Obama Supports Global Tax on Americans

Obama’s Global Tax Up For Senate Vote

February 14, 2008


A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and 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.”

The legislation itself requires the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States 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 defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion – or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.”

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.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.”

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama’s bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama’s mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called “Lugar-Obama initiative” was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that “CTR funds have eased the Russian military’s budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization.” He recommended that Congress “eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union.” However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of “falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals…”

It’s not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that “We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity.” Bush’s former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who “sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan…”

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

– Americans who would like their senators to know what they are voting on can contact them through information offered by GOPUSA.


Barak Obama Fronts Wall Street’s Infrastructure

Bruce Marshall
Information Clearing House
February 17, 2008

Do not be fooled! Barak Obama’s call for National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank (NIRB) does not signal the return of the Democratic Party to the values of FDR and a revival of the Constitutional prerogative to ‘promote the general welfare’, but would rather provide more welfare for Wall Street and worse. Obama’s plan is nothing more than the direct means of instituting the Rohatyn-Rudman National Investment Corporation (NIC) plan called for in 2005, which in essence is a revival of Mussolini’s methods of corporatist control of the state in a politically correct post modern fashion..

When Senator Obama states that his National Investment Reinvestment Bank will magically turn $60 billion into trillions of dollars as he did in his Feb 13th Jamesville, WI speech, one can easily realize that the only way that this can happen is through the perverse magic of Wall Street. What would happen is that bonds floated by the NIRB will be bought on the open market, to then be speculated upon, securitized as derivatives, traded and ultimately used as collateral on the newly built infrastructure. What we will see is the emergence of an infrastructure bubble to replace the mortgage bubble, propped up by initial government expenditures towards infrastructure. This is just the start as Obama will fund the feel good ‘carbon credit’ swap to be the next blast of hot air to make Wall Street giddy. This is a key insight to a true understanding of what is going on. Bailout the financial powers with a clever plan that will raise money to then buy up hard assets, in other words the remaining wealth of our nation, as the meltdown crisis of over a quadrillion in derivatives losses grows and grows..

Besides artificially propping up the markets, Obama’s NIRB, as an initiation of the Rohatyn/Rudman infrastructure investment model, opens the door to the privatization of public assets. International predators and asset-strippers want to buy up public highways and impose cutthroat tolls, as they are already doing in many states. Then they run the turnpikes into the ground as cash cows while they mercilessly bilk the users. Privatization is a key goal of the Anglo-American financiers behind this scheme. Both the NIC and NIRB rely on the new darling of the markets, PPPs, known as public private partnerships. PPPs are the means by which market forces will dictate, and that is the word, the implementation of these projects. The argument is that the PPP will keep costs down, but in reality only because the private corporations, now controlling the public sector, will own the assets of what is being constructed. The PPP model is none other than the model implemented by Mussolini in his fascist corporate state. The creation of NIRB funds hark back to Hjalmar Schact’s ‘MEFO’ bills that created the speculative bubble of money so that the National Socialists could rearm Germany and fight World War II..

Read Full Article Here


6 Different Women Faint For Obama

Obama Advisor Brzezinski is Uber-Globalist


Ratification of LOST Gives UN Control Over Earth’s Oceans

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty Would Give the UN Control Over Everything About the Oceans

November 7, 2007

The Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world’s oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Follow this link to the original source: “25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”

On October 31 the authoritative Capitol Hill news publication, CQ Today, stated:

The Senate is likely to ratify a 1982 U.N. treaty governing the use of the world’s oceans despite grumbling from a few conservative GOP senators.

That’s right. After 25 years of stalemate, the Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world’s oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

This is the same UN famous for its corrupt oil-for-food scandal. This is the organization that consistently votes against American interests.

In order to understand just how comprehensive and sweeping are the powers over the oceans that LOST would confer on the UN, read what was said at an official UN celebration of the 25th anniversary of LOST on Oct. 17:

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea … is perhaps one of the most significant but less recognized 20th century accomplishments in the arena of international law…. Its scope is vast: it covers all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and overflight; all uses of all its resources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf and in the territorial seas; the protection of the marine environment; and basic law and order…. The Convention is widely recognised by the international community as the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out. (“25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” Oct. 17, 2007; emphasis added.)

In short, the LOST treaty provides the legal framework within which all activities on, over and under the oceans and the seas must be carried out. In other words, the LOST treaty would give the UN jurisdiction over everything concerning the oceans and seas of the earth.

Everything would certainly include military and commercial uses of the oceans and seas. How do you think the anti-American UN would rule on U.S. Air Force planes and U.S. Navy ships using the oceans for military purposes? What would this mean for our national security? How about our commercial airliners flying over the oceans? How about the necessary transportation between our mainland states and Hawaii? And, on and on.

We would not have veto power protection in the UN’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea like we do in the Security Council. We’d have one vote among a membership of over 150 nations.

For confirmation of just how bad it would be for the Senate to ratify LOST, take a look at these two videos of recent Senate hearings, featuring one of LOST’s most articulate critics, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.): (1) DeMint on Law of the Sea Treaty: Part 1; (2) Round 2: DeMint on Law of the Sea Treaty.

This vote on LOST is arguably the most important vote the Senate will cast this year. The John Birch Society is urging its members and allies, especially the leaders and members of other organizations that also believe in preserving American sovereignty and security, to phone their senators within the next few days in opposition to the LOST treaty. Click here for a link to your senators’ phone numbers and talking points for the calls.

If enough Americans contact their senators, we can stop LOST just like we stopped amnesty back in June. However, fewer organizations are involved in this fight, so those of us who understand the long range threat posed by surrendering our sovereignty to the UN need to step up our activism and get the job done!

Our personal freedom and security depend on preserving American sovereignty and security by winning this fight against LOST!


Law of the Sea Will Usher In A One World Navy

Law of the Sea Will Usher In A One World Navy

Rogue Government
November 4, 2007

The Law of the Sea Treaty which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of ratifying by a vote of 17-4 is part of a plan to average U.S. naval forces into a world Navy that would enforce international law on the world’s oceans. The Law of the Sea Treaty will allow the U.S. Navy to more easily police the world’s oceans while further undermining U.S. national sovereignty by recognizing United Nations authority over the majority of the world’s oceans. Prior to this vote on the Law of the Sea Treaty in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the U.S. Navy combined with the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Marines released a document entitled “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power”, which outlines how U.S. naval forces will seek stronger international cooperation to protect the tyrannical global system that is currently being formed. It is interesting to note that the document focuses more on how there is a need to protect the global system and seek closer ties to international partners instead of defending the United States. The timing of the Law of the Sea Treaty being re-introduced in the Senate and the release of this document from the Navy is not pure chance. Admiral Michael Mullen, the recently promoted Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken on many occasions about the formation of an international 1000-ship naval force. Clearly, this is all part of a plan to use U.S. naval forces as a foundational building block to form an international navy force that will enforce international law on the world’s oceans for the coming one world government.

Over 150 nations have signed and ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty which is an international treaty that gives authority of most of the world’s oceans to the United Nations. The U.S. has signed but not yet ratified the treaty. George W. Bush wants the Senate to ratify this treaty because he has said that it would allow U.S. naval forces to move freely around the oceans. Ratification of this treaty would essentially transform the U.S. Navy into the core of the naval security enforcement arm for the United Nations. Since the treaty turns over authority of the world’s oceans to the United Nations, the U.S. Navy would be policing the world’s oceans not on behalf of the United States, but the United Nations.

This would be speculation if it wasn’t for the recent release of the document entitled “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power” which describes how U.S. naval forces will need to protect the global system and seek closer ties with the international community. The document cites the phony war on terror as one of the key rationales for both of these items.

From the introduction section of the document:

The security, prosperity, and vital interests of the United States are increasingly coupled to those of other nations. Our Nation’s interests are best served by fostering a peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance.

We prosper because of this system of exchange among nations, yet recognize it is vulnerable to a range of disruptions that can produce cascading and harmful effects far from their sources. Major power war, regional conflict, lawlessness and natural disaster—all have the potential to threaten U.S. national security and world prosperity.

Later in the document under the section called “Maritime Strategic Concept”, the following paragraph describes how U.S. naval forces should seek relations with more international partners to protect international order on the world’s oceans.

Foster and sustain cooperative relations with more international partners. Expanded cooperative relationships with other nations will contribute to the security and stability of the maritime domain for the benefit all. Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged. They must be built over time so that the strategic interests of the participants are continuously considered while mutual understanding and respect are promoted.

The document also cites the Global Maritime Partnership which is clearly a foundational building block for a one world naval force. What’s interesting is that Admiral Michael Mullen who was recently promoted to the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff worked extensively on and touted the Global Maritime Partnership prior to his promotion.

Mullen the former head of U.S. naval forces, was quoted as saying the following in 2006 at the Regional Sea Power Symposium regarding the Global Maritime Partnership.

“As mariners, we knew instinctively that the greatest power of the sea is to unite, not to divide. There is a common bond between us.”

“My country saw this on our Gulf Coast during Hurricane Katrina, just as others have after the tsunami in Indonesia, the Earthquakes in Pakistan, the submarine rescue off Petropavlovsk, the mudslides in the Philippines and many other places.”

“These things encouraged us to think about and to believe that we could bring together a “1000-ship navy”, a global maritime partnership that unites navies, coast guards, maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers, and many other government agencies to address mutual maritime concerns.”

Considering Mullen’s statements on this Global Maritime Partnership which would in essence form a one world naval force, it makes perfect sense as to why he was recently promoted to the position of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. It also makes sense that the Law of the Sea Treaty is being brought up again in the Senate at around the same time.

There is no doubt that the Law of the Sea Treaty is being re-introduced in the Senate as part of an effort to form a one world naval force that will enforce international law dictated by the United Nations. The U.S. should not ratify this treaty, and our naval forces should not be averaged into a 1000-ship navy as Admiral Mullen describes. Hopefully, the Senate will fail to get the 2/3’s majority they need for ratification of this treaty. Any Senator voting in favor to ratify this bill is a traitor for granting even more authority to the United Nations over U.S. sovereignty because the United Nations has proven throughout its sorry history that it is an extremely corrupt and morally bankrupt institution.


Senate panel OKs Law of the Sea treaty

Senate panel OKs Law of the Sea treaty

Kevin Drawbaugh
October 31, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. Senate committee voted on Wednesday in favor of ratifying an international treaty on ocean shipping and deep-sea mining amid debate over its impact on naval operations and industry.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to back the accord, sending it to the full Senate for action where it would need a two-thirds vote to win final approval.

President George W. Bush wants the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, saying it would allow U.S. armed forces to move freely on the oceans.

More than 150 nations have already joined the 25-year-old pact, but it has languished in the Senate for many years.

Some Republicans and other critics have argued it would hurt U.S security by over-emphasizing peaceful use of the oceans, citing limits it would impose on collecting intelligence and submarine operations in territorial waters.

Some have also criticized provisions that they say would restrict U.S. sovereignty, impose new environmental obligations and thwart commercial development of the deep seabed.

Critics add the accord would set global rules discouraging deep-sea mining of minerals such as cobalt and manganese.

But supporters say the treaty ensures the U.S. military will not need a “permission slip” in the future to pass through the territorial waters of other nations, while guaranteeing the freedom of navigation for the world’s shipping industry.

Joining the treaty also gives the United States a seat at the table to resolve disputes, such as those that could arise over new sea lanes opening up in the Arctic, supporters say.

The treaty guarantees U.S. access to oil, natural gas and other natural resources extending 200 miles out from the U.S. shoreline — an area covering nearly 300,000 square miles.

“We should become a party to the convention,” committee Chairman Joseph Biden, a Delaware senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said at a committee meeting where the vote was held.

“The oil and gas industry is unanimous in its support of the convention … I’m unaware of any ocean industry that has expressed opposition to this treaty,” Biden said.

Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, one of four senators voting in opposition, said he had concerns about dispute resolutions and international seabed authority.

Foreign Relations Committee Approves LOST


Carroll Quigley: Our Tragedy and Their Hope

Carroll Quigley: Our Tragedy and Their Hope

New World Order Quotes


Stop UN Power Grab, Oppose LOST

Stop UN Power Grab, Oppose LOST

October 06, 2007

The United States is inching closer toward ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). President Bush endorsed this treaty in May and has since urged the Senate to ratify it. Initial reports indicated that the Senate may have attempted to ratify LOST before adjourning for the August recess.

Recent reports indicate that a vote to ratify the treaty could take place at any time. Former President Ronald Reagan originally rejected the ratification of LOST in 1982, but recent appeals from the Bush administration, some members of Congress, and the Council on Foreign Relations, has caused the treaty to resurface.

The Washington Post recently published commentary by Frank Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy. In his commentary Gaffney wrote:

To date, the full malevolent potential of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been more in prospect than in evidence. If the United States accedes to LOST, however, it is predictable that the treaty’s agencies will: wield their powers in ways that will prove very harmful to American interests; intensify the web of sovereignty-sapping obligations and regulations promulgated by this and other U.N. entities; and advance inexorably the emergence of supranational world government.

Click here to take immediate action on this issue.

Dead in the Water – Law of the Sea Treaty Resurfaces