united nations

A bill was introduced in the Senate by Barack Obama (D-IL) that, if passed, would move the United States dangerously close to giving up its national sovereignty. The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433) would

“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.”

This bill is un-American and ultimately, by directing the “achievement” of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which calls for the “eradication of poverty” by “redistribution (of) wealth and land,” cancellation of “the debts of developing countries” and “a fair distribution of the earth’s resources”, will set the stage for a global taxation of the United States.

According to Phyllis Shiafly at Townhall.com:

“There is much more to the Millennium Goals than merely extorting more money from U.S. taxpayers. The goals set forth a comprehensive plan to put the United States under U.N. global governance.”

In fact, the Millennium Development Goals call for a “standing (U.N.) peace force,” a “U.N. Arms register,” “peace education” in “all levels from preschool through university,” and most disturbing, “political control of the global economy.” I believe the U.N.’s Millennium Project and associated goals would compromise American sovereignty, and any mandate to implement any of these goals must be staunchly opposed. The “Global Poverty Act of 2007″ is just such a mandate and is not in the best interest of the United States.

Think this could never happen in the United States? Think again! This bill (as H.R.1302) has already passed the House, and was introduced by Representative Adam Smith (D-WA). It was passed by voice vote on September 25, 2007, with no record of the representatives’ position kept.

Write your senators and tell them to kill this bill before its too late!

Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia today and now stands as the world’s newest country. Administered since 1999 by the United Nations, the new nation is banking on US and EU support to bolster its failing economy; the US and EU are expected to grant diplomatic recognition of the new state.

Kosovo is also hoping the US and EU recognition will prevent the escalation of hostilities between the new state and rivals Serbia and Russia, who are not the least bit happy about the current situation. Russia considers Kosovo’s move for independence to be a provocation that may entice similar action from the former Soviet Union’s southern rim minorities. Serbia isn’t recognizing Kosovo independence, referring to it as “a false state.” Russia stands solidly behind Serbia in condemning Kosovo’s secession and is whining to the UN Security Council.

Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, “Kosovo is proud, independent, sovereign and free” and parliament speaker Jakup Krasniqi said, “Kosovo is a republic — an independent, democratic and sovereign state”. However, I think it’s important to note, and no one is mentioning this in any of the news reports, the new nation of Kosovo is primarily Muslim. Remember, Islam will accept no government other than Islam and I predict that any attempt at democracy in Kosovo will be short-lived.

::: MORE :::

Hot Air is the first report I’ve found considering the potential role of Islam in the new independent Kosovo.

ComingAnarchy reports with photos of a Kosavar independence celebration in Stuttgart.

Webloggin also observes that the majority of ethic Albanians in Kosovo are Muslim and that Kosovo’s prime minister, the former rebel leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, is reported to have ties to Osama Bin Laden.

Recently the United States caved-in to a climate-change pact at the U.N. climate conference in Bali, Indonesia. Although the agreement only establishes the initial “road map” to setting timetables and other negotiation guidance parameters, the U.S. submission moves the nation closer to global accountability. Fortunately, the accord stopped short of requiring the developing (or developed) world to make binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The heart of U.S. concerns were the requirements for industrialized nations to finance clean-up efforts of developing nations and to help them acquire technology to reduce their dependence on heavily polluting energy sources, like coal. Under the Kyoto Treaty (that this new accord is supposed to replace), developing nations aren’t required to cut emissions at all, which is why the U.S. and China never signed it.

The climate conference was convened due to the U.N.’s “consensus” that global-warming is a man-made phenomenon is an illusion. However, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works:

In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.”

“Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus,’” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

Some consensus, eh? If that’s not enough, more than 100 prominent scientists from around the world signed their name to a letter to the UN climate conference in Bali, stating that “attempting to control the Earth’s climate was ‘ultimately futile’.”

The letter explained,

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables.”

Furthermore,

“In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ’settled,’ significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

Finally,

“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”

The scientists debunked U.N. assertions by simply stating,

“The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.”

This is what happens when you mix politics and science. The facts don’t matter, only the bottom line. In this case, the bottom line is control. The U.N. can exert an enormous amount of control over the industrialized nations through environmental accountability. They accomplish this by manipulating science. Ayn Rand warned of scientific capitulation to political expediency stating,

Men are not open to the truth or reason. … If [scientists] want to accomplish anything, we have to deceive [politicians] into letting us accomplish it. Or force them. They understand nothing else. We cannot expect their support for any endeavor of the intellect, for any goal of the spirit. They are nothing but vicious animals. They are greedy, self-indulgent, predatory dollar chasers…”

The U.N.’s thirst for power and global leadership is paved with environmental accords, pacts and treaties. In this, they are the wolf in sheep’s clothing and we should be weary. Any granting of authority to the U.N. threatens our sovereignty and places the U.S. at risk.

The United States caved-in by even attending the U.N. climate conference.

MORE: Wake up America has some excellent commentary on global warming misconceptions.