Forget all those stupid e-mails you get about Barack Obama being a Muslim, refusing to swear on the Bible, and all that. They're not true.
Here's something that is true, and that you can e-mail to all your friends. Obama wants Americans to pay a global tax to the United Nations.
Obama sponsored a bill in the Senate (S.2433) called the "Global Poverty Act." 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.
Obama's Senate office sent out a release on the bill: "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 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 on foreign aid.
Obama's bill would make it US policy to end "global poverty" by committing Americans to an extra tax to be paid to the United Nations, to be distributed (or stolen) at their pleasure.
While many rumors about Barack Obama are untrue, this one is documented. The House version of this bill (H.R.1302) has already passed the House, and at this time is close to being passed in the Senate.
Does the United States need to commit itself to pay a tax to the United Nations? Should Americans be forced to pay yet more in taxes? Should more American money -- nearly a trillion dollars more over the next 13 years -- go to countries that oppose and hate America, simply because they're poor?
Barack Obama thinks so.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query "global tax". Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query "global tax". Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The Perfect Problem
In America, trends tend to start in California. Both good and bad ideas often originate there, and the rest of the country tries to catch up.
Now Los Angeles Country transit officials, to fight global warming, want to add a new tax onto the fees and taxes that motorists already pay.
From the "Desert Dispatch" opinion piece: "Billed as a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee," the measure would cost motorists either an additional 3 percent motor fuel tax, or up to a $90 annual flat fee, based on vehicle emissions." The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat (surprise!) and author of Assembly Bill 2558.
Again, from the piece: "Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be."
Some points to take away from the story: 1) All the hubbub is over computer models. The supposed disasters have not been confirmed with real-world applications at all. I previously wrote about the failure of computer modeling here and here. Real world examples? Al Gore's photo of the "stranded" polar bears in his movie was deceptive at best, and the Arctic ice cap is pretty much normal.
2) What's the ideal temperature? At what temperature would the global warming alarmists stop their hysteria? It's the perfect Liberal problem: one without a solution.
Now Los Angeles Country transit officials, to fight global warming, want to add a new tax onto the fees and taxes that motorists already pay.
From the "Desert Dispatch" opinion piece: "Billed as a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee," the measure would cost motorists either an additional 3 percent motor fuel tax, or up to a $90 annual flat fee, based on vehicle emissions." The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat (surprise!) and author of Assembly Bill 2558.
Again, from the piece: "Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be."
Some points to take away from the story: 1) All the hubbub is over computer models. The supposed disasters have not been confirmed with real-world applications at all. I previously wrote about the failure of computer modeling here and here. Real world examples? Al Gore's photo of the "stranded" polar bears in his movie was deceptive at best, and the Arctic ice cap is pretty much normal.
2) What's the ideal temperature? At what temperature would the global warming alarmists stop their hysteria? It's the perfect Liberal problem: one without a solution.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Global Warming Fraud Exposed
Okay, I wanted to let this story mature a bit before I commented on it. In a nutshell: a hacker obtained e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – a world-renowned climate change research center.
The unguarded e-mails suggest a couple of things. First, that global warming alarmist scientists around the world manipulated data to support their contention that mankind is responsible for global warming which result in global disaster. One e-mail refers to a “trick” being employed to massage temperature statistics to “hide the decline” (in global temperature.)
Other documents indicate a conspiracy to intimidate and/or blackmail editors at science journals into refusing to publish articles from global warming skeptics. The point that skeptics are "not published enough" in scientific journals has been one of the main arguments made by global warming alarmists. One excerpt:
One article asks if this is "the final nail in the coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming." Don't count on it. Once politicians get a whiff of a chance to control and tax citizens, it's hard to get them to face reason. What should be an earthquake in the scientific world will likely not get much play in the mainstream media.
The unguarded e-mails suggest a couple of things. First, that global warming alarmist scientists around the world manipulated data to support their contention that mankind is responsible for global warming which result in global disaster. One e-mail refers to a “trick” being employed to massage temperature statistics to “hide the decline” (in global temperature.)
Other documents indicate a conspiracy to intimidate and/or blackmail editors at science journals into refusing to publish articles from global warming skeptics. The point that skeptics are "not published enough" in scientific journals has been one of the main arguments made by global warming alarmists. One excerpt:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
One article asks if this is "the final nail in the coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming." Don't count on it. Once politicians get a whiff of a chance to control and tax citizens, it's hard to get them to face reason. What should be an earthquake in the scientific world will likely not get much play in the mainstream media.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Cleaning Up Bookmarks
While wandering through the mess I call my Favorites, I ran across several sites bookmarked that I apparently intended to blog about, but never did. Since they contain information that I thought (at least at the time) worth noticing, and because I want to clean up my folders, I'm making a digest of these sites.
First up is a column, "The Nature of Conservatism," written by Mike Adams, in which he spells out the differences between Conservatives and Liberals. Favorite passage: "If there is one thing that separates the conservative from the liberal it is his view of human nature. The conservative sees man as born in a broken state. This tragic view of human nature sees man as selfish and hedonistic by design....This tragic view of human nature also explains why conservatives often speak of religion and family values."
Next up is a column written for the New York Times on May 1 which discusses the marketing of global warming to people who don't care. A media research group, ecoAmerica, accidently sent a fsummary of its findings and recommendations to the media. Read "Seeking to Save the Planet, with a Thesaurus," by John M. Broder. Favorite passage: "“climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”
Along those lines, The Capital Research Center issued a report titled "Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It." It describes the fortunes that global warming alarmists such as Gore stand to make when the government implements massive legislation. Favorite passage: "[E]nvironmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests."
Right Wing News had a column on April 16 entitled "50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know." It's a non-political list of good advice that us oldtimers wish we had followed. Favorite passage: "#24 - Don't ever loan your friends money if you want to keep them as friends. After all, if they were good with money and were likely to pay you back in a timely manner, they probably wouldn't need the loan in the first place. If they really need the money, you want to help them, and you can afford it -- just give it to them."
John Hawkins wrote a column on March 10 entitled "The 10 Biggest Amateur Mistakes by the Obama Administration So Far." Favorite passage: "Choosing tax cheat Timothy Geithner to be his Treasury Secretary was such an incredible screw up that it deserves it own entry. It's mind boggling that any Administration would choose a tax cheat to run the department that's in charge of the IRS. Moreover, in Obama's case, he has already announced plans for the largest tax hike in American history, nearly a trillion dollars, and the man in charge of that effort doesn't pay his taxes?"
First up is a column, "The Nature of Conservatism," written by Mike Adams, in which he spells out the differences between Conservatives and Liberals. Favorite passage: "If there is one thing that separates the conservative from the liberal it is his view of human nature. The conservative sees man as born in a broken state. This tragic view of human nature sees man as selfish and hedonistic by design....This tragic view of human nature also explains why conservatives often speak of religion and family values."
Next up is a column written for the New York Times on May 1 which discusses the marketing of global warming to people who don't care. A media research group, ecoAmerica, accidently sent a fsummary of its findings and recommendations to the media. Read "Seeking to Save the Planet, with a Thesaurus," by John M. Broder. Favorite passage: "“climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”
Along those lines, The Capital Research Center issued a report titled "Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It." It describes the fortunes that global warming alarmists such as Gore stand to make when the government implements massive legislation. Favorite passage: "[E]nvironmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests."
Right Wing News had a column on April 16 entitled "50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know." It's a non-political list of good advice that us oldtimers wish we had followed. Favorite passage: "#24 - Don't ever loan your friends money if you want to keep them as friends. After all, if they were good with money and were likely to pay you back in a timely manner, they probably wouldn't need the loan in the first place. If they really need the money, you want to help them, and you can afford it -- just give it to them."
John Hawkins wrote a column on March 10 entitled "The 10 Biggest Amateur Mistakes by the Obama Administration So Far." Favorite passage: "Choosing tax cheat Timothy Geithner to be his Treasury Secretary was such an incredible screw up that it deserves it own entry. It's mind boggling that any Administration would choose a tax cheat to run the department that's in charge of the IRS. Moreover, in Obama's case, he has already announced plans for the largest tax hike in American history, nearly a trillion dollars, and the man in charge of that effort doesn't pay his taxes?"
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Obama's Trump Card
The Washington Post recently ran a story about the racism that Obama volunteers are running into while campaigning for the candidate. According to the story, "field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season." They've been called "racially derogatory names" and endured "malicious rants and ugly stereotyping."
There are numerous anecdotes of what you'd expect, including one person telling a campaign worker to "hang that darky from a tree." (Note: I have known a lot of bigots in my time, and I can't think of one who would use such a phrase. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it sounds like something from a poorly-written old movie.)
Then, an incident of racism occurred when a campaign office was vandalized, and comments like "Hamas Votes BHO" and "We don't cling to guns and religion" were spraypainted on the walls.
Huh?
As stupid as vandalism is, and as much as the criminals should be punished, could those phrases really be classified as "racist?" I don't believe they are -- but the Washington Post used them as an example of the racist tendencies of many white Americans.
Think about that for a second. A major newspaper has classified spraypainted phrases against the black candidate as racist, even though there was no mention of race in either remark.
Do we see a template of how the campaign for the general election will be covered in the media? Any negative statement against Obama will immediately be designated as "racist," and the content of the point can be discounted without being answered.
The Post story goes on to say that Obama "has struggled to attract white voters who didn't attend college and earn less than $50,000 a year." Read that as "ignorant, poor white people." You know, the only group that is racist (merely by virtue of being poor, non-college-educated, and white.) The clear implication is that these people are not voting for Obama because he's black.
Meanwhile, Obama's support among black voters is a given. Political pundits blithely predicted Obama's victories in states such as South Carolina, Louisiana and North Carolina because of the large number of black voters in those states. (Obama received 78% of the black vote in SC, 90% in LA, and 91% in NC.)
Yet although much has been made about the blatant racism Obama faces among white voters, there is absolutely no outrage over the racism shown by 1) The huge percentage of black voters who support Obama, presumably because of his race, and 2) The "given" nature of that fact by political pundits, as though it were normal and expected, and 3) The lack of any sort of comment on the hypocrisy shown by all involved.
Apparently racism in favor of Obama is acceptable and the norm, while racism against Obama is to be abhorred and condemned in the strongest possible language.
A person with any sense doesn't use race as a factor in making decisions such as electing a candidate. That includes those who vote for a candidate based on his race. The problem is that not only is there a double standard regarding racism when it comes to Obama, but the definition of racism has been broadened to include almost any remark a person can make about him -- unless it's a glowing endorsement.
To avoid being labeled a racist myself, here are some of the reasons I am against Barack Obama:
Okay, you get the idea. Go to ontheissues.org to see more of Obama's positions and votes.
My thought is this: there are so many other reasons to vote against Barack Obama that his race isn't even an issue.
There are numerous anecdotes of what you'd expect, including one person telling a campaign worker to "hang that darky from a tree." (Note: I have known a lot of bigots in my time, and I can't think of one who would use such a phrase. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it sounds like something from a poorly-written old movie.)
Then, an incident of racism occurred when a campaign office was vandalized, and comments like "Hamas Votes BHO" and "We don't cling to guns and religion" were spraypainted on the walls.
Huh?
As stupid as vandalism is, and as much as the criminals should be punished, could those phrases really be classified as "racist?" I don't believe they are -- but the Washington Post used them as an example of the racist tendencies of many white Americans.
Think about that for a second. A major newspaper has classified spraypainted phrases against the black candidate as racist, even though there was no mention of race in either remark.
Do we see a template of how the campaign for the general election will be covered in the media? Any negative statement against Obama will immediately be designated as "racist," and the content of the point can be discounted without being answered.
The Post story goes on to say that Obama "has struggled to attract white voters who didn't attend college and earn less than $50,000 a year." Read that as "ignorant, poor white people." You know, the only group that is racist (merely by virtue of being poor, non-college-educated, and white.) The clear implication is that these people are not voting for Obama because he's black.
Meanwhile, Obama's support among black voters is a given. Political pundits blithely predicted Obama's victories in states such as South Carolina, Louisiana and North Carolina because of the large number of black voters in those states. (Obama received 78% of the black vote in SC, 90% in LA, and 91% in NC.)
Yet although much has been made about the blatant racism Obama faces among white voters, there is absolutely no outrage over the racism shown by 1) The huge percentage of black voters who support Obama, presumably because of his race, and 2) The "given" nature of that fact by political pundits, as though it were normal and expected, and 3) The lack of any sort of comment on the hypocrisy shown by all involved.
Apparently racism in favor of Obama is acceptable and the norm, while racism against Obama is to be abhorred and condemned in the strongest possible language.
A person with any sense doesn't use race as a factor in making decisions such as electing a candidate. That includes those who vote for a candidate based on his race. The problem is that not only is there a double standard regarding racism when it comes to Obama, but the definition of racism has been broadened to include almost any remark a person can make about him -- unless it's a glowing endorsement.
To avoid being labeled a racist myself, here are some of the reasons I am against Barack Obama:
- He's a Democrat.
- He's a Liberal.
- He has no clue about the war on terror.
- He wants Americans to pay a tax to the United Nations.
- He is pro-abortion.
- He wants to take away the Bush tax cuts.
- He voted "no" (twice) to reduce the federal deficit.
- He believes global warming is caused by humans.
- He believes government has the right to ban handguns.
- He's a Liberal Democrat.
Okay, you get the idea. Go to ontheissues.org to see more of Obama's positions and votes.
My thought is this: there are so many other reasons to vote against Barack Obama that his race isn't even an issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)