Skip to content

Virtual “Global Poverty Act” Tea Party

July 2, 2008

Taxation without representation


Didn’t Obama’s mama teach him you can’t buy love?
Barack Obama one righteous dude when it comes to your hard earned money. It is diplomatic dontcha know. We can trust the UN to handle our funding. It is not as if they have ever mishandled monies before now have they. [roll eyes]

Renewing American Diplomacy –

Fight Global Poverty: Obama will embrace the (U.N.) Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. He will help the world’s weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.

And line the filthy pockets of corrupt thuggish third world leaders, no doubt.

Obama’s 0.7% Solution For Poverty Gets Pass From Senate Republicans

[…]Empowering the United Nations to impose a direct international tax on Americans has been a U.N. goal ever since the 1995 Copenhagen Summit embraced the so-called Tobin Tax.

By adopting the Millennium goals in 2000, the U.N. escalated its demands to impose international taxes. Specifically, the Millennium called for a “currency transfer tax,” a “tax on the rental value of land and natural resources,” a “royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection — oil, natural gas, coal,” “fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”

It doesn’t bother U.N. sycophants that most U.S. handouts go into the hands of corrupt dictators who hate us and vote against us in the U.N., and that only 30% of our foreign aid ever reaches the poor. U.N. bureaucrats accuse the U.S. of being “stingy” in its handouts to underdeveloped countries.

There is much more to the Millennium goals than merely extorting more money from U.S. taxpayers. The goals set forth a comprehensive plan to put the United States under U.N. global governance.

Losing Sovereignty

These goals include a “standing peace force” (i.e. a U.N. standing army), a “U.N. Arms register” of all small arms and light weapons, “peace education” covering “all levels from preschool through university,” and “political control of the global economy.” The goals call for implementing all U.N. treaties that the United States has never ratified, all of which set up U.N. monitoring committees to compromise American sovereignty.

To achieve this level of control over U.S. domestic law, the plan calls for “strengthening the United Nations for the 21st century” by “eliminating” the veto and permanent membership in the Security Council. The goal is to reduce U.S. influence to one out of 192 nations, so we would have merely the same vote as Cuba.

The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the Millennium goal of global governance and international taxes on Americans. Tell your senators to kill this un-American bill.

H/T Maggie Who has much, much more here: Obama’s Global Poverty Tax Bill up for Vote after July 4th Recess.
BTW Maggie also urges all to

Go to Open Congress and register your vote against S.2433

At time of this posting vote count stands as: Ayes: 34 l Nays: 140

Must thank the GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ for bringing the suit against the UN at this time. That should help to refresh memories and defeat this REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH & POWER – Larwyn

Indeed a most fortunate turn of events.

Barack Obama > Tony Rezko > Nadhmi Auchi > Saddam Hussein > UN Oil for Food

Iraq sues UN over Oil-for-Food programme fraud-Justice Ministry

Iraqi judicial source said his country would lodge a lawsuit against the United Nations at a U.S court over corruption charges in the Oil-for-Food programme overseen by the International organisation for seven years.

“A Texas-based legal firm would lodge an Iraqi government lawsuit at state court in New York”, Iraqi Justice Ministry source, who requested anonymity, told Aswat al-Iraq-Voices of Iraq(VOI).

The source noted “Iraq file the case to catch up with its deadline expiring by the end of June”.
The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995, which started working on April16th 1996 and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.

The programme was introduced by U.S administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarization of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued on November21, 2003 after the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority.

As the programme ended, there were revelations of corruption involving the funds.

According to an interim report released by an independent commission led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker food aid supplied under the programme “was unfit for human consumption”.

The report concluded that former regime of Saddam Hussein had gained nearly $1.8 million in bribes and paybacks skimmed over the course of the programme..

H/T Pamela

Don’t Forget the Global Governance Movement

A special thank you to Larwyn.

Obama’s socialist tie in to the United Nations.
Is Barack Obama A Marxist Mole? – Canada Free Press

Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat.
DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called “consultative status” with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.

The international con-nection is important and significant because an Obama bill, “The Global Poverty Act,” has recently been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the “Millennium Goals” established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a “hold” on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative “victory” that he could run on.

Barack Obama > Tony Rezko > Nadhmi Auchi > Saddam Hussein > UN Oil for Food

Barack Obama > Global Poverty Act > Millennium Development > United Nations

Get the picture?
H/T Zee – Road Sassy


We must persevere! We must remain vigilant!
It is imperative that we all

****Contact Our Senators ****
And tell them to kill this bill.

Leave a Comment
  1. July 3, 2008 9:52 am

    This is the generation that has it in its hands to end poverty! People in future generations are going to remember wheather or not we took that chance. It is great to see a presidential candidate support this millenium goal!

  2. July 3, 2008 11:26 am

    @ Chris G
    Oh puhleeze, this is the generation that can’t even get out of their front door without some kind of guarantor for their “safety’. Hell, most of you can’t think outside the box your dumbed down education has imprisoned your mind in. A generation who prattles on about the evils of capitalism while wrapped in the wealth and security that capitalism has spawned.
    Go join the peace corps if you want your bleeding heart satisfied. But do not dare to hand over my hard earned dollar to cesspools in the third world.

    Better yet, the next time you need a job, or a home loan, go ask your poor neighbor. Let’s see how far your cozy little life gets on his dime.

    And to Velvet Hammer, thanks for the H/T and thanks for a good post. America needs to freaking wake up.

    Zee’s last blog post..NRA: “We Look Forward to Showing Him ‘Bitter’,”

  3. July 3, 2008 11:46 am

    Chris G
    You seem to have trouble seeing the big picture. Must be those rose colored glasses you are wearing.

    Are you telling me you support the UN handling and being in charge of administrating the “Global Poverty Tax”. That does not worry you?
    If not then you are naive.
    Which comes to no surprise if you also support Obama. Dreaming of a marxist paradise are you? Head in the clouds, pie in the sky. Lalalalalalala

    Zee You are welcome. And thanks! 😉

  4. July 3, 2008 12:31 pm

    Hi V,

    You can’t buy love, but it appears you can by the Presidency. Oh, and the Marxist mole was Hillary. Obama is a Muslim mole.

    the Grit

    the Grit’s last blog post..Happy, happy, joy, joy!!!!!

  5. Meredith Williams permalink
    July 3, 2008 5:40 pm

    The Global Poverty Act of 2007, simply states: “To require 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.”

    Currently, U.S. global development policies and programs are scattered across 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and almost 60 government offices. Increased coordination is sorely needed to be effective.

    The Global Poverty Act, S.2433, is an authorizing piece of legislation which sets a directive or those departments under the Secretary of State to create a plan to address the first United Nations Millennium Development Goal.

    This bill is NOT an authorizing piece of legislation that would appropriate any new funds (or global taxes) to United States foreign assistance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation would cost less than $1 million to implement.

    S.2433 does not prejudge what the strategy should be, only that a strategy should be created to more effectively distribute the foreign aid the United States already provides the developing (and developed) world.

    The Global Poverty act does not subjugate the United States to the will of the United Nations. The strategy would apply only to those programs administered by the United States and the strategy would have complete Congressional oversight.

    For more information on the myths related to this bill, please visit: Dead link -VH

    For more information, you can easily read this bill at:

    I find that going straight to the text of the bill clears up the misinformation that you’ve reported on this particular post. I’d love to hear what you think.

  6. aditi permalink
    July 4, 2008 2:51 am


    That’s very true…with the years passing by it is getting more and more difficult to successfully fulfill the MDG.
    But the UN has not yet given up efforts..its on its way..

    This year the target is the Indian State..A stand up and take action event would be conducted here later this year.

    Please check the details and be updated…

  7. July 4, 2008 10:47 am

    The Global Poverty Act: The Wrong Track for U.S. Aid Policy

    […]The latest report from the United Nations indicates that the goal of halving the proportion of people worldwide who live on less than $1 per day between 1990 and 2015 was already 80 percent achieved by 2004, 11 years before the deadline. [2] According to the U.N., “the MDG target will be met.” U.S. contributions toward this achievement are substantial. The U.S. is the largest source of foreign direct investment in developing countries, the largest recipient of developing country exports, and the largest provider of development and humanitarian assistance to developing countries. In a world economy that is increasingly market-oriented and globalized, unprecedented levels of resources are flowing to developing countries. The share of these resources coming from the private sector, primarily through the mechanisms of trade, investment, and remittances, dwarfs official aid flows.

    In the context of such robust development progress and the heavy U.S. engagement in contributing to it, the Global Poverty Act adds little of value but could mistakenly convey implicit U.S. support for the broader range of statist economic bromides in fashion at the U.N., chief of which is that developed countries should provide 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product annually to developing countries. Such a commitment would require U.S. taxpayers to fund foreign aid at more than quadruple current levels, at an amount of $100 billion per year. There is scant evidence that such a sum is necessary or, if provided, would actually promote development.[…]

    Development Requires Policy Changes in Developing Countries, Not More Aid

    Numerous studies indicate that policy changes that create a more conducive environment for economic transactions, bolster a free and fair legal system, and strengthen government accountability and responsiveness are far more important to development than the amount of aid a country receives. Unfortunately, the idea that development requires greater aid flows is omnipresent in U.N. documents like the World Summit “outcome document,” which welcomed the “increased resources that will become available as a result of the establishment of timetables by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance by 2015.”[15]

    Indeed, the notion that developed countries made a “commitment” to provide 0.7 percent of GNP in development assistance has attained iconic status in the UN and in the aid community, despite repeated refusals by the United States and others to endorse it. For instance, the United Nations Development Program asserts:

    The international goal for rich countries to devote 0.7% of their national income to development assistance has become a cause célèbre for aid activists and, lately, politicians. However ubiquitous and durable, the target of 0.7% was never meant to represent the ‘right’ level of aid needed by poor countries. A look at its history shows that it was calculated using methods with little relevance to today’s understanding of the development process, and actually reaching 0.7% of income in aid was never agreed to by any government or international body prior to 2005. Originally intended as a political tool to goad rich countries to modestly increase their aid budgets, the specific figure of 0.7% was a compromise between educated guesses based on economic conditions in the early 1960s and on a crude and deeply flawed model of growth. Despite these origins, “0.7%” has taken on a life of its own and become a powerful rallying cry for aid proponents. Indeed, in 2005, advocates are demanding that rich countries reach this specific target (and with some success). But there has been little reflection on whether 0.7% is the right figure, where it comes from, and exactly what the international agreements pertaining to the goal say and do not say.

    [O]ver time 0.7% has gained prominence well beyond its initial intention and gained credibility as the correct aid goal that it does not deserve… We find that if we apply the same assumptions that went into the original formulation to conditions present today, that the updated target would be 0.01% of rich country income-well below current aid levels for all major donors.[17]

    The emphasis on levels of aid endures despite numerous economic studies, including studies conducted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that have concluded that economic assistance is not a key component of economic development. [18] The U.S. should not hesitate to reject the false claims of past “commitments” to the 0.7 percent target or other unsupported aspects of the MDGs.

    What the United States Should Do

    The goal of reducing poverty is admirable and is rightly included among the priorities of U.S. foreign assistance. However, the U.S. should not adopt a policy, as set forth in the Global Poverty Act, of elevating poverty-alleviation efforts above other priorities for U.S. foreign assistance or on achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

    Strict adherence to the MDGs or the goal of eliminating poverty would leave little discretion for the U.S. to distribute or withhold aid based on country performance or political priorities. As important as alleviating poverty or supporting the MDGs may be, those objectives are not and should not be the primary goals of U.S. assistance as the Global Poverty Act seemingly would intend. Successive Congresses and Administrations have established numerous objectives and purposes for U.S. assistance over decades. Not all of these objectives are equal, but each has been determined to be important for various reasons. The Global Poverty Act, by failing to recognize or even mention these other purposes, would implicitly downgrade these priorities in favor of alleviating global poverty.

    Moreover, while many individual MDG targets are desirable, they focus on the symptoms of poverty rather than the causes. If the U.S. is to help poor countries to develop, it should emphasize the importance of good policy in development, including economic freedom, good governance, and the rule of law. Numerous economic studies have concluded that these policies are key drivers in promoting economic growth and reducing poverty. Without economic growth, countries lack the resources to support efforts to improve the lives of their citizens or to meet the Millennium Development Goals.Yet good governance, economic freedom, and the rule of law are conspicuously absent from the MDGs and undermine their relevance as a development strategy.

    Finally, the MDGs are more than a simple declaration of intent to invest in efforts to improve selected indicators in developing countries. The MDGs have been linked to a host of political, economic, or social objectives that deviate significantly from those outlined in the 2000 Millennium Summit. Few of these objectives have been specifically endorsed by the United States.


    The goal of reducing poverty is admirable and should be supported by the U.S., but focusing on arbitrary development indicators like the Millennium Development Goals and aid targets that are only indirectly related to reducing poverty does little to advance that objective. The U.S. should maintain the independence of its foreign assistance programs, including its poverty alleviation efforts, by rejecting the policy recommendations of the Global Poverty Act.

    Ambassador Terry Miller is Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics and Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.

    *MDG = Millennium Development Goal

  8. July 4, 2008 10:55 am

    Meridith Williams

    zee @ Road Sassy has responded to your cut and paste agenda driven leftist propaganda too. And quite well I might add!

  9. anthony pensiero permalink
    July 8, 2008 10:42 am

    if you would like to help destroy s2433 The Global Poverty Act just go to grasstops usa and send your blastfaxes

  10. July 8, 2008 12:17 pm

    Thanks Anthony!
    Great idea!


  11. Aditi permalink
    July 9, 2008 5:25 am

    I truly agree with consciousness awakening part of the post.!
    People rating poverty as poor from their hearts is the first step towards any revolution to be taking place..

    The Millennium Development goals of the this principle..!
    They want people to think..question themselves and then come forward to their bit in the cause..!
    It has being doing enormous efforts on these lines….
    This year UN will be shifting its focus on India, with Stand Up and Take action event and getting many hands together to fulfill the 8 goals…
    Be updated….with the latest happeningss..

  12. July 9, 2008 11:57 am

    Goody goody for you. I personally do not need any consciousness awakening thank you very much.
    I a know many American do not either especially if they are expected to PAY for it.

    Oh BTW your link never works. And once was enough either way. K?


  1. Barack Obama Will Shackle America to the UN and Global Poverty | Road Sassy

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: