BrookfieldNOW.com
search all things local
     
Blog Home |  Email Author  |  About this Blog       Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

Practically Speaking

Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers’ perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.

Obama's $845 billion for Global Poverty bill? Call your Senator NOW!

By Kyle Prast
Friday, Feb 15 2008, 02:38 PM

Oh, I am getting so tired of all this watchdogging, calling, and emailing our officials, but the alternative is to let these bad bills pass. This one is not just about a huge amount of money; our national sovereignty is at stake.

For those of you who think Barack Obama does not have much of a record to run on, his Global Poverty Act bill ought to tell you a lot about this young senator.

Vicki McKenna cued her listeners into this unbelievable bill yesterday. (She really does have a nose for news!) She explained, The Global Poverty Act takes .7% of our G.D.P. and sends it to the UN to fight global poverty. She also reminded us that the UN is not a very efficient charity and only sends out about 5 cents from every dollar received--not to mention their bad track record on plans such as Oil for Food.

This estimated $845 billion dollars, the .7% of our G.D.P., is in addition to what we already send for foreign aid. This new bill would add up to $1,000,000,000,000 over 15 years. (That is trillion with a T) But the money is the least of our concerns.

Think we don't have to worry about this bill? It will never pass?

Think again.

It already passed the House! According to Glenn Beck, "it already has passed the House mainly because people didn't read it. "

Read the entire Glenn Beck posting. It's chock full of important things to consider before casting your vote for President like: UN Rights of the Child, Kyoto protocol, Convention on Biological Diversity, and spending $210 billion for, in essence, a new kind of WPA project.

This Senate bill 2433 sounds so outrageous, you might think it is an Urban Legend. Sadly, it is not.

Family Research Council posted this: (Direct link unavailable, emphasis added. No, I am not for Huckabee.)

"Less than a day after the President agreed to put more money in taxpayers' pockets, the U.S. Senate is attempting to take some of those dollars back. The Global Poverty Act, while seemingly charitable and big-hearted, sounds nicer than it really is... 

"...In addition to surrendering more dollars, the U.S. would also be required to surrender some of its own 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 ratifying a series of objectionable treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming), the Convention on Biological Diversity, and so on. Considering the magnitude of the legislation, one would think that the Senate would proceed with caution. Not so!...

That posting concluded with: "Unreal. If that does not scare you, I don't know what will. Take action to stop this bill now." 

I couldn't agree more. 

Our own dear Senator Russ Feingold was a cosponsor too, but call or email his office anyway. 

This bill was steamrolled through the Senate committee without hearings. 


Contact our Senators: (IF you know people in other states, tell them to contact their Senators too.)

Kohl Contact page: http://kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html   Phone: (202) 224-5653, (414) 297-4451

Feingold  senator@feingold.senate.gov  Phone: (414) 276-7282, (202) 224-5323

Tell them to oppose S.2433, The Global Poverty Act of 2007

counter hit xanga

 

 

Comments

Santa's Elf   

Gee Kyle, Seems to me as though if Mr. Obama wants to encourage global poverty, blowing a few trillion dollars on the U.N. would be a great start. He'll have us impoverished in no time at all.

By the way, isn't it interesting that virtually every one of the 'Global' initiatives (NAFTA, GATT, etc., and now this one) have flowed through congress like a dose of physic? They had no detractors, no debate and no delay through which the people could study them. And now that they're law, they are having the desired effect: they've got thoughtful people like you and me filling their britches, wondering what hit them!

Kyle's reply: I would have said these Global initiatives make the hair stand up on the back of my neck. 

February 16, 2008 6:25 AM

Shawn Matson   

I realized you are a budget Hawk.  Iraq is costing us over 3 trillion.  Why haven't you lobbied to stop that?

Kyle's reply: Does your comment mean that you think this is a good bill?

The Global Poverty Act bill is about so much more than just the money. (And that is saying something!) As I understand it, this bill turns over many of our rights, guaranteed by our Constitution, to a World entity, committing us to many treaties that are anti-American interests. Economically, it is a redistribution of wealth beyond anything most Americans can imagine and puts that $845 billion into the hands of the UN, that does not have a good track record on being fiscally responsible or ehthical. Plus, America and Americans are already very generous in giving to third world countries. Between this bill and the new Green and Infrastructure jobs plans Barack talked about recently, we are looking at nearly $1Trillion dollars more in spending right there. Where is that going to come from? It will cripple our country. 

As for being against the war, who wouldn't want an end to war? Who wouldn't want to bring all of our troops home? But it is extremely naive to say end the war or we are against all war in general. What do you think would happen if say, we brought our troops home from South Korea? North Korean soldiers would pour over the border before the our troop transport plane took off!

Iran just launched a missile last week carrying a satellite. It could have just as easily carried a nuclear missile. I believe we need to maintain a military presence in Iraq because we will need military bases in close proximity to the hot spots in the Middle East. It is not something anyone wants, but it is something we need.

February 16, 2008 5:25 PM

GerryG   

"Budget Hawk"? Chuckle, Chuckle. I wonder how Shawn will refer to folks concerned about money once he's broken free of his academic womb and has to earn his own way through life?

Even Hillary - that paragon of liberal thought - demonstrates this same inconsistency. On one hand she's out advocating national health insurance - a plan that will make a trillion look like a trifle. On the other hand, when you visit her web site, you're confronted with a big red 'CONTRIBUTE' button. And I'd bet that the button is functional too!

Kyle's reply: "Don't sugar coat it, [Gerry], tell it to [us] straight." (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) 

February 17, 2008 10:59 AM

Practically Speaking   

Tomorrow is the primary for President and Brookfield Aldermen in Districts 1 and 2. I have no aldermanic

February 18, 2008 1:08 PM

Shawn Matson   

I am already paying my way more than you know.  I don't think it's a good bill.  Then again, i'm consistent on spending.

Kyle's reply: Shawn, I have no idea what you pay for your way, in taxes, or anything else. I am just posting other people's comments because I am supposed to, just as I post yours.

We could save a lot of money just by reducing our military. Oh, wait, that was already done during the Carter administration. It was disastrous. We could just ignore terrorist attacks. Oh, wait, that was done during the Bill Clinton administration. That was disastrous too.

I believe we need to get rid of the earmarks and stop the blatant redistribution of wealth under the guise of health care for all, college for all, granting benefits to illegals, paying carbon credits, instituting make work programs, etc. That is pretty consistent.

February 18, 2008 7:31 PM

Shawn Matson   

And all he deficit spending under Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II was and still is disastrous, Kyle!

Kyle's reply: I don't approve of the huge deficit either; we must cut spending. But I find it curious that when Bush II for example, vetoed the SCHIP bill or did not want to include so many in the tax rebate (which I am against too) that the Democrats whined for him to spend more.

Where do you think the money for all the social programs being promised on the campaign trail are going to come from?

February 19, 2008 1:19 AM

My Two Cents   

I always thought that Bush II's deficit spending was an effort to be "bi-partisan."  What a mistake.  If either of these Democratic candidates is elected in November, my spouse and I will retire and join the ranks of free-loaders.  There's no sense producing an income if it is going to be taxed to the hilt, while the masses make no effort to be responsible for themselves.  We might as well collect our social security while there's still some left.

February 19, 2008 8:48 AM

anthonypnsr   

If you would like to help destroy The Global Poverty Act s2433 just go to Grasstops Usa they are sending blast faxes to the republican senate and the president

Kyle's reply: Don't you have to contribute to send the fax? http://grasstopsusa.com/globalpovertyactupdate.html

May 5, 2008 4:22 PM

afijamesy2k   

My --- this is dangerous and evil and it makes me truly sad and sick.

June 15, 2008 11:07 AM

POD seviceman   

I am amazed that you all are worried about the money going out but not

the disarming of the American citizen.

Thats the first act of a dictatorship

July 2, 2008 5:29 PM

POD seviceman   

I also think it's time to impeach every ****** senator who supports this bill. They are sworn to uphold the constitution not take it away

Kyle's reply to both: I am very concerned about the UN treaties this bill subjects us to. I heard the senate version may come up for a vote soon after the July 4th recess.

I still cannot understand how it passed the House unanimously on a voice vote. Some say it did because no one read the entire bill. Disgusting. 

July 2, 2008 5:33 PM

POD seviceman   

It's the lethargy of the people and complacency that tells them

this could never happen here.I wonder how many of our representatives

in the house and senators are bought and paid for by the UN.

I also wonder what the people thought we have been fighting for for 200 yrs? To be sold out to the UN by a JR. senator with aspirations of dictatorship? Not..... Thus My name PO'ed

Kyle's reply: I agree. It is heartbreaking to be celebrating our country's birthday, a day that marks the sacrifice of so many, and see many today willingly giving our hard fought freedoms away without batting an eye.

On a local note, today at our local Summerfest music festival, the Army was asked to shut down its combat simulation game (where the player is a machine gunner on a anti terrorist mission to free a village) because it offended some peacenik group. Hello peacenik group, what do you think we celebrate on the 4th of July?  (A militia fighting against a tyrannical government and winning!)

July 2, 2008 9:18 PM

Obama's Global Poverty Bill: G'bye Sovereignty & $845 Billion - Debate Politics Forums   

Pingback from  Obama's Global Poverty Bill: G'bye Sovereignty & $845 Billion - Debate Politics Forums

July 22, 2008 4:18 AM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Tags

How the other half lives

Search the Blogs