ACTION

All Posts (27751)

Sort by

In God We Trust

Posted by Joseph Whitworth Smith on April 10, 2011 at 9:47am

I’m looking at a one dollar bill, at the words “In God We Trust.”  It might as well be “Have a Nice Day.”

 

America’s politicians have agreed to cut federal spending.  Compare the cut with cutting the family’s  borrowing of an average of $500 per month over income by a couple of bucks.  This deal makes the statement that the American people are not ready to face the consequences of a $14.3 trillion national debt.  Easy money over a long period of years has left the American people used to living far over our ability to pay.

 

The world’s belief in America’s economy was bringing  into America $2 billion dollars a day.   The dollar was very strong.  It is weak now and growing weaker by the day.  Foreign investors are nervous about America’s economy.  Less is being invested in America’s economy.  Her economy is going to get weaker and weaker.  The American people refuse to face it. In Washington, D.C., it is business as usual.

 

The American people believe the economy is coming back. Hasn’t it always? There is no valid reason for the economy to come back. We are in uncharted water.  On the face side of my dollar, I read Federal Reserve Note.  My dollar is a piece of paper that is rapidly falling in value in America and abroad.  While America’s economy remains the strongest in the world, the world’s economy is melting down. Wall Street is whistling Dixie.  At least my great grandchildren will not be paying our debt. The United States will default.

 

Before the masses catch on to the meltdown, it will be too late.  My Federal Reserve notes will not be worth a “Continental damn.”  Half of America’s businesses will shut down.  Unemployment will be higher than during the Great Depression.  As the left points out though, there is a lot of money in America.  You bet! It will be spread out to the unemployed and the other dependents on government.  The money taken from the rich will not be enough. The middleclass will have their pockets picked too.  

 

My friends, this had to be. The high living American people are not used to living on little.  It will be very hard.  And you can bet the labor bosses and politicians are going to remain living well.  There will be much anger.  

 

With weak willed depression day losers behind him, Roosevelt trashed our Constitution.   Eighty years of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s welfare state is as good as over. This phony Utopia you now see being  exposed was never meant to be.  Goodbye, Obama! Goodbye progressives! Goodbye liberal news media!  Hey Senator Shummer, get lost!  Extremists? Hardy!  Michelle Bachman,  the Tea Party is behind you. You are on the right track. We are entering a golden age. Prosperity will be beyond your wildest imagination.  

 

We’ve not seen before the present knowledge base and one on one communication.  A networking economy is underway between enterprising individuals, and for the first time in history. 

 

Astrologer’s Handbook says the weak willed age of government losers is being replaced by the age we are now entering, the Age of Aquarius, an age of brotherhood.   Government will mind its own business instead of ours.  

 

Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: Stagflation Rears Ugly Head as George Soros Cheers

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on April 9, 2011 at 11:55pm

 

 
“Soros, you see is making a great BLUFF and his multi-billions are now at risk . . . .”
 
 
 
Are Ben ‘n Barack Deliberately
Undermining Economy for Soros
 
 
            Multi-billionaire supposed philanthropist~~ George Soros has now stepped out into the open. The man with the self-acknowledged “God complex” has pulled off the kid gloves and is moving in for the kill. Declaring that the dollar as we’ve known it is dead, not in so many words – but yes, in fact, Soros claimed at a recent conference at Bretton-Woods, New Hampshire that the American Dollar was no longer the world’s reserve currency. The “Man who Broke the Bank of England” (1992) a.k.a “The International Man of Misery,” infamous for preparing and profiting from the destruction of numerous nations’ currencies -- Soros laughingly talked about the badly-weakened Dollar now sharing duty with the Euro, the Yen and several other currencies. For those in the know, that highly gross insult wasn’t lost upon us . . . .
 
Soros knows as do we that 1) in the wake of bailing out Greece, Ireland and Portugal and preparing to bail out Italy, Spain and possibly Hungary . . . the Euro is a horrifically threatened currency and also that  2) the Japanese Yen has been devastated by the monster earthquake, tsunami, nuclear reactor problems and thirty huge aftershocks (the latest this week measuring 7.1 on the Richter Scale) . . . in short the Dollar (if indeed it’s only on a par with the Yen and Euro), as George suggests, is dead as a doornail. 
 
George didn’t have his billions back in the late 40’s when the British Pound Sterling gave up its two-century old position as the world’s reserve currency to the United States’ greenback, so he wasn’t able to profit from that terrific misery . . . but “Spooky Dude” definitely knows his history. Because of that, Soros said that efforts to attack the American DEBT were short-sighted and the only way for our economy to survive was to risk incurring a lot more debt to get the economy humming. He put it this way, “The big question is not whether the U.S. Dollar should be the world’s reserve currency. It no longer is. That role is shared with the Euro, Yen and other currencies and commodities such as gold, oil . . . .”
 
Acting as if he, King George, was the acknowledged leader of the entire world, Soros set up his economic conference on the site of the famous Bretton-Woods economic conference which charted the monetary future of the planet as the end of World War II approached. That first Bretton Woods agreement established the rules for commercial and financial relations among the world’s major industrial states in the mid-20th Century.  In planning the rebuilding of the international economic system as the European and Pacific Wars still raged, 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations gathered at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton-Woods, N.H. and after proper deliberation signed the Bretton-Woods Agreements during the first three weeks of July 1944. Soros at his Bretton-Woods meetings has called for the renunciation of the American Dollar right here on American soil in a particularly grandiose and self-serving manner.
 
All that not being enough for Spooky George, he tried his hand at straightforward sabotage as well. In his prescription to rush the fall of the Buck once and for all, Soros pretended he was offering good economic advice designed to save the currency as he pooh-poohed calls for strengthening the dollar by dealing with the debt (such as Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan has made with his proposed 2012 budget) saying, “There is very a strong push to tighten the budget as a way to reduce government spending… In my opinion, the country could actually absorb some more debt in order to get the economy going. If you have a growing economy, you can tolerate a higher level of debt.” Soros, you see is making a great BLUFF and his multi-billions are now at risk . . . . 
 
That’s right, Soros who has twice before made a play to bring the United States’ fiscal house down around us was NOT counting on the fiscal-conservative backlash that has dominated the U.S. political scene since mid-2010 and sent so many progressive big-spending politicians’ (88% of them progressive Democrats) packing in the most recent elections.  As a result his “bets” against America are deeply at risk. He is heavily invested in futures positions based upon the collapse of our currency . . . thus preparing to once again repeat the successful currency forays that made him a multi-billionaire while helping wreck the economies of Britain (a second time), Russia, Malaysia, etc., etc. ad nauseum.   Next to the radical jihadist element of Islam, no one hates the United States nearly so much as George Soros does. He made his first big play to cut the country down to size, by pouring billions into the Kerry election campaign in 2004 and into anti-George W. Bush propaganda. Bush #2 was not our wisest president, no doubt . . . but he was patriotic enough and wise enough NOT to get under George Soros’s thumb (something that Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama cannot say) and wise enough NOT to consider printing money as a satisfactory answer to any sort of problem. Barack Obama, by comparison, is a George Soros puppet.
 
Speaking of “the great man who’s now along with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) already spent over $1.2 million to prevent efforts to find his birth certificate” -- less than a week ago President Obama became the first to throw his hat officially into the ring as a declared candidate for the presidency in 2012 . . . now he and his campaign are officially prepared to receive all the millions that Soros and his fifty progressive foundations can pour his way.   If the policies of Barack Obama have been seemingly impossible to understand, one has only to ask three questions to clear up the matter completely. A) What would the international communists and America’s labor leaders want him to do to undermine the United States?  B) What would George Soros prefer? And C) How can he best disguise his loyalties to Georgie S. and his Red Friends.  Usually the first two questions generate the same answer and Barack’s duty is clear. When there is conflict between the two positions, Obama is forced to think for himself and his trademark “dithering” becomes apparent as he seeks to chart Path C.
 
Whether or not Barack proves to be a one-term president will likely depend upon the economy and/or his ability to sell Americans on his contention that the economy belongs 100% to his predecessor – always has, always will.   With the liberal media on his side, it won’t necessarily be a hard sell.   Surprisingly, 34% of voters still give him good or excellent marks on running the economy although only 14% believe their taxes will go down due to Obama’s governing; only 30% now see their own financial picture as good or excellent; and 69% of American voters call themselves “at least somewhat angry” about the policies of the government. With the unending help of the media, Obama will likely be made a hero by the media for the passage of the 2011 budget with two more challenges ahead: the status of the national debt (he wants to raise the Debt Ceiling up well past $15 TRillion) and the 2012 budget drafted by Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan (which cuts $6.2 TRillion from the debt over the next decade; compared to Mr. Obama’s budget which increased spending 4% and ratchet up the deficits and debt as well.
 
Obama’s unwitting^^ partner in crime in making King George’s dreams come true is Ben Bernanke, Chief of the Federal Reserve Banking System. The stagnation the country has felt economically is now being compounded by Bernanke-created inflation. At present the ceaseless physical and electronic creation of money by Mr. Bernanke has made the 2011 U.S. dollar technically worth only 3.2 pennies worth if the late 2008 greenback. The treasury department has hidden our current inflation by A) insisting that food and fuel costs don’t count and B) by overweighting the cost of housing in the current inflation statistics.  Since we don’t buy houses everyday and since we do need food and fuel every day, in reality we are now paying 16% more for the everyday necessities than we did when George W. Bush was president. While the civilized world has been ostentatiously tightening its belt Bernanke, Barack, Soros & other Sons of B______ have been seriously counterfeiting the American Dollar. 
 
You need look no further than the Euro . . . this abysmally weak currency is now trading very strong about 1 4/9 as valuable as the Buck. All over the globe folks are noticing and buying gold, silver, oil, or other currencies with their dollars. Few are eager to embrace dollars unless they’re given bonus amounts. The debt and the inflation scare are two sides of the same coin with Barack, Ben and Soros the edge of that coin . . . trying to sell the world and Americans on the notion that stagflation is a great step on the road to repairing the American economy.   Surprisingly, George Soros might be even more over-extended than the American economy is. If his bluff doesn’t work and doesn’t help rush the American economy into absolute bankruptcy, King George might just find himself a mere hundred millionaire again, more’s the pity. 
 
Besides that potential problem: 1) George’s funding for ACORN has now proven a major liability 2) Soros, Gore, Obama, Raines, Rogers, Strong, both Clintons, several Goldman Sach’s bigwigs and at least 54 other top progressives already lost their shirts when their little cap and trade scheme backfired and they had to sell out their holdings in the CCX (Chicago Climate eXchange) after neither legislative bullying nor Obama-ordered EPA regulatory bullying proved sufficient to move the nation toward full carbon-trading. Instead of hundreds of billions of profits they wound up collectively losing millions. Al Gore just missed becoming the first “Green Billionaire” and Soros’ foundations suffered mightily. Bottom line, Barack Obama badly owes his puppet-master . . . do not expect him to cave in on the Ryan budget in any way, shape or form. Unlike the first ACORN president who delivered the Motor-Voter Act and four separate expansions** of CRA ’77 to ACORN in payment for their corrupt backing . . . the totally incompetent “Anointed One” Barack Obama has failed to deliver much of anything to his handlers. The Deficit-Ceiling votes and the Ryan Budget Package will undoubtedly be his last hurrah unless he finds unmitigated success . . . which the G.O.P. can hand him or deny.
 
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
 
 
~~          Philanthropist is a euphemism used by progressives to describe King George Soros. Like all euphemisms, this is a LIE to hide truth that’s harsh, offensive or blunt.
According to Canada Free Press, “George Soros is a ‘philanthropist’ if by ‘philanthropist’ we mean one who creates chaos, destruction and financial ruin for his own personal gain, it’s a perfect fit.  Calling Soros a philanthropist is rather like referring to the Nazi block wardens as Neighborhood Watch.” They go on . . . .
“Soros certainly gives lots of money away.  But a philanthropist acts to improve the human condition.  Soros acts solely to improve the Soros condition.  Despite the lofty sounding rhetoric about an Open Society, Soros’ objective is to wreck the United States.  Actually Soros never really defines his Open Society.  The concept arose in the 1930s with the notion of a moral code based on “universal principles”.  After tweaking the concept to suit his own purposes, Soros adopted his own version of an Open Society which would be one in which the US has no power. 
“Soros was born in Hungary in 1930 to non-practicing Jewish parents.  His father, a lawyer was able to hide their identities and young George was recruited by the Nazi’s Judenrat to hand out flyers deceptively directing Jews to turn themselves in for deportation to the death camps.  Soros later said he found the work exhilarating.  Later passing himself as an official’s godson, he accompanied his benefactor confiscating valuables from innocent Jews.  Soros would later tell Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes that he had ‘no remorse’ about what he had done.
“In fact, Soros doesn’t have remorse for much, if anything.  In The Shadow Party (David Horowitz and Richard Poe, 2006), Soros is quoted as saying that ‘conscience clouds an investor’s judgment.’”
Additionally, our philanthropist Mr. Soros has been accused several times of illegal currency manipulation and also was convicted in France of insider trading . . . certainly he has no compassion for the victims of his monetary shenanigans.
 
^^Bernanke is a self-mis-directed-would-be patriot who mistakenly believes he and only he correctly understands American economic history. Big Ben has written several scholarly papers on the Great Depression. He actually believes that by and large Hoover on the one hand and FDR and his administration on the other did a relatively good job and that a huge amount of the blame for the depth and duration of the Great Depression were caused by unenlightened Federal Reserve policies and too-tight monetary$$ policies. The Fed was undoubtedly at fault somewhat, but the anti-capitalistic actions of Hoover and FDR are the root cause. When he’s not allowed to read his own writing, Bernanke makes a lot more sense. Indeed, at times he sounds like he’s got his finger on the pulse of things when he says he favors
a)     “Reducing the U.S. budget deficit by reform of the Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs”
b)      Accomplished by cutting spending, or entitlement payments or raising taxes or some combination of those three actions. 
He notably does not account for the debilitating effect of raising taxes on prosperity . . . .
$$ No one seems to know, much less take advantage of the great historical lesson known as the “Invisible Depression” wherein Woodrow Wilson’s (much more acute recession than the 1929 market crash brought about) severe recession was tamed in fifteen months by President Warren G. Harding’s combination of cutting spending by 49%; cutting taxes by 48% and paying down the debt 30%. FDR, while calling Hoover “a socialist” promised to repeat the Harding formula, but, of course, did exactly the opposite and extended the depression into a 12.5 year Great Depression.
 
** CRA ’77 was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 passed by Jimmy Carter and progressive politicians (about 86% of them Democrats). This was the greatest government interference in the free market ever conceived. Banks and mortgage companies were required to knowingly make abysmally bad loans to unqualified would-be home owners. In 1976, 0.24% of home loans were considered ‘suspect.’ Thanks to ACORN (then the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now) working almost totally in Arkansas under Governor Bill Clinton, that rate for the entire nation doubled to 0.51% suspect loans by 1986. When Clinton took office in 1993 he repaid ACORN (become the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now) with the Motor-Voter Act and a huge regulatory expansion of CRA ’77 almost immediately. In 1995 he twice legislatively expanded CRA ’77. By 1996, 14.08% of all home loans in the country were suspect. In 1998, Clinton passed the steroid-version expansion of CRA legislation. By 2000, the housing bubble was underway and the sub-prime lending crisis was a fact of life by 2005 when 34% of all home loans were suspect . . . but the situation was much worse than the numbers showed: instead of a tiny amount of loans at 3% down payment for $80,000 and $120,000 homes we had a huge amount of 0% loans on homes in the $320,000 to $480,000 range. Instead of “iffy” loans to former military officers attending college on the GI Bill (0.24% in 1976); we now had horrifically bad loans at 0% to people without jobs; with horrible credit ratings; without even rental histories; whose only “income” was food stamps; and even to illegal aliens. If you’re confused by all this and why the word “deliberately” was deliberately used in the headline to his blog: here’s some information on the progressives’ Cloward-Piven Strategy published in 1966, which deliberately bankrupted New York City in 1975 requiring a federal bailout . . . .
 
 
 
 
 

Read more…

The Boundaries of Hypocrisy

Posted by james seigfreid on April 9, 2011 at 10:04pm

There appears to be no boundaries to hypocrisy nowadays.  The budget "cuts" were not cuts of any kind, but merely a small reduction in the amount of SPENDING.  It is a step forward, but a very small one, and in some ways a step backwards, by not addressing the real problem of spending.  With a current 1.65 TRILLION budget deficit facing us, and less than .05% reduction in spending, we're on a real down-slide.  It's not a roller-coaster anymore.  It's a tobaggan on an ice-covered slope with a really big tree at the bottom that you hit head-first.  (Been there for that one.)  Understanding Boehner's position in relation to reality, is difficult.  Needing to take some action, or any action, was probably  his thinking, but if he'd been listening at all, he'd have insisted on not just the 100 billion originally talked about, but the additional 105 billion that Michelle Bachman insisted on that dealt with ObamaCare.  Let the government shut down...let the usurper on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue veto a bill and defund our troops...MAKE THE TRAITORS OWN THEIR OWN TREASONOUS POLICIES.

This is where we've gotten to...a complete abdication by anyone with any ability, or power, to take the necessary actions needed to correct a fatal decent into tyranny and misery.

I guess it helps when you don't have to pay for your own gas, or pump it, either.

We have a saying down here in the South---"Shut 'er down, Leon...she's pumpin' mud!!!"

This administration is pumping a whole lot more than that, and it's about the same texture, only smells worse.

It's way past time to start righting the "ship of state."  First thing to do, is throw the captain overboard for running it aground on purpose. 

 

 

Read more…

get rid of speaker boehner

Posted by william russell on April 9, 2011 at 2:41pm

hey all speaker boehner sold us all out last night.  He and the republican rhino's broke their promise to us in their pledge to american and instead of getting 100 billion dollars of cuts, or 61 billion because 6 months are gone he came away with 39.1 billion and no approval of any of the rides.  he is no leader, he talk with fork tongue and gave the democrates everything the wanted.  He speaks weel but his actions speak louder, he is no leader and has no guts and we need to get rid of him and get a true leader that will fight to get spending reduced alot to save our country.  If he could stand up now he will not stand up when the debit ceiling is going to be increase and ryans 2012 budget will get pushed aside because the democrates know he is weak and will not fight.

 

I have been a republican for 57 years but on monday i am going down and re register as an independent.  We need a third party made up of independents, discourage republicans and tea party and we would win.  The american people are ready because they are fed up with both parties, the promises they make and the lack of guts and leadership they show.  The rhinos need to go and all those republicans that betray us need to go also.

Read more…

The way the photos happenstance to flitter in and out, reminds me of what it will be like when the FLASH occurs either upon this nation from our own, or when God returns. Of course, many there are whi

Posted by MAX SIMON UHRIG on April 9, 2011 at 1:10pm
The way the photos happenstance to flitter in and out, reminds me of what it will be like when the FLASH occurs either upon this nation from our own, or when God returns. Of course, many there are which love and live to criticize, so be it. I'm an All American, live it, love it! Any disagreements can leave it. Just the way I roll thank ya'll very little. Looking forward to any and all whom wish to communicate ideals, beliefs, etc. But, to discuss and not argue. Thankyou for your invite, support, and hospitality. God Bless America and the Tea Party Org. Amen!
Read more…

Millennium Development goal # 2 Universal Education

Posted by Allen Toepfer on April 9, 2011 at 10:15am

GOAL 2
Achieve Universal Primary Education
TARGET
1. Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling
Quick Facts
* Enrolment in primary education in developing regions reached 89 per cent in 2008, up from 83 per cent in 2000.
* The current pace of progress is insufficient to meet the target by 2015.
* About 69 million school-age children are not in school. Almost half of them (31 million) are in sub-Saharan Africa, and more than a quarter (18 million) are in Southern Asia.
WHERE DO WE STAND?
Despite great strides in many countries, the target is unlikely to be met. Enrolment in primary education has continued to rise, reaching 89 per cent in the developing world in 2008. Between 1999 and 2008, enrolment increased by 18 percentage points in sub-Saharan Africa, and by 11 and 8 percentage points in Southern Asia and Northern Africa, respectively. But the pace of progress is insufficient to ensure that, by 2015, all girls and boys complete a full course of primary
schooling. To achieve the goal by the target date, all children at official entry age for primary schooling would have had to be attending classes by 2009. Instead, in half of the sub-Saharan African countries with available data, at least one in four children of enrolment age was not attending school in 2008.
About 69 million school-age children were not going to school in 2008, down from 106 million children in 1999. Almost three-quarters of children out of school are in sub- Saharan Africa (31 million) or Southern Asia (18 million). Drop-out rates in sub-Saharan Africa remain high.
Achieving universal primary education requires more than full enrolment. It also means ensuring that children continue to attend classes. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 30 per cent of primary school students drop out before reaching a final grade.

UNITED NATIONS SUMMIT
20-22 September 2010, New York High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly
Moreover, providing enough teachers and classrooms is vital in order to meet demand, most notably in sub-Saharan Africa. It is estimated that double the current number of teachers would be needed in sub-Saharan Africa in order to meet the primary education target by 2015.
WHAT HAS WORKED?
• Abolishing school fees in Burundi, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Malawi, Nepal and Tanzania:
The abolition of school fees at primary school level has led to a surge in enrolment in a number of countries.
In Tanzania, the enrolment ratio had doubled to 99.6 per cent by 2008, compared to 1999 rates. In Ethiopia, net enrolment was 79 per cent in 2008, an increase of 95 per cent since 2000. But the surge in enrolment in developing regions has brought a new set of challenges in providing enough teachers and classrooms.
• Investing in teaching infrastructure and resources in Ghana, Nepal and Tanzania: Ghana has recruited retirees and volunteers to meet teacher demand. Additional funds have also been allocated for the provision of temporary classrooms and teaching materials. In Nepal, investment
has ensured that more than 90 per cent of students live within 30 minutes of their local school. And Tanzania has embarked on an ambitious programme of education reform, building 54,000 classrooms between 2002 and 2006, as well as hiring 18,000 additional teachers.
FACT SHEET
• Promoting education for girls in Botswana, Egypt and Malawi: Egypt’s Girls’ Education Initiative and Food-for- Education (FFE) programme encourage girls to attend school by providing free education and by constructing and promoting ‘girl-friendly schools’. By 2008, more than 1,000 schools were built and almost 28,000 students enrolled. In conjunction the FFE programme provides school meals to 84,000 children in poor and vulnerable communities. Botswana has reduced female drop-out rates by half by implementing readmission policies.
Malawi has been promoting girls’ education in grades 1-4 by providing learning materials.
• Expanding access to remote and rural areas in Bolivia and Mongolia: Mongolia has introduced mobile schools (‘tent schools’) to reach children who would otherwise not have regular access to primary education. One hundred mobile schools have been providing educational services across 21 provinces. In Bolivia, a bilingual education programme has been introduced for three of the most widely used indigenous languages. It covered 11 per cent of primary schools in 2002, expanding access to education for indigenous children in remote areas.
WHAT IS THE UN DOING?
• The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) supports countries in building quality primary education systems that reach all children, for instance through the Basic Education in Africa Programme, advocating for countries to adopt legal frameworks guaranteeing 8-10 years of uninterrupted basic education.
• In Ethiopia, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) supports a programme called “Berhane Hewan” which advocates putting an end to child marriages and keeping girls in school. To encourage families to let the girls complete schooling, girls receive a female sheep upon completing the programme. In Malawi, UNFPA is working with Youth Councils to repeal a law allowing girls as young as 16 to be married and to support campaigns to keep girls in school.
• The World Food Programme (WFP) provides school meals, which act as a strong incentive for parents to send their children to school and help to build the nutritional foundation that is essential for a child’s future intellectual development and physical well-being. The programme
also encourages parents to send more girls to attend classes.
• The UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) partnered with UNESCO to
address problems affecting education in politically unstable environments. ESCWA was responsible for infrastructure, while UNESCO took care of training and e-learning. The initiative facilitated capacity building sessions on education strategy, instructor training and the creation of courses for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speaking Iraqi schoolchildren.
Sources: The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010,
United Nations; UN MDG Database (mdgs.un.org); MDG Monitor
Website (http://www.mdgmonitor.org); What Will It Take to Achieve the
Millennium Development Goals? – An International Assessment
2010, UN Development Programme (UNDP); UN Girls’ Education
Initiative, UNICEF (http://www.ungei.org); UN Population Fund (UNFPA);
UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO);
World Food Programme (WFP); UN Regional Commissions, New
York Office.
For more information, please contact mediainfo@un.org
or see http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals.
Issued by the UN Department of Public Information – DPI/2650 B - September 2010

 

And what, you may ask does this have to do with the USA? How are we implementing it?

US Department of Education:
Anne Duncans “vision” (She is the Secretary for the Dept of Education)
“Our goal for the coming year will be to work closely with global partners, including UNESCO, to promote qualitative improvements and system-strengthening. With such a shared commitment, we believe that we can greatly reduce the number of children out of school and ensure that the children who are in class are actually learning.”
Is in this section:
http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/vision-education-reform-united-states-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-united-nations-ed

Global Connections and Exchange Programs
An online resource on the website of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State that includes links to classrooms worldwide through a range of programs.
http://www.exchanges.state.gov/education/citizens/students/
worldwide/connections.htm
http://www2.ed.gov/teachers/how/tech/international/guide_pg2.html?exp=5

How does the Department fit into the International Scope of things, I mean it IS the US Dept of Education right?:
The United States and UNESCO

The United States has several education-related priorities with respect to UNESCO. These include: (1) a special emphasis on literacy; (2) quality education and equal access to educational opportunities; (3) capacity-building, information-sharing and cooperation, including rebuilding education in post-conflict countries; and (4) education to combat HIV/AIDS and other health emergencies as well as environmental education. The United States supports the international momentum behind the Education for All movement coordinated by UNESCO, which has goals similar to U.S. educational reform initiatives, including accountability mechanisms.

On October 20, 2004 the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO was re-established as an advisory body to the U.S. government and a liaison to UNESCO headquarters in Paris, France. The Commission comprises representatives from various non-governmental organizations interested in matters of education, science, culture, and communications. It also includes at-large individuals and state, local, and federal government representatives.

The United States participation in UNESCO is managed by the U.S. Mission to UNESCO, located in Paris, France and the Bureau of International Organizational Affairs (IO) at the Department of State.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/unesco.html

"The U.S. Department of Education, together with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Education International (EI) and U.S.-based organizations – National Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Asia Society and WNET, hosted the summit to help spread effective policies and practices to strengthen and elevate the teaching profession in ways that improve educational outcomes for children in all societies.

“It’s clear that no two countries are the same but that doesn’t mean we don’t face common challenges,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “The International Summit on the Teaching Profession is an extraordinary opportunity to broaden our perspective on how to effectively recruit and support teachers. This is an area where we need to move forward with a sense of urgency because building a strong teaching force is critical to having a successful education system.”
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/sixteen-countries-and-regions-convened-first-ever-international-summit-teaching-

"Embracing the President’s 2010 U.S. Global Development Policy
principles, USAID will invest education resources strategically to achieve measurable and sustainable educational outcomes through enhanced selectivity, focus, countryled
programming,
division of labor and innovation. Additionally, critical priorities such as improved evaluation practices, gender integration
and sustainability will undergird all of our investments. We will look for opportunities to achieve greater impact and scale, based on a country’s commitment to reform, potential to achieve rapid results, and relative educational need."
USAID Education strategy 2011-2015…MDG all over it
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/education_and_universities/documents/USAID_ED_Strategy_feb2011.pdf
Read more…

Capital Hill, The New Reality Show!

Posted by David Denman on April 9, 2011 at 2:18am
Open, Closed, Open, Closed! The White House is becoming to much like Hollywood with all the Drama. Maybe they too can get their own Reality Show. ...lol This is the America we live in, are you fucking kidding me! These are the Educated people who run this country, Pathetic! No wonder why people like reality shows, they love the Drama.

 

I am ashamed to even be an American, I cannot believe you people fall for the same bullshit, still the same because nothing changes and the people are suckers and fools again and again. When you people decide to really get serious about the Constitution, call me and I will fight.

The People are the only ones who can change what is going on and until the people get serious, nothing will. The People let them spend what they want and on who they want and do nothing, but blame the Government.  The fault lies with the people, not Capital Hill.

If all you people really want change, do it and quit the blame game and stand up and follow the letter of "Declaration of Independence" if not, then you deserve what you have been getting for a long time and that is.... The American people have become weak, cowards, Slaves and bow down to what ever they wish to do, while we do nothing.  It is time to abolish your current Government and institute a new one who is of the people by the people. Out of 350 million People, I am sure we could get about 5 million to march on Capital hill with guns and fire their ass.

 If you really want change, then you have to be serious about how much this country really means too you. Are there really Patriots out there?

 


Read more…

I just got evicted from Yahoo for this post

Posted by Valerie Farris on April 8, 2011 at 10:03pm

I'm not black. 
I'm a 57 yr. old white, Christian woman, with 3 daughters. 
Let me tell my black sisters about Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, the founder. 

Sanger was the ultimate racist. 
She founded Planned Parenthood with one goal in mind:
The elimination of the black race. 

Sanger provided free abortions to any and all black women. 
White women, they had to pay. Blacks could get one for free. 

That was the genesis for Planned Parenthood. 

The sorry fact is that the idea continues to exist in 2011. 
Planned Parenthood builds all their 'offices' in black neighborhoods. 
You won't find one in white suburbs. 

If you are black and wind up pregnant, 87% of the time Planned Parenthood will recommend abortion. 
They will also lie to you if they say you have an STD. 

76% of all black babies end in abortion. 
76%. 
That is a disgusting number. 

54 million babies have been aborted since Roe V. Wade. 
That is 41 million black babies. 

My reaction was...You gotta be kidding!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That was my post on Yahoo.

It got me bumped.

Evicted.

I guess I will need a new user-name.

They can't handle the truth.

 



What's your reaction?

Read more…

Shutdown Averted, it does make one wonder does it not?

Posted by Allen Toepfer on April 8, 2011 at 8:00pm

Surprise, Surprise, a shutdown was averted by Republicans caving to Harry Reid, and Obama. Supposedly it is a 41 Billion deal which has NOT defunded Obamacare, Planned Parenthood etc. Now I will say it outright. Ladies and Gentlemen, NO ONE, besides us is interested in restoring our nation to sanity. For those who would say, we had to do this now because we wouldnt have gotten anything else; let me ask this, do you REALLY believe that the Republicans are interested in "getting tough" now? Do you REALLY? Please see my posts and you will see why no one is watching out for this country. They are called Millennium Development Goals, there are 8 of them, and they are breaking the bank. Until we remove our country from being signed on to them, we will continue to receive this same type of trickery. Did you know, for example that the Obama GHI (global health initiative) is a 63 billion dollar bill over ten years. The climate change initiative is about the same. Obamacare is funding 200 BILLION from this years budget alone. Do you REALLY think they are going to "Get Tough" at this point? If you wish to see a tiny fraction of what is going on, please go to: http://www.unamericantakeover.org/index.php  Did you know that we ARE going to get a global government? Yes, next year it is being voted upon. Please do NOT try to read it in an hour. However, find the area that interests you the most and read what we are in for.

Respectfully,

Allen

"No Compromise in defense of Liberty!"

Read more…

We Are One Rallies

Posted by kenneth r brooks on April 8, 2011 at 2:15pm
What are we doing about these rallies.We need to expose thier agenda.We need to reach the average union member that is unaware of what thier union bosses agenda's are.I feel that once we educate the union members on what thier children and thier childrens childrens quality of life and loss of thier constitutional rights will be they will demand that thier unions stop using the union members money for the union bosses political agenda's.
Read more…

Village Idiot & Useful Idiot's

Posted by Daniel Smith on April 8, 2011 at 12:45pm
Village Idiot  &  Useful Idiot's
 
First we have a "Village Idiot"  aka   Barack  Obama/Soetoro
Then we have    "Useful Idiot's"  aka Democratic Party Leader's
 
Sen. Harry Reid (D) is now blaming the Tea Party if Government Shut's Down.
 
WHY on Earth would the Democrat's "blame" The Tea Party?
The "Tea Party" is made up of both Democrat's & Republican's
who simply want to "Lower" Our deficit by having "less" spending and "less" government. Simple. 
It was the Democrat's who FAILED to provide the 2010 Budget
while they controlled the House, Senate, and Executive Branch.
They could have done "anything" they wanted. They chose "nothing", but have to blame someone.
Hopefully, Harry's remarks will only fuel the "Tea Party" to be
more active in their pursuit of a balanced budget with less government controls.....................Dan, NY
 (I caught a picture of this background "sign" rally in D.C. on Fox 4/08/2011) 
4063288227?profile=original
Need I say more....


Read more…

This is a post by my friend Paul who is stationed in Okinawa.

Posted by Junior Sampson on April 8, 2011 at 7:19am
My son turns 7 today & I am not there. That's nothing new...I have been away for more than 3 years out of his 7 in lovely Okinawa, Germany, Ecuador, Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc. And whether we get a paycheck or not, the military will still be at work tomorrow, next week, & next year. Hope all the politicians at home with their families sleep well tonight.
Read more…

MDG # 1 What is it, and how are we implementing it?

Posted by Allen Toepfer on April 7, 2011 at 6:30pm

GOAL 1
Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger
TARGETS
1. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day
2. Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people
3. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger
Quick Facts
* The number of people living under the international poverty line of $1.25 a day declined from 1.8 billion to 1.4 billion
between 1990 and 2005.
* The proportion of people living in extreme poverty in developing regions dropped from 46 per cent to 27 per cent — on
track to meet the target globally.
* The economic crisis is expected to push an estimated 64 million more people into extreme poverty in 2010.
* About one in four children under the age of five is underweight in the developing world, down from almost one in three in 1990.
WHERE DO WE STAND?
The world is on track to meet the MDG target of halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015. Overall poverty rates fell from 46 per cent in 1990 to 27 per cent in 2005 in developing regions, and progress in many developing countries is being sustained. This is despite setbacks caused by the 2008-09 economic downturn and the effects of the food and energy crises. However, even if these positive trends continue, in 2015, roughly 920 million people would still be living under the international poverty line of $1.25 a day, as adjusted by the World Bank in 2008. Achievements so far are largely the result of extraordinary success in Asia, mostly East Asia. Over a 25-year period, the poverty rate in East Asia fell from nearly 60 per cent to under 20 per cent. Poverty rates are expected to fall to around 5 per cent in China and 24 per cent in India by 2015. In contrast, little progress has been made in reducing extreme
poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, where the poverty rate has declined only slightly, from 58 to 51 per cent between 1990 and 2005. Sub-Saharan Africa, Western Asia and parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia are the few regions not expected to achieve the MDG poverty reduction target.

UNITED NATIONS SUMMIT
20-22 September 2010, New York
High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly
The World Bank estimates that the effects of the economic crisis will push an additional 64 million people into extreme poverty in 2010, and that poverty rates will be slightly higher in 2015 and beyond than they would have been without the crisis, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia.
The proportion of people suffering from hunger is declining, but at an unsatisfactory pace. Even though the proportion of people worldwide suffering from malnutrition and hunger has fallen since the early 1990s, progress has stalled since 2000-2002. The estimate of the number of people who will suffer chronic hunger this year is 925 million, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN — down from 1.023 billion in 2009, but still more than the number of
undernourished people in 1990 (about 815 million). Between 1990 and 2008, the proportion of underweight children under five declined from 31 per cent to 26 per cent in developing regions with particular success in Eastern Asia, notably China. Despite such improvements, progress
is currently not fast enough to reach the MDG target, and particular focus is required in Southern Asia. This region alone accounts for almost half the world’s undernourished children. In all developing regions, children in rural areas are nearly twice as likely to be underweight as those in urban areas.
FACT SHEET
WHAT HAS WORKED?
• Subsidy programmes in Malawi and Ghana: Since 2005, Malawi’s voucher programme for fertilizers and seeds has helped boost its agricultural productivity, turning the country into a net food exporter after decades of famine as a perennial food importer. Malawi needs 2.2 million tons of maize a year to reach self-sufficiency. In 2005, the harvest fell to a low of 1.2 million tons of
maize. The National Input Subsidy Programme resulted in a dramatic increase to 3.2 million tons of maize in 2007. Through a similar nationwide fertilizer subsidy programme, Ghana increased food production by 40 per cent, contributing to an average decline of 9 per cent in hunger between 2003 and 2005.
• Investing in agriculture research in Vietnam: Vietnam’s investment in agriculture research and development helped cut the prevalence of hunger by more than half, from 28 per cent in 1991 to 13 per cent in 2004-06. The prevalence of underweight children was also more than halved from 45 per cent in 1994 to 20 per cent in 2006.
• Innovative finance schemes in Nigeria and Bangladesh: Nigeria’s National Special Programme for Food Security helped almost double agricultural yields and farmers’ incomes. Farmers were able to buy inputs using interestfree loans to be repaid following harvest. In Bangladesh, $107 million is to be distributed in the form of Agricultural Input Assistance Cards, targeting poor households.
• Employment programmes in Argentina: In Argentina, the Jefes y Jefas de Hogar programme employed two million workers within a few months after its initiation in 2002.
This contributed to the country’s rapid poverty reduction from 9.9 per cent that year to 4.5 per cent in 2005.
WHAT IS THE UN DOING?
• In India, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) is supporting the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme which provides a right to a minimum of 100 days of paid work a year for landless laborers and marginal farmers, benefiting some 46 million households. Almost half of the beneficiaries are women.
• UNDP provided technical expertise to establish the Ethiopian Commodity Exchange, bringing together farmers, farming co-operatives, domestic traders, agro-industrial processors, commodity exporters and institutional buyers to meet and trade through a secure, low-cost platform. An estimated 850,000 small-holder farmers (mostly producers of coffee, sesame and other cash crops) are now involved in the Exchange system, which facilitates an average of 14,527 trades per day, equal to about US$5 million to 10 million.
• The World Food Programme (WFP) provides food assistance, including cash and voucher transfers to the hungry, especially in the aftermath of a natural disaster.
WFP’s mapping tools and assessments of exactly where the hungry live help to ensure that food assistance is targeted to where it is most needed.
• The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) provides technical advice and support in many countries, such as in Nepal, and Liberia, on integrating human rights into MDG-based development planning.
• In Mali, UNDP is working with a women’s mango cooperative which aims to give women farmers the right skills to grow and treat their produce for export.
Thanks to the project, Mali’s mango exports have risen sharply, from 2,915 tons in 2005 to 12,676 tons in 2008.
The average price paid to the mango producer increased by approximately US$70 per ton.
• The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) in 2008-2009 carried out the first comparative study of child poverty in the region to promote inclusive, universal and efficient public policies for children and
adolescents.
Sources: The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, United
Nations; UN MDG Database (mdgs.un.org); MDG Monitor Website
(http://www.mdgmonitor.org); What Will It Take to Achieve the Millennium
Development Goals? – An International Assessment 2010, UN
Development Programme (UNDP); UN Girls’ Education Initiative,
UNICEF (http://www.ungei.org); UN Population Fund (UNFPA); UN
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); World
Food Programme (WFP); UN Regional Commissions, New York Office.
For more information, please contact mediainfo@un.org or see
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals.
Issued by the UN Department of Public Information – DPI/2650 A/Rev.1 – September 2010

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_FS_1_EN.pdf

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3605


      To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of vastly reducing global poverty and eliminating extreme global poverty, to require periodic reports on the progress toward implementation of the strategy, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 28, 2005

      Mr. Smith of Washington (for himself and Mr. Bachus) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the “Global Poverty Act of 2005”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) More than one billion people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1.6 billion people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.

(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward goals to improve life for the world’s poorest people by 2015.

(3) Such goals include reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.

(4) On March 22, 2002, President George W. Bush stated: “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.”.

(5) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: “[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world’s poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.”.

(6) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States recommends: “A comprehensive U.S. strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.”.

(7) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G–8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25 billion annually to $50 billion by 2010, and to 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.

(8) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

SEC. 3. Declaration of policy.

It is a major priority of United States foreign policy to vastly reduce global poverty and to eliminate extreme poverty in developing countries.

SEC. 4. Requirement to Develop Comprehensive Strategy.

(a) Strategy.—The President, acting through the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the Government of the United States, international organizations, international financial institutions, recipient governments, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of vastly reducing global poverty and eliminating extreme global poverty.

(b) Contents.—The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a).

(2) An explanation of how these goals, benchmarks, and timetables will enable the United States to fulfill its commitment to help achieve the internationally recognized goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

(c) Guidelines.—The strategy required by subsection (a) should adhere to the following guidelines:

(1) Continued investment in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

(2) Increasing overall United States development assistance levels while at the same time improving the effectiveness of such assistance.

(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief.

(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, and reducing hunger and malnutrition.

(8) Integrating principles of sustainable development into policies and programs.

(d) Reports.—

(1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the strategy required by subsection (a).

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS.—Not less than once every year after the submission of the initial report under paragraph (1) until 2015, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.

SEC. 5. Definitions.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(A) the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY.—The term “extreme global poverty” refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY.—The term “global poverty” refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h3605_ih.xml


II
110TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. 2433
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.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2007
Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations
A BILL
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.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2
•S 2433 IS
1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Global Poverty Act
3 of 2007’’.
4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
5 Congress makes the following findings:
6 (1) More than 1,000,000,000 people worldwide
7 live on less than $1 per day, and another
8 1,600,000,000 people struggle to survive on less
9 than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.
10 (2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit
11 in 2000, the United States joined more than 180
12 other countries in committing to work toward goals
13 to improve life for the world’s poorest people by
14 2015.
15 (3) The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the
16 Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.
17 (4) The United Nations Millennium Develop18
ment Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half
19 the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990
20 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting
21 in half the proportion of people suffering from hun22
ger and unable to access safe drinking water and
23 sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds,
24 ensuring basic education for all children, and revers25
ing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sus-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3
•S 2433 IS
1 taining the environment upon which human life de2
pends.
3 (5) On March 22, 2002, President George W.
4 Bush stated: ‘‘We fight against poverty because hope
5 is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty be6
cause opportunity is a fundamental right to human
7 dignity. We fight against poverty because faith re8
quires it and conscience demands it. We fight
9 against poverty with a growing conviction that major
10 progress is within our reach.’’.
11 (6) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the
12 United States notes: ‘‘[A] world where some live in
13 comfort and plenty, while half of the human race
14 lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor sta15
ble. Including all of the world’s poor in an expanding
16 circle of development and opportunity is a moral im17
perative and one of the top priorities of U.S. inter18
national policy.’’.
19 (7) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the
20 United States notes: ‘‘America’s national interests
21 and moral values drive us in the same direction: to
22 assist the world’s poor citizens and least developed
23 nations and help integrate them into the global econ24
omy.’’.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
4
•S 2433 IS
1 (8) The bipartisan Final Report of the National
2 Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
3 States recommends: ‘‘A comprehensive United
4 States strategy to counter terrorism should include
5 economic policies that encourage development, more
6 open societies, and opportunities for people to im7
prove the lives of their families and enhance pros8
pects for their children.’’.
9 (9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G–
10 8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight par11
ticipating countries committed to increase aid to Af12
rica from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to
13 $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent
14 of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, Af15
rican Development Bank, and International Mone16
tary Fund by 18 of the world’s poorest nations.
17 (10) At the United Nations World Summit in
18 September 2005, the United States joined more
19 than 180 other governments in reiterating their
20 commitment to achieve the United Nations Millen21
nium Development Goals by 2015.
22 (11) The United States has recognized the need
23 for increased financial and technical assistance to
24 countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as
25 the need for strengthened economic and trade oppor-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
5
•S 2433 IS
1 tunities for those countries, through significant ini2
tiatives in recent years, including the Millennium
3 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the
4 United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tu5
berculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.
6 7601 et seq.), the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
7 Initiative, and trade preference programs for devel8
oping countries, such as the African Growth and Op9
portunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).
10 (12) In January 2006, United States Secretary
11 of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring
12 of the United States foreign assistance program, in13
cluding the creation of a Director of Foreign Assist14
ance, who maintains authority over Department of
15 State and United States Agency for International
16 Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding
17 and programs.
18 (13) In January 2007, the Department of
19 State’s Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance
20 added poverty reduction as an explicit, central com21
ponent of the overall goal of United States foreign
22 assistance. The official goal of United States foreign
23 assistance is: ‘‘To help build and sustain democratic,
24 well-governed states that respond to the needs of
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
6
•S 2433 IS
1 their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct
2 themselves responsibly in the international system.’’.
3 (14) Economic growth and poverty reduction
4 are more successful in countries that invest in the
5 people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom.
6 These principles have become the core of several de7
velopment programs of the United States Govern8
ment, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.
9 SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
10 It is the policy of the United States to promote the
11 reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme
12 global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium De13
velopment Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of
14 people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less
15 than $1 per day.
16 SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE
17 STRATEGY.
18 (a) STRATEGY.—The President, acting through the
19 Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of
20 other appropriate departments and agencies of the United
21 States Government, international organizations, inter22
national financial institutions, the governments of devel23
oping and developed countries, United States and inter24
national nongovernmental organizations, civil society orga25
nizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and
VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:39 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
7
•S 2433 IS
1 implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United
2 States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction
3 of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global pov4
erty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development
5 Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people
6 worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than
7 $1 per day.
8 (b) CONTENT.—The strategy required by subsection
9 (a) shall include specific and measurable goals, efforts to
10 be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the
11 objectives described in subsection (a).
12 (c) COMPONENTS.—The strategy required by sub13
section (a) should include the following components:
14 (1) Continued investment or involvement in ex15
isting United States initiatives related to inter16
national poverty reduction, such as the United
17 States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
18 and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.),
19 the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.
20 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for de21
veloping countries, such as the African Growth and
22 Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).
23 (2) Improving the effectiveness of development
24 assistance and making available additional overall
25 United States assistance levels as appropriate.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
8
•S 2433 IS
1 (3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as ap2
propriate.
3 (4) Leveraging United States trade policy
4 where possible to enhance economic development
5 prospects for developing countries.
6 (5) Coordinating efforts and working in co7
operation with developed and developing countries,
8 international organizations, and international finan9
cial institutions.
10 (6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation
11 of businesses, United States and international non12
governmental organizations, civil society, and public13
private partnerships.
14 (7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction
15 with other development goals, such as combating the
16 spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS,
17 tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to pota18
ble water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and
19 malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of
20 education at all levels regardless of gender.
21 (8) Integrating principles of sustainable devel22
opment and entrepreneurship into policies and pro23
grams.
24 (d) REPORTS.—
25 (1) INITIAL REPORT.—
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
9
•S 2433 IS
1 (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year
2 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
3 President, acting through the Secretary of
4 State, shall submit to the appropriate congres5
sional committees a report on the strategy re6
quired under subsection (a).
7 (B) CONTENT.—The report required under
8 subparagraph (A) shall include the following
9 elements:
10 (i) A description of the strategy re11
quired under subsection (a).
12 (ii) An evaluation, to the extent pos13
sible, both proportionate and absolute, of
14 the contributions provided by the United
15 States and other national and international
16 actors in achieving the Millennium Devel17
opment Goal of reducing by one-half the
18 proportion of people worldwide, between
19 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1
20 per day.
21 (iii) An assessment of the overall
22 progress toward achieving the Millennium
23 Development Goal of reducing by one-half
24 the proportion of people worldwide, be-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
10
•S 2433 IS
1 tween 1990 and 2015, who live on less
2 than $1 per day.
3 (2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS.—Not later than
4 December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2015, the
5 President shall submit to the appropriate congres6
sional committees reports on the status of the imple7
mentation of the strategy, progress made in achiev8
ing the global poverty reduction objectives described
9 in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy
10 since the date of the submission of the last report.
11 SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
12 In this Act:
13 (1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMIT14
TEES.—The term ‘‘appropriate congressional com15
mittees’’ means—
16 (A) the Committee on Foreign Relations
17 and the Committee on Appropriations of the
18 Senate; and
19 (B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and
20 the Committee on Appropriations of the House
21 of Representatives.
22 (2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY.—The term
23 ‘‘extreme global poverty’’ refers to the conditions in
24 which individuals live on less than $1 per day, ad-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
11
•S 2433 IS
1 justed for purchasing power parity in 1993 United
2 States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.
3 (3) GLOBAL POVERTY.—The term ‘‘global pov4
erty’’ refers to the conditions in which individuals
5 live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing
6 power parity in 1993 United States dollars, accord7
ing to World Bank statistics.
8 (4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS.—The
9 term ‘‘Millennium Development Goals’’ means the
10 goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Dec11
laration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).
Æ
VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:28 Dec 08, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\S2433.IS S2433 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110s2433is/pdf/BILLS-110s2433is.pdf

You might ask, how in the world does this apply to the USA? It is a noble goal, however, we have our own problems. We have had attempts to pass legislation for quite some time:


110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1302


      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 United Nations 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 1, 2007

      Mr. Smith of Washington (for himself and Mr. Bachus) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Global Poverty Act of 2007”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) More than one billion people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1.6 billion people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.

(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to improve life for the world’s poorest people by 2015.

(3) The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.

(4) On March 22, 2002, President George W. Bush stated: “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.”.

(5) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: “[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world’s poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of United States international policy.”.

(6) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: “America’s national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world’s poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.”.

(7) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States recommends: “A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.”.

(8) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G–8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25 billion annually to $50 billion by 2010, and to 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.

(9) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

(10) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

(11) In January 2006, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring of the United States foreign assistance program, including the creation of a Director of Foreign Assistance, who maintains authority over Department of State and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding and programs.

(12) In January 2007, Director of Foreign Assistance Randall L. Tobias added poverty reduction as an explicit, central component of the overall goal of United States foreign assistance. The official goal of United States foreign assistance is: “To help build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.”.

SEC. 3. Declaration of policy.

It is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations 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.

SEC. 4. Requirement to develop comprehensive strategy.

(a) Strategy.—The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the Government of the United States, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall 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 United Nations 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.

(b) Contents.—The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include, but not be limited to, specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

(c) Guidelines.—The strategy required by subsection (a) should adhere to the following guidelines:

(1) Continued investment in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

(2) Increasing overall United States development assistance levels while at the same time improving the effectiveness of such assistance.

(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief.

(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, and reducing hunger and malnutrition.

(8) Integrating principles of sustainable development into policies and programs.

(d) Reports.—

(1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the strategy required by subsection (a).

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS.—Not less than once every year after the submission of the initial report under paragraph (1) until and including 2015, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.

SEC. 5. Definitions.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY.—The term “extreme global poverty” refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY.—The term “global poverty” refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1302_ih.xml


111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2639


      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 United Nations 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2009

      Mr. Smith of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Global Poverty Act of 2009”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) More than one billion people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1,600,000,000 people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.

(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to improve life for the world’s poorest people by 2015.

(3) The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.

(4) On March 22, 2002, President George W. Bush stated: “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.”.

(5) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: “[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world’s poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of United States international policy.”.

(6) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: “America’s national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world’s poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.”.

(7) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States recommends: “A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.”.

(8) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G–8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to 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.

(9) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

(10) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

(11) In January 2006, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring of the United States foreign assistance program, including the creation of a Director of Foreign Assistance, who maintains authority over Department of State and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding and programs.

(12) In January 2007, the Department of State’s Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance added poverty reduction as an explicit, central component of the overall goal of United States foreign assistance. The official goal of United States foreign assistance is: “To help build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.”.

SEC. 3. Declaration of policy.

It is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations 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.

SEC. 4. Requirement to develop comprehensive strategy.

(a) Strategy.—The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the Government of the United States, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall 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 United Nations 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.

(b) Contents.—The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include, but not be limited to, specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

(c) Components.—The strategy required by subsection (a) should include, but not be limited to, the following components:

(1) Continued investment in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

(2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.

(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.

(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.

(8) Integrating principles of sustainable development into policies and programs.

(d) Reports.—

(1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the strategy required by subsection (a).

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS.—Not less than once every two years after the submission of the initial report under paragraph (1) until and including 2015, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.

SEC. 5. Definitions.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY.—The term “extreme global poverty” refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY.—The term “global poverty” refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h2639_ih.xml

Read more…

Jobs for america

Posted by chad jenkins on April 6, 2011 at 10:34pm

When are we going to bring jobs back to america and quit sending out products to china ,etc...????

If we continue our current trade policy, we will never be able to compete with china, mexico or whoever. Why do we subsidize american tax dollars to other countires?

It's time to bring tarriffs back to the trade policy or american jobs will be lost forever.

Read more…

The Birther Trap

Posted by Steve - Tea Party Founder on April 6, 2011 at 5:00pm

The Birther Trap

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Obama cheated his way into college, into the Democrat Party, into the Senate and into the White House.

However, has a trap been laid for America to fall into?

What if one day when the birth certificate question grows to epic proportion and all the right wing conspirators (us) demands a birth certificate or else! At that point Mr. Obama proudly displays a true and valid birth certificate? Yes, his birth certificate, without a flaw or question.

What could happen next?

Very simply put, he would become a victim of the right-wingers, cry racism and tell the world he has been wronged!  Poor President Obama points at the Tea Party, Republican Party and the birther crowd demanding an apology!

Of course, it becomes obvious it was the mean Conservative extremists which has destroyed  America with their hate of black people and their anti-American attitudes.

 What would you do if that happened? 

Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: Recent Poll Data Yields Surprising Portrait of TEA Party Voters

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on April 6, 2011 at 3:00pm


 

 http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics_research2011.html
 
TEA Party Voters Constitute
a Different Breed of Conservative
 
 
            Wiser Research and Rasmussen Reports recently published new polls with intriguing depictions of TEA Party voters and society’s perceptions of them . . . . Of course, literally hundreds of surveys about the TEA Party have been conducted. Dozens more comparing TEA (“Taxed Enough Already” or “Taken Enough Abuse”) Party folks to typical conservatives or to typical Americans, typical Republicans or to Independents have also been done in the last year. Some of the most common claims of the mainstream media about the TEA Party were absolutely and quickly refuted by the mainstream polling organizations . . . the following “generic” poll information comes from numerous surveys on the subject which will be followed by the two recent and more specific surveys about the TEA folk from Rasmussen Reports; and Wiser Research . . . we’ll look far more closely at the Rasmussen and Wiser data. Here are the conclusions about the make up of the TEA Party that can be drawn from mainstream research thus far:
1) TEA Pary members were not stupid as liberal pundits suggested, but more highly educated than the general populace and than other conservatives.  
2) They were not racists, but less likely to be hold racist views than the general populace. 
3) They were more likely to be older than 45. 
4) The other demographics of the TEA Party vary somewhat from region to region. However, in general they are older -- more than 150% as likely to be over 65 as under age 28. Men outnumbered women by about 56-44 among TEA Partiers. Blacks and Hispanics are represented among the TEA Party but around 50% less frequently than found in the general populace for both groups. Catholics are found among the TEA Party about 30% less frequently than in the general populace;  Jews are found about 60% less frequently than among the general populace. Asians are found at about 10% less often than in the general populace. TEA Party events are often family events for younger couples that are involved.
5) TEA Partiers are more likely to be successful and enjoy higher earnings. 
6) More likely to own a business or represent a profession such as doctor, architect, engineer, computer-programmer etc. than the general public.
7) The mainstream media were right about one thing:  TEA Partiers were far more likely to watch FOXNews regularly and far more likely to question the “fairness” of other popular media sources of information such as the traditional broadcast networks.
8) They come from all over the political spectrum but typically described themselves as Republicans 54% of the time; as Independents or “Other” 28%; as Democrats 12%; and as Libertarians 6%.
9)   Despite efforts to portray them as extremists, recent surveys show that 47% of the voters regard their own views as closer to the TEA Party then to those of our representatives or senators and 54% say the TEA Party views are closer to theirs than what they perceive to be the views of President Obama.
10)   TEA Party people are far more likely than other voters to call themselves “Fiscal-Conservatives”; “Constitutional-Conservatives”; or “Libertarians.”
11) TEA Party people are far more likely to describe themselves as “well-informed on the issues” than regular conservatives 58% to 41% and than the general public where only 30% agreed with that self-description.
12) While studies by groups like the Huffington post seem to aim at portraying TEA Partiers as “trailer trash” and “100% sold on” the Republican Party: TEA Partiers “perhaps because of their age” come from a higher than average income levels and largely describe themselves as previously “inactive” politically.
13) Perhaps because of their age, TEA Party members are more likely than members of the general public to have owned or managed a business or to have served in managerial positions than the general public.
14) TEA Partiers are more likely to regard themselves as “very well-informed politically” and “economically” than the general public. About 78% of them agree with the statement “Lower taxes creates jobs.”
15) The single-most consistent aspect of the TEA Party that everyone agrees upon is that they are overwhelmingly conservative. Studies have shown that only 6-10% of TEA Partiers consider themselves “liberal” and only 22-25% consider themselves to have “centrist” political views.   When the word “moderate” is used, however, a large amount of the TEA Party considers themselves to be fiscally-conservative moderates.
16) Under-represented professions among TEA Partiers include teachers and lawyers.  Union involvement is found, but less than among average voters.  Many are involved in the computer industry or information technology.
17) TEA Party people are far LESS likely to describe themselves as “Socially-Conservative” and more likely to call themselves “Social- Moderates” or even “Social-liberals” than regular conservatives. They are far less likely to think that total bans on abortion; absolute right to prayer in public schools; teaching creationism in public schools; or gun control are “major issues at this time” and far more likely to point to debt; jobs; runaway government spending; and expansion of government as the most serious issues of our day. While both types of conservatives are highly likely to oppose gay marriage, TEA Party conservatives are more likely to approve of or be neutral toward the gay lifestyle. These numbers and attitudes have been fairly consistent for the last year regardless of who’s doing the polling.
18) While we’ve seen no polling data on this, Rajjpuut has done a lot of “informal polling” and would describe the “level of violence” found at TEA Party demonstrations (perhaps in keeping with their age) as “virtually non-existent” especially compared with that of the left-wing activist and Union activist demonstrations he’s seen. Similarly examining the “rhetoric” found on signs at such demonstrations shows the TEA Party placards generally “staying on topic” and complaining about policies and events in comparison to left-wing activism (say in Wisconsin) as vitriolic and often aimed at personalities . . . which is diametrically opposed to the viewpoints expressed by mainstream pundits characterizing the two groups.  
The only “violence” ever seen by Rajjpuut at a TEA Party event was when someone tried to infiltrate a TEA Party group (with photographers in tow) bearing a racist reference to Obama. The young man was physically conducted off the premises by four athletic-looking young TEA Party men and his racist sign destroyed completely. The mainstream media didn’t cover that on the nightly news, however. That’s concludes our broad outline of who the TEA Party is . . . .
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics_research2011.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/48_say_their_views_closer_to_tea_party_than_congress
           In the two surveys linked above, the pollsters zeroed in on some specific beliefs or specific impact of TEA Party conservatives compared to regular conservatives. The second link is to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll on the TEA Party which tracks the public perception of TEA Partiers very closely. The top link from Wiser Research really aimed to zoom in on a few areas where the TEA Party is claimed by the media to be “more extreme” than Republicans or other conservatives.
            Rasmussen leads off his poll with this comment: “In the ongoing budget-cutting debate in Washington, some congressional Democrats have accused their Republican opponents of being ‘held captive’ by the Tea Party movement, but voters identified with the Tea Party more than Congress. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters say when it comes to the major issues facing the country, their views are closer to the average Tea Party member as opposed to the average member of Congress. Just 22% say their views are closer to those of the average congressman. Even more (30%) aren’t sure.”
            Results of the Rasmussen polling added that 49% of likely voters see the TEA Party movement as “good for the country; while 26% see it as bad for the country; and 16% see the TEA Party as a neutral entity neither good nor bad. 78% of Republicans and 54% of Independents see the TEA Party as good for the country; while 48% of Democrats see it as bad for the country. 45% of likely voters believe the average TEA Party member has a better understanding of the problems (and their solutions?) facing the country than the average member of congress; while only 31% see the average member of congress having a better understanding.
            At present 22% of the populace claim they are part of the TEA Party movement; 12% say that someone close to them is a TEA Party Member; and 14% say they aren’t sure. 94% of the political-class have no ties to the TEA Party and 69% of the political class believe the TEA Party is a bad thing. (Over the years depending upon the economy, between 6-15% of voters identify themselves as part of the political class by their answers to three specific questions from Rasmussen pollers, while 54-70% respond to those same three questions in keeping with “mainstream” views. 59% of mainstream voters see the TEA Party as good for the country. 
The Rasmussen Reports poll concludes saying, “41% of all voters think the Tea Party will play a bigger role in the 2012 election campaigns than it did in 2010; 30% see the TEA Party’s role “about the same”; while 21% say they expect a smaller role in 2012. Voters see the words “Tea Party” a bit more positively as a political label these days, while the terms “liberal” and “progressive” have lost ground even among Democrats. “Conservative” remains the most popular description. While Rasmussen has earned a reputation for professionalism and accuracy and beaten all other polling groups in predicting the final vote percentages over the last three presidential election cycles . . . some have claimed that Rasmussen is “conservative-leaning.” For balance we’ll look at a recent poll on the TEA Party conducted by a supposedly independent and neutral survey group: Wiser Research . . . .
            In the Wiser Research the survey concluded that it appears that there is “an emerging split among conservatives” and asked “how will this affect Republicans in 2012?”   While admiring the polling’s ingenuity, Rajjpuut finds such conclusions, highly questionable largely because of the way the polling was conducted.   Wiser sought responses to opinion statements from regular conservatives and from TEA Party conservatives and then sought to assess the differences in response. Since Wiser was looking for differences, it’s not at all surprising that they found them. Rajjpuut’s totally different conclusions are found below; here are the Wiser opinion-generating statements:
A)        “Barack Obama is destroying the country.”
B)       “Obama is a socialist.”
C)        “I want to see Obama’s policies fail.”
D)        “Obama is a practicing Christian/Muslim.”
E)       “Obama does not have a U.S. birth certificate.”
As stated above, Wiser Research was looking for differences and found them. Except for the first three questions, however, they got a lot of “not sure” responses. Across the board the TEA Party members were more likely to agree with the statements and to believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim than regular conservatives were. First let’s look at those responses according to Wiser:
A)       “Barack Obama is destroying the country” elicited a huge difference between regular conservatives and the TEA Party. 6% of regular conservatives agreed with the statement while 71% of TEA Party Conservatives agreed.
B)       “Obama is a Socialist” showed another great divide, but not quite so marked this time: 75% of the TEA Party members believe Obama is a Socialist compared to 40% of regular conservatives.
C)        “I want to see Obama’s policies fail” was agreed to by 76% of TEA Partiers, but only by 32% of non-TEA Party conservatives.
D)       “Obama is a practicing Muslim” was agreed to by 27% of the TEA Party and 16% of other conservatives; and the corollary “Obama is a practicing Christian” was agreed to again by 27% of TEA Partiers; but 46% of other conservatives. Note: Among all voters various studies have shown that Obama is considered a Muslim by roughly 16% of the populace.
 
E)       “Obama does not have a U.S. birth certificate” garnered 26% agreement from the TEA Party but only 17% from other conservatives. Note: study after study have shown that 18-20% of all American voters believe the president cannot produce a legitimate American birth certificate and that independents are far more likely than Democrats and only slightly less likely than Republicans to believe this is true.
The “self-fulfilling prophecy” aspect of human affairs (and human polling) has been documented for at least the last eighty years  -- we tend to find what we expect to find and the truth be damned.  Rajjpuut sees these Wiser numbers, especially in response to the first statement, to be far, far out of line with reality as he or anyone he knows has experienced it. He’d daresay that it would be impossible to find any group of self-described conservatives anywhere who’d respond to the statement “Barack Obama is destroying the country” with less than 30% agreement. If the statement was rephrased, “The policies of Barack Obama are destroying the country,” than it’s doubtful that less than 60% agreement could be found among any group of self-described conservatives in America. What exactly is this “opinion” of Rajjpuut based upon? 
A)   Despite attempts to portray America as a racist nation, Barack Obama got more White votes than John Kerry or Al Gore. Almost 48% of White voters supported him. In contrast less than 5% of Black vote backed McCain . . . racism, seems to come from the other direction or should we call it Black backlash?
B)    Barack Obama got a huge benefit of the doubt after his election in 2008. 72% of Americans approved of his performance when polled on Inauguration Day including 45% who highly approved (in contrast only 15% of Americans highly disapproved of Obama’s performance at that time). Rajjpuut backed “the lesser of two evils” McCain-Palin ticket; but admits feeling good about the country electing a Black man as its president.  Unfortunately, that feeling was gone within six weeks . . . .
C)   Things have changed for Mr. Obama, his level of support has fallen dramatically. Mr. Obama didn’t somehow get “blacker” or otherwise racially objectional overnight; nor did White voters suddenly become more racist. Mr. Obama’s policies quite frankly and simply are hurting the country and the voters have noticed and become angry or at least disappointed about that.
As everyone knows, the honeymoon was over rather quickly.   Almost immediately Obama’s actions made it clear that the man practiced highly dubious politics, especially his economic actions and policies. By mid-March of 2009, the TEA Party had arisen out of nowhere in objection to government policies these individuals regarded as anti-American; socialistic; anti-common sense; anti-Constitutional and expansive. That Barack Obama was at the center of these policies was obvious to all . . . so once the political opposition arose, it’s natural that he, personally, would be the center of the debate. 
Again, if the statement “Barack Obama’s policies are destroying this country” had been used, it’s likely that very little rift would have been shown between conservatives. The TEA Party arose first against Mr. Obama’s policies while the entire nation didn’t think about repudiating them until a couple months before the last election. With eighteen extra months to crystallize their understanding, it’s natural that the TEA Party would be slightly more likely to see Obama as personally responsible.  Rajjpuut would prefer not to impugn the motives of Wiser Research, but clearly sloppy interview technique and dubious methodology seem to be involved.
            The task that Wiser Research took upon itself: to find major differences between TEA Party conservatives compared to all conservatives seems to have shown success. However, since in study after study . . . conservatives of all ilks regard protecting the Constitution and American Way of Life; growing the economy; stopping the growth in government; creating a balanced budget; dealing with the National Debt and unfunded liabilities; and ethics in government as the most important issues of our day -- and TEA Party conservatives have consistently shown themselves the most adamant in desiring the government to face up to these issues . . . .
The Wiser Research study’s final conclusions that a rift is developing between Republicans (notice their research was on self-identified “conservatives,” but their conclusion talks about Republicans) and the TEA Party may be of little import since currently fiscal-conservativism and Constitutional-conservativism seems to be the driving impetus of the broader electorate. IF such a wide rift actually exists it’s not likely to manifest itself when such a huge area of “easy” agreement lies before the two groups and the general voting public as well. Additionally, the central fallacy of the Wiser Research conclusion emerges from their polling technique in which clearly Barack Obama (and not his policies specifically; or progressive political policies in general) was the focal point. So long as the man’s policies are seen as antithetical to conservative values, no rift matters.
The one key finding of the Wiser study (that the TEA Party believes more strongly that “Obama is destroying the country” by a ratio of 71% to 6% over ordinary conservatives) puts their whole study in question in Rajjpuut’s mind until it can be replicated by a more respected polling organization. When it is further revealed that Wiser comes to this conclusion and another conclusion (from a different study) that the TEA Party harbors more racial resentment than other conservatives – something none of the other more accredited studies has ever shown . . . one cannot be blamed for suggesting that it looks likes Wiser went out of its way 1) to back the Obama administration’s “party line” about the largely “unsavory” nature of the TEA Party and 2) actually attempted to incite a rift amongs conservative voters which could only benefit Barack Obama. Rajjpuut would suggest that Rasmussen and other more respected polling outfits take up this Wiser study and conduct a similar one of their own. The numbers 71% and 6%, however, are so out of line with real life that, as mentioned, the whole Wiser study is made suspect.
 
 
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
 
 
 
Read more…