http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=S.2433&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn So what is Obama's intentions? Ulterior motive? Stupidity? I'm thinking this will be the big subject once people look at the possible repercussions.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=55D0D702-1F77-4895-A1B8-41C947F6F19E A UN Time for "Testing" By Joseph Klein FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, November 10, 2008 After eight years of the Bush administration, which stubbornly subordinated the interests of the United Nations to its own, UN officials are overjoyed to see its departure and the arrival of someone – anyone – else. Bureaucrats in Turtle Bay are hopeful about last week’s election results, believing they signal the arrival of a far more UN-friendly administration. That new administration will soon face a "testing" of sorts from their quarter. "It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the UN who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. Even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who took pains publicly to remain neutral during the presidential campaign, was reported to have told a small group of journalists at an off-the-record briefing that an Obama victory would be "good for us." And in commenting after Obama’s victory, the Secretary General remarked that "With a glad heart, I welcome this new era of partnership for change." Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton had a simple explanation for the Obama boom at the United Nations: "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they’ll get it from an Obama administration." President-elect Obama has the chance to prove Bolton wrong – and it is to be hoped that he will – but the next president will need to adopt a nuanced view of multilateralism in which the United Nations is not the main player. While it is true that the most intractable problems in the world today are global in scale – the terrorist threat and the interconnected global economic crisis, for example – the choice is not between the imposition of U.S. unilateral hegemony and accession to UN multilateral authority. Rather, the choice is between different modes of effective global cooperation. Beneficial multilateralism is really about cooperation among sovereign nations toward a common end that produces net positive results for the cooperating countries against a stated goal. Intelligent cooperation and multilateral diplomacy do not have to mean acquiescence in whatever other countries think, no matter what the cost. Nor do they require us to ignore our own democratic values when a majority of autocratic countries push through a General Assembly resolution that contradicts those values. The United Nations today cannot be relied upon by the United States as its chief instrument for the exercise of multilateral diplomacy. With few exceptions, such as disaster relief and dealing with critical health issues, there is little interest at the UN in true cooperation toward solving common problems. That is because the agendas of UN bodies like the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly itself have been hijacked by Islamic fanatics and their anti-Western allies, who nevertheless want more U.S. dollars to fund their vision. Today, we are by far the largest contributor to the UN’s budget, paying 22 percent of the UN's regular operating budget and 25 percent of its peacekeeping budget. Yet we have only one vote out of 190 in the General Assembly and share the veto power in the Security Council with four other permanent members (including two authoritarian regimes), who pay a fraction of what we contribute. As a senator, Barack Obama pushed for even more funding in support of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. He co-sponsored the Global Poverty Act (S.2433). It was explicitly directed to "the achievement of the UN’s Millennium Development Goal" that would cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015. This first UN Millennium Development Goal of poverty reduction would be coordinated under the legislation with "the other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals, including eradicating extreme hunger and reducing hunger and malnutrition, achieving universal education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, ensuring environmental sustainability, and achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100,000,000 slum dwellers." All of this costs lots of money. Barack Obama’s legislation called for "making available additional overall United States assistance levels." The UN has already declared what the financial commitment for each developed member state should be: 0.7 percent of its gross national product. This would mean a UN-administered assessment on America’s total national wealth that could end up taking nearly $140 billion a year more of American taxpayers’ money to finance a global redistributionist development aid program. "America needs to do more," Obama said when his legislation was introduced. "As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world, this legislation will not only commit to reducing global poverty, but will also demonstrate our promise and support to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy has to extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere." The Bush administration has already provided billions of dollars to help fund the fight against AIDS and malaria in Africa. However, it has not been willing to hand over many hundreds of billions of dollars more of our money to unaccountable aid programs that may end up lining the pockets of corrupt government leaders and UN officials in the mold of the oil-for-food scandal. Note that corruption alone has cost Africa nearly $150 billion dollars a year, according to the African Union. Particularly at this time of job losses, house foreclosures, exploding national debt, and other economic distress affecting many millions of Americans, a massive increase in development aid funneled through the United Nations is not the kind of change that we can afford. Will President-elect Obama reverse his past support for expensive UN programs and keep the hands of the UN bureaucrats as far away from our pockets as possible? Will his fellow Democrats, who will be in firm control of both houses of Congress, let him reverse course even if he chooses to, since they have long been unconditional supporters of the UN? We should know the answer quite soon.
"Will President-elect Obama reverse his past support for expensive UN programs and keep the hands of the UN bureaucrats as far away from our pockets as possible? Will his fellow Democrats, who will be in firm control of both houses of Congress, let him reverse course even if he chooses to, since they have long been unconditional supporters of the UN?" This is a HUGE load of crap. The Socialist control the UN. Besides this being totally over the top. Not only are the Democrats colluding with OPEC terrorist to sabatage the economy if the US goes under conservative control. But now you have them colluding with the Socialist U.N. you see here is how it works. While Barrack is in office no real fines and applause for efforts taken. Then when the next conservative gets in. The U.N. bitches about an "uncooperative" administration and fines them to pay tax dollars. Socialist do this all the time. More and more rules that are only selectivly enforced means more corruption and power to them. For instance consider the Columbine shootings. 17 violations of gun laws took place or actually 17 separate laws were broken. Imagine that. What did the Democrats push for right after words? .... MORE LAWS. Why you ask? Well if they can create the impression that more laws are needed without actually enforcing the current laws in place then they slowly take away more rights little by little like money in the bank that they can cash out later. All of a suddent they decide to enforce the 500 different laws (down the line) and there was no need to change the constitution and they pull the rug right out from under everyone. This is not to mention enforcing laws in conservatives for the slightest violations while letting their terrorist friends do as they like. Another example. Don Tyson friend of Bill Clinton ran shit hols meat packing plants just like the rest with illegals making shit money for a crap job. All Don Tysons competition were inspected and fined till they were making no money while Don Tyson and Tyson foods was over looked. Now Don Tyson owns 3/4 of the industry. From a small time meat plant in Arkansas to Meat Packing King in eight years under Illegal Clinton corruption almost impossible to prove.
I remember that shit... I never buy Tyson products (read labels carefully - they pack meat for many other brands...)
If your a conspiracy person also you can look up Don Tyson's involvement in Horse racing and using horses to transport cocaine from S.America and the whole Mena Arkansas thing. Most people think that just cool and all. Unless you some hapless kid who happened to be out in the woods when a drop off was make on a shipment. Long story remember though Clinton NEVER released his medical records. Ever get a good look that that WC Fields Schnoz of his?
I always thought that was some form of infection he picked up from Monica Blow-winky or what ever her name was.
Hopefully, and I sincerly mean it, Obama will be enlightened with his new level of access. He's going to learn a lot of stuff, stuff he probably wishes he didnt know, and it will change him. He has plenty of agenda items, but there are a whole lot of behind the scenes things going on that we dont see. Ignance is bliss.
I think a lot of it will depend on his advisers. I think he is easily manipulated probably has a low self esteem and an inferiority complex. In the past he has surrounded himself and taken advice from hard line socialist to down right communists and religious fundamentalist. I think he can be steered by reason but fear he will not be taking advice from reasonable people. Look at the investment to get him in. 3/4 Billion. I think a lot of Madoff and know a lot of Soros money. These people see him as the quintessential puppet president one they can pull the strings to get a return on their investment. He is their "servant". Do as your told boy.
