7 May 2008
Global Poverty Act
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Constitution in Peril .
Guest Blog by Sharon Anderson
Global Poverty Act
I don’t care if Obama is black, I don’t care who is minister is or was, and I don’t care what Hillary may have just said about him. What does concern me are the things has done as a Senator which have earned him the distinction of being one the most liberal lawmakers in Washington.
I am afraid that too many Americans are so caught up in watching the campaign circus TV and thinking about an election that is months away that they are unaware of what is going on in Washington now. Obama says America is ready for change. Implementing the Global Poverty Act (S.2433) which Obama has sponsored will certainly bring about change, — but I believe that most Americans will be dismayed when they discover the kind of changes he was really talking about.
Let’s take a look at the Global Poverty Act which was put on the Senate Legislative Calendar on April 24th and which the US Senate may vote on any day.
According to some conservative sources, this disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over as much as 0.7 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product — or $845,000,000,000.00 — on welfare to third-world countries.
While the financial implications of S 2433 are staggering, I am just as concerned about provision number 7, ‘coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals, including achieving universal education, promoting gender equality and empowering women.’ (Caution: So much of what the UN says sounds so good–until you understand the implications.)
Please contact your Senators today and ask them to oppose S 2433. I would love to hear that some ‘In God We Trust’ readers have actually done this!
For a summary of the bill go to: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show
For the bill in its entirety go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110QSfj3p::
Mail this post
16 Comments so far...
Concerned American Says:
7 May 2008 at 12:18 am.
Whoa, the great and spacious building. Chilling!
E.E. Says:
7 May 2008 at 12:24 am.
This is very important so I wanted to add this:
The Senate Shell Game…
Advocates of the Global Poverty Act are claiming that it does not really commit the United States to anything… that it won’t really cost anything… that it simply requires the President — in conjunction with the Secretary of State — to ‘develop’ strategies to alleviate world poverty.
In fact, Biden’s report incredulously states, ‘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 Global Poverty Act intentionally gives no specific figures but it does contain clues, and those clues are stated repeatedly in the legislation’s reliance on the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.
Sharon Anderson Says:
7 May 2008 at 8:04 am.
You are right EE. This is important. Here is some more critical information from the link you referenced.
WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media as saying:
“The bill defines the term ‘Millennium Development Goals’ as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration…”
“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.”
Here are some of the additional provisions of the Millennium Development Goal:
a “currency transfer tax,” that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency; 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.”a “standing peace force,” meaning a standing United Nations army that might, in time, be large enough to force us to bend to its will; a “UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons,” the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;the “eradication of poverty” by the “redistribution [of] wealth and land” — How do you suppose the United Nations expects to “redistribute” the land and the wealth? And what country do you think the third-world majority will go after first? cancellation of “the debts of developing countries,” “a fair distribution of the earth’s resources.” and “political control of the global economy.”
In other words, it’s a blueprint for a world government, owned and operated by the United Nations.
Read More at http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyact1nm
Sharon Anderson Says:
7 May 2008 at 8:10 am.
Wow, Concerned American, “Chilling” is exactly the world that came to my mind when I saw that photo. It gives me the “heebie jeebies.”
Cameron Says:
7 May 2008 at 10:06 am.
I’d read about this before on the blog but I figured it was such a dumb idea it wouldn’t get this far. I guess it shows ‘how far’ we’ve gone. I’ll email my senators today.
Mac Says:
7 May 2008 at 10:34 am.
I’ll contact Senator Casey from my state but Arlen Specter would be a waste of time. He is an internationalist and couldn’t care less what the people think.
Hawk Says:
7 May 2008 at 10:59 am.
See this is why Obama scares me. We need to support McCain. He wouldn’t do this.
Benjamin Says:
7 May 2008 at 11:10 am.
Socialists have contrived the green movement to control internationalist politics. McCain has taken the side of the environmentalists and he has repeatedly spoken out for international tribunals to have more power and to run the world. This may not be something he can come out and support publicly but I’m sure that secretly he is all for this tax. He is all about globalism, period. Do your homework.
Joy Bischoff Says:
7 May 2008 at 12:46 pm.
I decided to be fair and show the other side of the coin. I received an email from someone named Holly who gave me the link supporting this bill. I copied some of it.
Point one disturbs me because it makes it clear that it would be a law we would have to follow. To have a legal mandate to feed the rest of the world is globalism and could assist in bankrupting us, especially as disasters and bad econ policy drives the world further into chaos.
The story about the fishes beneath that, explains biblically why we should do this. We have discussed this before. It is a Democratic idea to legislate compassion and we believe this isn’t true compassion and bears fruit of resentment, envy and slothfulness. Freely choosing to show compassion is a Republican idea. America is the most giving country in the world and it comes from the heart. It isn’t demanded, it is freely given. This is how we grow and become Christlike. Read and decide for yourselves.
The Global Poverty Act breaks new ground in three important ways:
1.
For the first time achieving one of the Millennium Development Goals will be included in U.S. law.
2.
Over 20 government agencies currently participate in development activities, sometimes at cross purposes. The Global Poverty Act would ensure the maximum benefit to those in greatest need by coordinating the efforts of each agency that administers aid.
3.
13 of the world’s major donors have reported on their progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals, while the U.S. has not. This legislation would require a regular report to Congress on U.S. progress towards meeting the first Millennium Development Goal.
Most Christians know this story well. A version of it appears in all four Gospels. Like all good stories, it changes a bit with each telling—sometimes there are 5,000 fed, sometimes 4,000. Some versions start with five loaves, others with seven. However, the central theme of the story remains the same: While the disciples look at so many people who need to be fed and see only scarcity, Jesus knows that what they have will be sufficient for him to feed the multitude.
As Christians in a nation of plenty, how often do we still only see scarcity? Do we truly believe that God is going to provide what we need and even enough for us to share with others?
John’s account of the miracle of the loaves and fishes is the only one that includes the little boy. The boy has been better prepared than the rest of the crowd and brought his meal with him. However, he gives it up, trusting Jesus to do what is best with it.
We must follow the boy’s example—not just trusting God with our financial resources, but also offering our power as citizens in a democracy. When we use our voices to call for Congress to increase funding for effective programs that help developing countries in Africa and other poor parts of the world, we are trusting God to do miraculous things with this small action.
As we read the Bible and this miracle appears again and again, it should remind us that God sees the abundance that already exists in our world. Let us adopt that vision as well. Once we truly see that, hunger in our midst becomes even more scandalous. That abundance should convict us to be even more persistent in our advocacy—even more insistent that we create a world where all are fed.
Matt Says:
7 May 2008 at 1:58 pm.
Like Sharon wrote, enforcing gender equality and empowering women is the part that is really scary. Churches would be forced to accept gays in leadership positions or they would be disenfranchised and the same with women. I am all for equal rights and I admire women but these things shouldn’t be enforced because they always go overboard. Heterosexual white males are seen as the scum of this planet and this would make it worse.
Also, I agree that this kind of thing can’t be enforced. Some people will swallow anything if someone uses the Bible to support it but they don’t understand free choice.
Stumpy Says:
7 May 2008 at 2:17 pm.
Here is the part I like best from them folks tryin ta talk us inta given em our money we earnt by the sweat a our brow:
John’s account of the miracle of the loaves and fishes is the only one that includes the little boy. The boy has been better prepared than the rest of the crowd and brought his meal with him. However, he gives it up, trusting Jesus to do what is best with it.
Now how can y’all complain bout them sweet words from the Bible? This is as right as rain. Im gonna follow this advise and so should all a y’all. Jist as soon as Jesus comes again Im gonna give him every single thing I got cause I do trust HIM!!! I sure as hell aint gonna give it ta no globalist thiefs who I aint never gonna trust to do nothin right with my money.
CindyL. Says:
7 May 2008 at 2:31 pm.
Hooray Stumpy! You nailed that one right where it counts. That makes so much sense. Freely give to the Lord or be forced to give to the anti-Christ globalist beast. That may sound crazy to some people but I don’t care. It’s the truth.
Stumpy, you need to come around more often. We need you.
Stumpy Says:
7 May 2008 at 2:40 pm.
Sorry girl. Once the weather gets warm I gotta lot a outside work ta do so I cant be around so much. Ill get here when I can.
Jan W. Says:
7 May 2008 at 4:02 pm.
I can’t believe our congress would even consider something this outrageous with all those taxes and fees and controls. I’ll get out some emails. They need to hear how we feel about this.
Stumpy, you are a dear as my grandmother used to say. You sure put it in a nutshell.
S.J. Says:
7 May 2008 at 4:39 pm.
I’m glad someone posted something awhile back that showed that republicans give more to charity than democrats. Those dems love to hollar about how much more compassionate they are than us when what is really happening is that they are more resentful and covetous than conservatives. We give because we care. A lot of them try to force giving because they are either lazy, they want power, or like I said just plain resentful and covetous. It needed to be said twice.
Ghost Says:
7 May 2008 at 11:07 pm.
So because the Mormon Church excommunicates practicing homosexuals who aren’t trying to over come their challenge then if this passed our church could be disenfranchised. Or because women have their own separate organization from the priesthood, same thing. I think it is an understatement that I’m against this and will let my reps know how I feel about it. I know most people just read and don’t comment here but we need all of you to stand up and let your voice be heard too.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
