Senator Barack Obama's only major legislative accomplishment as a U. S. Senator
"The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433) is coming up for a Senate vote... according the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Once Harry Reid and the Democrat leadership put it on the calendar, we could have as little as a week to prepare for the vote."- Lee Cary, The American Thinker
If Cary is right, Senator Barack Obama's only major legislative accomplishment as a United States Senator -- which according to some conservative leaders is potentially an $845 billion United Nations give away of your hard-earned tax dollars -- could be coming up for a stealth vote any day now! Is it really possible that our federal legislators are planning to pass Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act while they think we aren't looking?
Here's what conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly said: "Rumors have been circulating around Capitol Hill that a few activist groups have renewed their surge and have begun lobbying full force for a bill introduced by presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The bill has already passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee without any public hearings, and it also passed the House earlier this year. It is important to note that both of these votes were 'voice votes,' which was a deliberate strategy of the congressional majority so that no record would be kept of those who voted in favor of this problematic bill." Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media recently issued the following report: "While Senator Barack Obama struggles to keep the public in the dark about the nature of his pro-U.N. Global Poverty Act, a recent 'Bay Area Interfaith Leaders' Luncheon' was held to lobby for Senate passage of the bill, whose cost has been estimated at $845 billion..." "Meanwhile, a concerned parent alerted us to the fact that a Christian preschool in Long Island, New York was handing out a coloring page for children which included a plea for Congress to pass Obama's Global Poverty Act. 'Dear Parents,' said the letter that was sent home. 'We would like to join efforts with the congregation of St. David's to stop world hunger. You and your child can help by coloring and signing the enclosed sheet. This sheet will be sent along with many others to our representatives in Washington....
"The [enclosed] sheet said 'Dear Senator: At Preschool, I learned to thank God for the food I eat. I also collect coins to help those who don't have enough. Today, I ask you to help, too, with more and better aid for the world's poorest countries. We want Congress to pass the Global Poverty Act. Please cosponsor S. 2433. Thank you.' The child's name and age were supposed to be filled in.
"The pictures to be colored included what appeared to be an angel holding a bowl of food (with a Valentine heart on the robe and the bowl) and a basket with apples."
__________________ You don't scare me! Work on it!
1. Obama didn't invent this bill. This is part of a process that has been unfolding for several years now.
2. It has bipartisan support across the board; he isn't somehow singlehandedly cramming it down Congress' throat.
3. Quoting Phyllis Schlafly on anything at all is an act of complete desperation. That's way beyond going to the 'B' list...
4. School teachers have been putting their students up to writing Congress for generations. You just now found out about it? And it's teachers at a private school doing it, not public school teachers spending your hard-earned money on stamps.
5. People are scrabbling for something to freak out about, if they're trying to paint this as some sinister plot. I suggest you go read the bill, then read read up on its background.
Nobody here is really considering voting for the guy, right ?
Actually, when I see the things he hasn't done it makes me feel alot better about the accomplishments in my own life. It's kind of neat when you realize that you're much more qualified to be the President of the U.S. than the guy the dems are running I think alot of us here are alot more qualified than the guy (although maybe can't talk as pretty--maybe could with practice).
__________________
In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit -- John Galt
In my Obamanation thread, I brought out these facts. By the way, Phyllis Schafly is a very credible person. Troy, if you read her writings you might be surprised at her true patriotism.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell.
In my Obamanation thread, I brought out these facts. By the way, Phyllis Schafly is a very credible person. Troy, if you read her writings you might be surprised at her true patriotism.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell.
Deersniper, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
I still remember Schafly's hysterical fight against the Equal Rights Amendment, and her claims that it would force women to use unisex bathrooms and share prison cells with men.
I also clearly remember her position that contraceptives should be illegal for unmarried men and women, on the grounds that they aren't supposed to be having sex anyway...
I dont know much about this piece of leg. but if Obama sponsored it and with a name like "Global Poverty Act" I can tell its not good for us if it makes it through. I cant think of too many organizations or laws that I like that use words like poverty, truth, justice, peace, liberation, etc etc. Its like that 1984 new english.
__________________ Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a Bureau!!!
In theory the idea seems very humaitarian, accept for the enormous cost to the G-8 nations. Of which we are one, and we know where much of the money will come from, simple aid to africa will increase to $50,000,000,000 by 2010 (look at the bill) much of that burdon will be on our backs and come from our tax base. I have doubts that we can, comfortably, pay our share of that. Something will have to give. What will it be? defense? medicaid/medicare, social security? That aside the bill, at least in my brief read through, dosn't suggest any means by which the money/goods be allocated to those individuals in need, specifically those living on less then 2 dollars a day. I tend to not want to have my representatives vote for such a bill allowing the UN to give out bags of goods or monies to nations where the goverments of said nations will be taking over the distribution. This is in itself problematic at best. As we have seen in the past the leaders of many of these nations really do ride on the back of thier poverty stricken citizens (unlike here where we pretend they do while eating big macs in our air conditioned homes). Though global poverty and economics is a major humanitarian and security concern I am just not convinced this is going to successfully address it. I honestly doubt that many of those in real need will every see much of the proceeds of such a bill. in essence, we will break ourselves so some millitary leader, dictator or self imposed leader will get rich and use our aid to punish us or his neighbors down the road. I am sure that all involved have no real hopes that it would pass, but it does make for a nice piece of legislation to show the world how commited certin people running for office might be to help. Just my oppinion thought.
Oh and then I read it again and I dont know that I like the idea of unconditionally "cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations" I think I would like to know exactly where that money went before giving them the free ride on that. But again just my oppinion.
__________________
Living the life
Last edited by Idaho Dave; 07-31-2008 at 03:39 PM.
here is the actual bill read it for yourselves and see what you think. GovTrack: S. 2433: Text of Legislation
In theory the idea seems very humaitarian, accept for the enormous cost to the G-8 nations. Of which we are one, and we know where much of the money will come from, simple aid to africa will increase to $50,000,000,000 by 2010 (look at the bill) much of that burdon will be on our backs and come from our tax base. I have doubts that we can, comfortably, pay our share of that. Something will have to give. What will it be? defense? medicaid/medicare, social security? That aside the bill, at least in my brief read through, dosn't suggest any means by which the money/goods be allocated to those individuals in need, specifically those living on less then 2 dollars a day. I tend to not want to have my representatives vote for such a bill allowing the UN to give out bags of goods or monies to nations where the goverments of said nations will be taking over the distribution. This is in itself problematic at best. As we have seen in the past the leaders of many of these nations really do ride on the back of thier poverty stricken citizens (unlike here where we pretend they do while eating big macs in our air conditioned homes). Though global poverty and economics is a major humanitarian and security concern I am just not convinced this is going to successfully address it. I honestly doubt that many of those in real need will every see much of the proceeds of such a bill. in essence, we will break ourselves so some millitary leader, dictator or self imposed leader will get rich and use our aid to punish us or his neighbors down the road. I am sure that all involved have no real hopes that it would pass, but it does make for a nice piece of legislation to show the world how commited certin people running for office might be to help. Just my oppinion thought.
Oh and then I read it again and I dont know that I like the idea of unconditionally "cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations" I think I would like to know exactly where that money went before giving them the free ride on that. But again just my oppinion.
A thoughtful analysis, Dave. Thank you. I'm not sure it should pass either, for a couple of the reasons you cited.
But that's a long way from painting it as part of some sinister, anti-American agenda by Obama...
I still remember Schafly's hysterical fight against the Equal Rights Amendment, and her claims that it would force women to use unisex bathrooms and share prison cells with men.
Right. And there is no push for unisex bathrooms on college campuses either. Right now, here in Ft. Lauderdale one of the major issues in local election campaigning for the County Commission centers around allowing people of uncertain (to them) sexual identity to use beachfront bathrooms of either gender. This would apply even to anatomical males who "think" they're females trapped in male bodies. This not withstanding that children and defenseless women use those bathrooms. You're the hysteric here.
Right. And there is no push for unisex bathrooms on college campuses either. Right now, here in Ft. Lauderdale one of the major issues in local election campaigning for the County Commission centers around allowing people of uncertain (to them) sexual identity to use beachfront bathrooms of either gender. This would apply even to anatomical males who "think" they're females trapped in male bodies. This not withstanding that children and defenseless women use those bathrooms. You're the hysteric here.
This is how unisex bathrooms work, CMI: a man goes in, locks the door, does his thing and leaves. Then a woman goes in, locks the door, does her thing and leaves. I've had unisex bathrooms in my house for years; they work just fine.
But to claim that somehow the Equal Rights Amendment would have required men and women to use the same bathroom at the same time is pure bs, and you know it. I don't see how people can even keep a straight face when they say stuff like that; they must think voters are all morons.
Frankly, if what you describe is one of the 'major issues' where you live, life must be good in Fort Lauderdale. Wish things were so wonderful here that we could afford to waste time on that sort of nonsense...
This is how unisex bathrooms work, CMI: a man goes in, locks the door, does his thing and leaves. Then a woman goes in, locks the door, does her thing and leaves. I've had unisex bathrooms in my house for years; they work just fine.
But to claim that somehow the Equal Rights Amendment would have required men and women to use the same bathroom at the same time is pure bs, and you know it. I don't see how people can even keep a straight face when they say stuff like that; they must think voters are all morons.
Frankly, if what you describe is one of the 'major issues' where you live, life must be good in Fort Lauderdale. Wish things were so wonderful here that we could afford to waste time on that sort of nonsense...
I can't expect you to know what a big issue this is here. Homosexuals have virtually taken over public bathhouses along Ft. Lauderdale beach. They have open sex in there to the point that tourists unaware of what goes on here have been shocked when they've taken their children into these beach bathhouses. These bathhouses are there for the public to use as changing rooms, showering facilities, etc. Now they want to legalize the use of these public facilities set aside for their opposite gender on the pretext that they "believe" they are that gender. This is a blatant and cynical attempt to use post-modern pyschobabble to justify behavior that is dangerous to defenseless women and children. Your obtuse trivializing of it smacks of either complicity or stupidity.
Last edited by CallMeIshmael; 07-31-2008 at 08:50 PM.
And with unisex bathrooms, in my honest opinion anyhow, there'll be that many more woman/children getting raped or abducted also? Too tempting for someone who already has little to no control. Sure, they could just as easily go into a womans bathroom. But it's a little more obvious they're up to no good when they go into a womans only bathroom VS a unisex.
Let's face it, if you ask me, the honor system isn't such a good idea anymore these days .
__________________ "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson
And with unisex bathrooms, in my honest opinion anyhow, there'll be that many more woman/children getting raped or abducted also? Too tempting for someone who already has little to no control. Sure, they could just as easily go into a womans bathroom. But it's a little more obvious they're up to no good when they go into a womans only bathroom VS a unisex.
Let's face it, if you ask me, the honor system isn't such a good idea anymore these days .
These are not unisex bathrooms. They're legally segregated by law according to gender. But the laws are not enforced because Broward County is governed by extreme liberal Democrats. These extremists now want to legalize what they've been defacto allowing to the point that non-homsexual residents avoid using the facilities they are paying for with their taxes deeming them unsavory and unsafe. Unsuspecting tourists however learn they hard way. They and their children walk in unsuspecting on homosexual orgies. Sometimes they are shocked when their children who went in by themselves report back what they have seen. Vote Democrat. for real change.
I can't expect you to know what a big issue this is here. Homosexuals have virtually taken over public bathhouses along Ft. Lauderdale beach. They have open sex in there to the point that tourists unaware of what goes on here have been shocked when they've taken their children into these beach bathhouses. These bathhouses are there for the public to use as changing rooms, showering facilities, etc. Now they want to legalize the use of these public facilities set aside for their opposite gender on the pretext that they "believe" they are that gender. This is a blatant and cynical attempt to use post-modern pyschobabble to justify behavior that is dangerous to defenseless women and children. Your obtuse trivializing of it smacks of either complicity or stupidity.
I fail to see what homosexual sex has to do with unisex bathrooms. Don't they do that in the Men's Room, anyway? Enlighten me: how does two guys porking one another pose a threat to women, and how would unisex bathrooms make the problem worse
Maybe they should try enforcing the current laws against public sex, indecent behavior, etc, instead of whipping up a bogus issue about unisex bathrooms.
I fail to see what homosexual sex has to do with unisex bathrooms. Don't they do that in the Men's Room, anyway? Enlighten me: how does two guys porking one another pose a threat to women, and how would unisex bathrooms make the problem worse
Maybe they should try enforcing the current laws against public sex, indecent behavior, etc, instead of whipping up a bogus issue about unisex bathrooms.
Allowing men to use bathrooms reserved for women is an invitation for predators to lie in wait for a solitary, unsuspecting victim be she woman or child.
Apart from the obviousness of that, your suggestion that homosexual sex between males only occurs in men's rooms is moronic. Ft. Lauderdale like San Francisco is well known as the venue for homosexual sex not only in men's rooms but anywhere including on beaches. Haulover Beach (a few miles south of Ft. Lauderdale) is a well known homosexual dominated nude beach where this happens every day. Opening public bathhouses to "gender integrated" usage is asking for trouble. I can tell by your persistence that you favor this kind of activity. You are practically panting with anticipation. Decent people don't want this.
Allowing men to use bathrooms reserved for women is an invitation for predators to lie in wait for a solitary, unsuspecting victim be she woman or child.
Apart from the obviousness of that, your suggestion that homosexual sex between males only occurs in men's rooms is moronic. Ft. Lauderdale like San Francisco is well known as the venue for homosexual sex not only in men's rooms but anywhere including on beaches. Haulover Beach (a few miles south of Ft. Lauderdale) is a well known homosexual dominated nude beach where this happens every day. Opening public bathhouses to "gender integrated" usage is asking for trouble. I can tell by your persistence that you favor this kind of activity. You are practically panting with anticipation. Decent people don't want this.
You're blowing smoke. You used homosexual sex in public as a justification for coming out against unisex bathrooms, and those are two totally unrelated issues.
And you might want to watch the personal insults about what I do and don't favor, son. You're getting just a little slimy there...
Senator Barack Obama's only major legislative accomplishment as a U. S. Senator 
I think alot of us here are alot more qualified than the guy (although maybe can't talk as pretty--maybe could with practice).
