote strife for personal gain. Because these weapons are light and easy to use, they are put in the hands of 300,000 child soldiers.
The Conference is about finding ways to curb and eliminate illicit trafficking in such weapons. The Conference is not about outlawing the legal manufacture or trade of these weapons, nor their legal, private ownership.

(emphasis mine). I'm no fan of the UN, but what you're trying to make this sound like is not correct.

dga · #9 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 09:43 PM

Did anyone bother to click on the original sources posted? Both were obviously propagandistic at best. I did not have time to do more research (and initial google search yielded almost nothing) so thank you faithful_servant for your expediency,

Really people, do you always believe everything you read?

bhkad · #10 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

My point is that there's no mention anywhere of guns being taken away.

Here's the section of the UNMD regarding this subject:

IMO, the UNMD as a money grabbing program is one of the worst things we could ever sign on to, but don't try to make it something it isn't. The only part that even mentions the kind of arms you're referring to talks about UN CONFERENCE ON THE ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS and it's states right from the get-go:
(emphasis mine). I'm no fan of the UN, but what you're trying to make this sound like is not correct.

Oh, just as long as you can't find anything about the guns then you are going to kick back and relax, huh?

You have a magic issue with which to put Obama away and you can't see it?

He would have to be the devil himself for you to realize, 'Gee, maybe if I mentioned this to people they would get outraged and Obama wouldn't be able to be elected dog catcher!!!'

Holy Smokes!

I am having a tough time understanding the lack of outrage and astonishment from the Conservative posters when it is revealed that a candidate for President has proposed an extra tax which would be paid to the United Nations...

And that a candidate for President has proposed that the United Nations would be empowered to have control over what US citizens can and can not do...

And that a candidate for President has proposed that the UN could have the authority to demand our guns from us...

And that a candidate for President has proposed that the people of the USA pay to cut poverty in the world in a massive money giveaway after we saw the corruption that came from the oil for food giveaway.

And that a candidate for President has proposed all of this secretly so that no one will be able to find out about it because it would hurt his campaign.

We have a damn-near Communist running for President and that's not enough to make you crazy?

He is deceiving us in plain sight and no one is getting upset about it because the MSM hasn't broadcast it???

You know they are in his corner so you can't wait for them to announce that this commie with global ambitions is doing what he's doing.

Are we really sheeple like the Islamists say?

Are we really stupid like the liberals say?

I don't get it.

If you can't get excited about this then maybe we deserve a Marxist government that answers to the UN, takes our guns and funds the poverty programs around the world.

This is a real live bill in the Senate, people!

And it was proposed by Barack Obama.

THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT WILL PUT HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING BUT YOU ALL JUST DON'T SEEM TO GET IT!

Or maybe I don't get it.

It's about the individual issues but it's also about the fact that a god damned marxist is running for president and no one realizes it and they (YOU) are so immune to the shmucks we deal with online that you are willing to go along with this outrageous bill and the fact he did it so deceptively and that he has a global socialist agenda as if that is normal and acceptable.

You are jaded and have lost your sense of what America is about.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/politics/4001-obama-backs-u-n-bill-disarm-americans.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Obama, The Paper Lion? : NO QUARTER	This thread	Refback	08-06-2008 11:18 AM
OpenCongress - S.2433 Global Poverty Act of 2007	This thread	Refback	08-02-2008 11:13 PM
OpenCongress - S.2433 Global Poverty Act of 2007	This thread	Refback	07-28-2008 03:10 PM
Editorials from Hell's leading daily newspaper, The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork	This thread	Refback	07-25-2008 09:42 PM
Editorials from Hell's leading daily newspaper, The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork	This thread	Refback	07-25-2008 03:21 PM
OpenCongress - S.2433 Global Poverty Act of 2007	This thread	Refback	07-22-2008 07:59 PM

The Following User Says Thank You to faithful_servant For This Useful Post:
foundit66

The Following User Says Thank You to dga For This Useful Post:
Spencer Collins