All Posts (28268)

Sort by

get rid of speaker boehner

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 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…

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!

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'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…

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

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

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…
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…

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

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

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…


 

 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…

Ladies and Gentlemen,

     For a good many years I have wondered why we, as Americans, have been losing so much ground. It seems as though there is a never ending siege and assault on our freedoms, and we are powerless to stop it. I believe I have the answer, and I believe it is simply because we have been looking in the wrong place. As an example, I will use a current vein of thought regarding the "green economy". I am sure you have heard our President state it, as well as seen the endless, mindless commercials stating that we need to go green, and green shovel ready jobs will save the economy, even though where ever it has been tried, a given economy will lose from 2.8 to 3.7 jobs per green job created. Does that sound like its working? I dont think so either. Did you know that the green economy is a done deal? Yes, it has already been signed sealed and delivered. Do you recall voting on this as a focus on our economy? Thats good, because we havent. I will warn you, that this post and the resultant posts will not be for the feint of heart, as they will be relaying a great deal of information. It is my contention that if we dont know where the impetus for the laws are coming from, how in the world will we ever begin to formulate a plan to combat it when it comes to our Congress? How will we be able to beat Obama when he talks about a green economy, or "common sense" gun laws, or we need to allow the International Community to have a more expansive role in world affairs? How will we be able to refute the idea that healthcare is a "right", or that collective bargaining is a "right" or that housing is a "right"? Would you like to know where the ideas come from? Good, because I am going to post a new section each week. This should allow you enough time to read, digest, and disseminate the information. I have used .gov websites, organizational websites, and substantial documentation to provide you the proof you need to go after politicians, legislators, and different leaders who are signed on to the agendas.

 

Whether you know it or not, YOU and I are signed on to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. What are those you might ask? Please go to the following website to substantiate what I am saying:
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
The MDGs are:
1 Eradication of poverty
2 Universal Primary Education
3 Gender Equality
4 Child Health
5 Maternal Health
6 Combat AIDS/HIV
7 Environmental Sustainability
8 Global Partnership for development

Believe it or not, these goals go back to the year 2000. However, we havent been involved in them to a great extent. From the inception of the Obama administration we have signed on in a much greater fashion.
“I had an opportunity of meeting Senator John Kerry yesterday in Poznan and I was very much encouraged by meeting him. He is going to be the next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate and he assured me that, as next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he will fully cooperate with the United Nations. And also it is my expectation that, again, the new Administration will be much more actively engaged with the United Nations, on climate change, the Millennium Development Goals, and many other major United Nations issues”
Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki Moon.
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1235

You might state that this is nice but it isnt the US Government stating this. Sadly, it is true. Go to the websites, at the end of each quote where you will be able to substantiate what I am saying:


During the campaign, Barack Obama stated that "....we are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" Little did we know how right he was. I would like to show you a few quotes from his National Security Strategy from 2010:

National Security Strategy 2010:
“We will expand our support to modernizing institutions and arrangements such as the evolution of the G-8 to the G-20 to reflect the realities of today’s international environment. Working with the institutions and the countries that comprise them, we will enhance international capacity to prevent conflict, spur economic growth, improve security, combat climate change, and address the challenges posed by weak and failing states. And we will challenge and assist international institutions and frameworks to reform when they fail to live up to their promise. Strengthening the legitimacy and authority of international law and institutions, especially the U.N., will require a constant struggle to improve performance.
Furthermore, our international order must recognize the increasing influence of individuals in today’s world. There must be opportunities for civil society to thrive within nations and to forge connections among them. And there must be opportunities for individuals and the private sector to play a major role in addressing common challenges—whether supporting a nuclear fuel bank, promoting global health, fostering entrepreneurship, or exposing violations of universal rights. In the 21st century, the ability of individuals and nongovernment actors to play a positive role in shaping the international environment represents a distinct opportunity for the United States.”
Pg 13 National Security Strategy

III. Advancing Our Interests
To achieve the world we seek, the United States must apply our strategic approach in pursuit of four
enduring national interests:
•• Security: The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners.
•• Prosperity: A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic
system that promotes opportunity and prosperity.
•• Values: Respect for universal values at home and around the world.
•• International Order: An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace,
security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.
Each of these interests is inextricably linked to the others: no single interest can be pursued in isolation,
but at the same time, positive action in one area will help advance all four. The initiatives described
below do not encompass all of America’s national security concerns. However, they represent areas of
particular priority and areas where progress is critical to securing our country and renewing American
leadership in the years to come.
P 17 National Security Strategy 2010.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf


Did you know this was part of our Security Strategy? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, John Paul Jones and Abraham Lincoln must be TERRIBLY disappointed with us!.

"President Obama has asked the State Department and USAID to accomplish
more through diplomacy and development than ever before. I am confident that
we are up to the challenge. We have a President who sees the world as it is, while
never losing sight of the world as it should be; a global corps of dedicated
diplomats and development experts; and a country—open and innovative,
determined and devoted to our core values—that can, must and will lead in this
new century."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/158267.pdf

Does this sound like the America you and I grew up in? It sure doesnt sound like the one I have come to know and love. Here is more:

"Obama Administration and Preparations for the 2010
MDG Summit
President Obama, who stated during the 2008 presidential campaign that under his leadership the
MDGs would be America’s goals, appears to have elevated the significance of the MDGs
relative to his predecessor. Administration officials no longer carefully distinguish the goals of the
Millennium Declaration from the MDGs. President Obama’s National Security Strategy states
that “the United States has embraced the United Nations Millennium Development Goals,”32 and
Congressional Budget Justifications for Foreign Operations submitted under the Obama
Administration frequently discuss attainment of MDGs in conjunction with U.S. development
policy goals.
The Obama Administration’s four major foreign assistance initiatives appear to reflect
consideration of the MDGs. The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative is aimed at
ending hunger (MDG 1). The Global Health Initiative (GHI) focuses not only on HIV/AIDS,
malaria, and other diseases (MDG 6), but also on child mortality (MDG 4) and maternal health
(MDG 5).The Global Climate Change Initiative targets environmental sustainability (MDG 7)
and the Global Engagement Initiative, designed to create economic opportunities and security in
Muslim communities abroad, is intended to support entrepreneurship and create jobs through collaborative partnerships (MDG 8) and involve women in the social and economic development
of their communities (MDG 3).
The Obama Administration’s recently published strategy for meeting the MDGs, like the Bush
Administration strategy, does not focus on specific MDGs, explaining that “we do not treat the
MDGs as if they were separate baskets” and “the purpose is to emphasize that the MDGs are all
connected.”33 Rather, it identifies four “imperatives”—(1) innovation, (2) sustainability, (3)
measuring outcomes rather than inputs, and (4) mutual accountability among donor and recipient
countries—and discusses ways that U.S. agencies apply them. The strategy appears intended to
demonstrate to the international community a greater U.S. interest in the MDG discussion, while
maintaining the U.S. position that the MDGs can best be achieved by focusing on cross-cutting
aid effectiveness issues rather than funding targets. However, the Obama Administration, like its
predecessor, has not embraced the target associated with Goal 8, which calls for donor nations to
reserve 0.7% of their GNI for development aid."
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148796.pdf

"      And today, I’m announcing our new U.S. Global Development Policy -- the first of its kind by an American administration.  It’s rooted in America’s enduring commitment to the dignity and potential of every human being.  And it outlines our new approach and the new thinking that will guide our overall development efforts, including the plan that I promised last year and that my administration has delivered to pursue the Millennium Development Goals.  Put simply, the United States is changing the way we do business.
 
     First, we’re changing how we define development.  For too long, we’ve measured our efforts by the dollars we spent and the food and medicines that we delivered.  But aid alone is not development.  Development is helping nations to actually develop -- moving from poverty to prosperity.  And we need more than just aid to unleash that change.  We need to harness all the tools at our disposal -- from our diplomacy to our trade policies to our investment policies.
 
     Second, we are changing how we view the ultimate goal of development.  Our focus on assistance has saved lives in the short term, but it hasn’t always improved those societies over the long term.  Consider the millions of people who have relied on food assistance for decades.  That’s not development, that’s dependence, and it’s a cycle we need to break.  Instead of just managing poverty, we have to offer nations and peoples a path out of poverty.
 
     Now, let me be clear, the United States of America has been, and will remain, the global leader in providing assistance.  We will not abandon those who depend on us for life-saving help -- whether it’s food or medicine.  We will keep our promises and honor our commitments. "
President Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/22/remarks-president-millennium-development-goals-summit-new-york-new-york

Does this even sound like WE THE PEOPLE ? Read on, theres more
"The Obama Administration’s strategy for meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), “Celebrate, Innovate, and Sustain: Toward 2015 and Beyond”, lays out a determined, strategic and results-focused plan that promises to both reenergize efforts to achieve the MDGs and strengthen the United States’ voice in the global development dialogue."
http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/08/02/mdgs-us-strategy/

This isnt the first administration either:
"While the Millennium Declaration was agreed to during the Clinton Administration, the MDGs
themselves were published in a report by the U.N. Secretary-General on September 6, 2001—
about nine months after President Bush took office and only days before the September 11th
terrorist attacks dramatically altered U.S. foreign policy priorities.23 The U.S. commitment to the
MDGs during the Bush Administration was nuanced. As explained by a 2005 State Department
cable to all U.S. embassies and USAID missions, the United States agreed to the development
goals included in the Millennium Declaration adopted at the 2000 U.N. Millennium Summit. It
did not, however, commit to the goals, targets, and indicators issued by the U.N. Secretariat in
2001.24 These are the eight goals and related indicators that are generally referred to today as the
MDGs, but were described by the State Department as “solely a Secretariat product, never having
been formally adopted by member states.”
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148796.pdf
So, I believe I have shown, without a doubt, that we ARE signed on to MDGs, and that no matter what you or I think, we are being kept out of the loop simply because, as an American, NOT a global citizen, we would throw a wrench into the works.

Read more…

Courage

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak.
Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
                                                                     

 Winston Churchill
Read more…
 
                 The so-called "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" that attempted to run an Israeli naval blockade  and was funded by a feminine-Marxist organization called Code Pink; and planned by Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dorn (you remember them, the bomb makers) celebrates its first anniversary this May 15, 2011.  What else is so special about that date?
 
 
 
Beware the Ides of May, 2011? Yep!
 
 
            As reported right here in Rajjpuut’s Folly several times already in the past year . . . “THE Revolution” is underway. “THE Revolution,” you say, “Hold it, hold it, when did this start? Why wasn’t I informed? . . . er’ what revolution?” Note to self:  ignorance is not bliss. Long-form headline:   The Radical Left has Now Joined with Radical Islam to Initiate “THE Revolution” NOT Only Here in the United States, but Around the World . . . these moves are a culmination of several trends long in evidence . . . details to follow, and for those interested in marking your calendar: May 15, 2011 is the key date . . . .
 
ITEM: If you’ve been plotting something for at least 65 years and been piling up successes furtively under the cover of dark, you must become pretty emboldened to finally come out into the open in the bright light of day . . . that’s the story for socialist and communist Americans and the union LEADERS who are right now openly calling for and planning open revolt.
 
ITEM: if you’ve got a grievance 63 years in the boiling (since the creation of Israel, the Jewish State) and been pretty damn violent about it the whole time without success, you’ll welcome anyone who promises to join with you in common cause . . . that’s the story for the Islamic Jihadists who since Sayyid Qutb first came to Greeley, Colorado (see: The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11) to attend the University of Northern Colorado (then called “Colorado State College of Education”) shortly after publishing his first book Social Justice in Islam have been looking for a chance to martyr themselves to bring about an Islamic Caliphate and Mohammed’s Paradise on Earth. Qutb succeeded in 1966 and before his hanging remarked, “Thank God!   I performed Jihad for fifteen years to earn this martyrdom.”
 
ITEM: Osama Bin Laden, founded Al Qaeda in August, 1988, (even before the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan less than a year later; largely accomplished thanks to huge cash and weapons influxes and military training from the United States) but the organization was kept a secret. That date is important because already at that date Bin Laden had his eye on western targets even while the war with the Soviets was still raging. Even at that date the ultimate goal was world conquest for Islam. That goal has NOT changed. 
            A believer whenever possible in pure Muslim activism, Bin Laden (a Saudi) went to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia in late 1990 asking to be allowed to free Kuwait from the conquest of Saddam Hussein with a purely Islamic military from many Arabian nations. He was sent away. 
When Bush #1 sent in the coalition forces to neutralize and defeat Saddam Hussein’s forces, Bin Laden was aghast that “infidels” could be invited onto sacred Islamic territory to defeat Muslims. He publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military, saying that the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia) profaned sacred soil.  Not liking to have their monarch criticized publicly, the Saudis tried to catch and silence Bin Laden. Soon after U.S. troops were allowed on Saudi soil, Bin Laden’s organization in Saudi Arabia was raided by Saudi secret police and information released to the American FBI which on November 8, 1990 led to a raid on the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, a man with numerous Al Qaeda ties, which uncovered a great deal of evidence of terrorist plots against America including plans to blow up New York City (NYC) skyscrapers.  Just a few months later, in 1991 Osama publicly declared unilateral war against the United States.   The Arab world knew about this. The CIA and top level politicians knew about this; you were never told. 
            Despite Bin Laden’s declaration of war and the information discovered from the Nosair raid, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was a partial success for Al Qaeda. The CIA and top level politicians, of course, knew all about all of this; again you were never told. During the next decade Osama and his buddies were responsible for attacks all around the world; most notably for several dozen terrorist attacks in the Middle East, Africa and Asia; and for blowing a hole in the side of the American destroyer USS Cole at port in Yemen in 1998; he and Ayman al-Zawahir co-signed a fatwa that same year declaring the killing of North Americans and their allies “an individual duty for every Muslim”; and most infamously for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon in Washington. D.C. Note to self: it does not take two to make a war . . . .
 
ITEM: “THE Revolution,” (like the attacks from Al Qaeda) constitutes a war whether you like it or not or whether or not you’re even aware of it. You now -- in this blog -- have been given information that the main launch point for highly visible and irrefutable assaults upon you, our Constitution and the American way of life is May 15, 2011. Up to now “THE Revolution” has been going on all around you for forty-four years. 
The ground for the battlefield was originally scouted and prepared by self-proclaimed “neo-Marxist” Saul Alinsky of Chicago with his two books Reveille for Radicals (1946); and Rules for Radicals (1971). The two were how-to primers on radical activism aimed at community organizers in big cities. Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals to Lucifer (a.k.a. “Satan”) . . . that dedication has been removed in modern editions but there are still plenty of the old books around and Rajjpuut checked one out of the library less than six years ago, yep “Satan with a starting capital of just one snake” who “won his own kingdom” was lauded as “the first radical.”  Alinsky “tactics” (sometimes called “street theater”) were seen all over the New Left movement of the late 60’s and early 70’s. Some thought they were too “tame.” 
Most notable among these were terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dorn/Dohrn (both spellings are very common and she’s also given her first name often as ‘Bernadine’) who once they left the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS -- because they were “too busy examining each other’s navels”) joined the Weather Underground sometimes called the Weathermen for whom they made and planted bombs during that era killing and maiming some police and others and losing more than a few Weathermen to incompetence.  Both Ayers and Dorn are still alive; both are close friends of the President of the United States; more on those two later.
ITEM: “Tactics” is how you wage war on a day-by-day basis. “Strategy” is what the long-range goals of the daily tactics aim to accomplish. With Alinsky’s ugly tactics now well-polished, what the progressive- (we must ‘progress’ beyond the ‘outdated and ill-conceived Constitution’ if we are ever to make ‘progress’ toward Utopia on earth) leftists needed now was a grand strategy defining how to make the goal (takeover of the United States and destruction of Capitalism) over time become a reality. Two Columbia University (NYC) Marxist professors Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven provided that strategy with their May 2, 1966 article in The Nation magazine The Weight of the Poor: a Strategy to End Poverty. Suddenly everything fell into place.   Almost immediately the ideas they espoused became known as “Cloward-Piven Strategy” and C-P Strategy has remained the radical left’s most powerful, albeit slow, strategic idea ever since.
 
ITEM: The theme of the article was that the poor should be used as shock-troopers and only by making the rest of the nation fear them could the poor gain their rightful economic equality. The intermediate goal should be according to Cloward and Piven GNI (a guaranteed national income).   The basis for their strategy was that Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson had the previous year not only got us into war in Southeast Asia; created the two government spending boondoggles Medicare; and Medicaid (with a state side as well as a federal one which now constitute UNfunded liabilities of $75 TRillion); but also launched a “War on Poverty” dramatically expanding old and adding new welfare programs. Cloward and Piven decided that with Alinsky street tactics they could dramatically increase the number of welfare recipients, virtually bankrupt the nation and then get the Democratic Party (where they owned the most influence) to pass a GNI law  . . . POOF! SNAP! Abracadabra! ending poverty and advancing the revolution, they thought, dramatically virtually overnight.
 
ITEM: It took them part of eight years to know semi-success. The full story is found here in a recent Rajjpuut’s Folly in its painfully-detailed entirety:
 
 
The short version is: After creating something called the NWRO in 1967 with Black militant George Wiley, Cloward and Piven crapped in their own nest by bankrupting NYC which was bailed out by the federal government in 1975; and almost bankrupted the State of New York and many other states and big cities by doubling welfare rolls by 1970 from eight to sixteen million recipients. 
C&P and Wiley declared victory even though GNI was never seriously discussed in Congress. They publicly bragged about the great thing they’d done. They told their followers to now concentrate their attention on voter registration and federal housing. In 1977, one of the first things the new progressive president, Jimmy Carter, did was pass a bill called CRA ’77 (the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) forcing lenders to knowingly make bad loans to unqualified would-be home owners. Wade Rathke, a Wiley Lieutenant sent to Arkansas in 1970 was in 1977 assigned to be the lead in creating a model organization in Arkansas to follow-up 0n the new C&P marching orders while taking advantage of CRA ’77 with C-P Strategies just as they had originally done with the welfare laws. Again the full version of events is found here:
 
 
 
ITEM: The nutshell version is that ACORN (Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now) was created in 1977. Using voter fraud** they elected an up and coming young Arkansas lieutenant governor to governor in 1978 and kept him in that post for 12 of the next 14 years until getting him elected president in 1972. Along the way they perfected their voter registration shenanigans and housing corruptions Alinsky-style so well that Rathke’s organization was expanded to every state and renamed (Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now). They were so successful on the housing front that just by them operating in Arkansas they began to change the face of federal housing very quickly. In 1975 only one in every 404 home loans in the country was considered “suspect.” Typically, this suspect loan was made at 3% down payment to someone considered a very good risk such as an ex-military officer going to college on the GI Bill. After ACORN got involved (just in Arkansas, remember) by 1985 one in every 196 home loans was “suspect” and over half of those suspect loans were CRA ’77 loans in Arkansas and in other states that ACORN had recently spread to. These Arkansas loans were made to absolutely unqualified buyers.
 
ITEM: after five expansions of CRA ’77 (four expansions by ACORN president Bill Clinton alone) the financial meltdown of 2007 would hit the country like a kidney kick from a mule. As for Barack Obama, he was not only a community organizer in Chicago . . . he was also:
 
A.     An ACORN attorney in 1994, '95 and '96 shaking down home mortgage companies not only for bad loans now; but for long-range promises of bad loan quotas for the future and even donations to ACORN itself.
B.    An attorney-professor teaching both Constitutional Law and Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in Chicago.
 
ITEM: After two legislative expansions of CRA ’77 in 1995 Bill Clinton (he also made a huge regulatory expansion of CRA ‘77 in 1993; and passed the Motor-Voter Act^^ in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him in the official photo) paid off his ACORN allies handsomely with a steroid-version legislative expansion of CRA ’77 in 1998. By 2005 more than one in three home loans was now suspect (34%) many of them made at 0.0% down payment for homes costing over $300,000 made to virtually homeless## clients.   The full details again should be known by every voting American:
 
 
That brings us almost up to date: So what exactly do we mean by “THE Revolution” and why do we say May 15, 2011 is so important? The answer to that question goes back roughly a year ago. About that time, the “near-ground-zero mosque was floated as a trial balloon to see if the American Mainstream media would back it and they did. Shariah Law in America as a viable option has been pressed by the extreme left and Eric Holder’s INJustice Department since that time. On the other end in early spring, 2010, several powerful American Union personalities and other prominent American leftists visited a few European capitals and roughly 17-18 Middle Eastern predominantly Muslim countries. They arranged discussions about forming a coalition to destroy what they hate most -- American Capitalism. Out of that discussion came the wave of so-called Democratic revolts across the Middle East; the so-called “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” blockade run; Shariah$$ Law- acceptability being promoted (it’s actually already part of law in some places in Europe); and plans to unite because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” 
What we mean by “THE Revolution" is exactly the same thing the left has meant by “THE Revolution" since before Alinsky, Ayers, Cloward, Piven, Wiley and others could talk. It means the downfall of the United States of America; the expansion of leftist efforts in many countries and introduction of a global government believing as they, the leftists do. By the way, the Jihadist will be fine with just the downfall of the United States but they want an Islamic Caliphate and to behead all who fail to capitulate to Islam on some glorious day in the future. But you knew all that . . . here’s what you didn’t know:
 
Item: The so-called Gaza Freedom Flotilla funded by a feminine Marxist organization called Code Pink; and planned by Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dorn (you remember them, the bomb makers) celebrates its first anniversary this May 15, 2011. 
This was the first known incidence of leftists in America and radical Jihadist Muslims joining forces. They (a group of Jihadist members of the Muslim Brotherhood (an organization that first became serious in Egypt under Sayyid Qutb) attempted to run the Israeli naval blockade (aimed at preventing arms and other military supplies getting to Gaza and to Jihadists elsewhere) and although the violence that naturally followed was at each step of the way begun and escalated by the Jihadists (each of whom had made video wills for their relatives before sailing that were captured by Israeli agents) the mainstream-lamestream media in America covered the whole affair as if it was an Israeli-provoked atrocity. Naturally the Arab press went hog-wild with the story . . . oh, sorry; Muslims don’t go hog-wild, so uh, camel-wild . . . 
Among other results of this evil-vile collaboration:  Mubarak is out and the “Democracy” that follows looks to be a Jihadocracy for Egypt similar to what rules now in Iran with no more enforcement of the (neutral toward) Israel peace agreement or the Trade (with Israel) agreements that Mubarak had long upheld despite their unpopularity among his people; there are now serious uprisings in almost all the Muslim Middle East; and the old version of Moammar Gadhafi is now looking pretty good as America seriously contemplates funding the Jihadist rebels out to oust his despotic butt. Anyway the first anniversary of that blockade-run attempt (May 15, 2011) will see a confluence of openly atrocious events in the Middle East and in America. Four in particular need to be exposed right now: 
            #1 Code Pink, Ayers and Dorn again are uniting once again for a repeat of the blockade-running event on May 15, 2011.
            #2 As SEIU Union bigwig Stephen Lerner promised (it’s all on videotape at my Rajjpuut’s Folly blog site in a different blog): 
 
 
the assault on the American banking system he’s planned . . . and designed to deal the ultimate crippling blow to capitalism is scheduled for May 15, 2011.
            #3 A whole range of nasty union demonstrations are scheduled to coincide with . . . wait for it . . . May 15, 2011.   The Union movement has now gone global (Workers of the world unite!) and far more Marxist. Go to the websites of the AFL-CIO or SEIU and see all their propaganda about all the countries “standing with Wisconsin.” They believe that Capitalism is on the ropes and all they have to do now is keep attacking the free market system until they can land a haymaker . . . and move their twisted statist philosophies into the forefront.
            #4 A restoration of lost land in which Muslim Arabs on all sides of Israel are supposed to simply walk into the country and “reclaim their acreage” is also scheduled for, yep, you guessed it . . . May 15, 2011. Beware the Ides of May.
 
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
 
** ACORN ran a very successful voter registration drive across Arkansas; unfortunately, those who signed up as Republicans never had their paperwork delivered to the voting authorities and that’s how young William Jefferson Clinton won the state governorship in 1978. He lost the post in 1980 during the Reagan landslide, but got elected the next twelve years before becoming our first ACORN president.
^^ Motor-Voter was called “a twelve-lane highway to voter fraud” by those who understood it.
## After Clinton’s Steroid-expansion of CRA ‘77 legislatively in 1998, ACORN found it much easier to put unqualified home loan recipients into $440,000 homes in 1999 than they could into $110,000 homes five or six years earlier. These folks were typically:
A.      Without jobs
B.     Lacking decent credit ratings
C.      Often without even a rental history
D.     Welfare recipients, and especially . . . .
E.      People whose only “income” was food stamps
F.      Even illegal aliens
 
Even though this blog involves a lot of reading, every educated American voter should know the full details here: 
 
 
$$ That means things like total control and oppression of women and the burkha requirement; and solely “mosque activities” of Shariah law be allowed and left alone as long as only Muslims are involved. In other words the U.S. Constitution would NOT apply to Muslims in the country.
 
 
 

 
 
 

Read more…