Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Barack Hussein Obama, George Soros, the Tobin Tax and the Tie That Binds

What do George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, and James Tobin have in common?

Most people know little of George Soros other than that he is a billionaire and the chief supporter and founder of moveon.org, the money behind the Democrat's finance machine to elect anyone but a Republican. And he is one angry dude because he spent $25 million dollars to get Al Gore and John Kerry in the White House and failed on both occasions. A few know him as the man who “broke the Bank of England" and that is about it.

Even fewer know about James Tobin, the author of the Tobin Tax Plan. First of all, just what the heck is the Tobin Tax? The Tobin tax is the suggested tax on all trade of currency across borders. Named after the economist James Tobin, the tax is intended to put a penalty on short-term speculation on currencies. Tobin got the idea from Keynes who had suggested a national tax on internal financial speculation as one of his reforms to get out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The idea was to encourage money-capital to be invested productively instead of being used for unproductive speculation.

Tobin was given a Nobel Prize for Economics in 1981 (not that this is worth much in academic terms; it's little more than a monetary prize), but no government took up his proposal. In fact, for it to work, all governments would have to take it up. The original tax rate he proposed was 1%, which was subsequently lowered to between 0.1% to 0.25%. In other words, it was an idea that, in the beginning, sounded good in that it stopped or slowed the speculation of currencies on the world market, a scheme that George Soros has used to make himself a billionaire many times over. It makes one wonder why George Soros would embrace such a tax. Like anything starting with good intentions, the actual road can lead to a hellish end, and this is where George Soros comes into the picture. More details will emerge as you read this.

The argument used by many who wish to see this tax put upon countries, businesses and individuals is that it is not anti-capitalist as some in the anti-globalization movement think. Those who support this scheme claim to be against what they call the neo-liberalism ideology. Let me stop here and say that the word liberal here is not the liberal as is used in the political sense of the word, but it makes little difference to those who are supporting the Tobin Tax as they have amended it. What these folks are for is a more regulated capitalism, which is a code word for socialism. They want states (countries) to intervene in controlling capitalism to make it more human and to suppress what they see as its worst excesses; in other words, profits and true capitalism.

One of the organizations that has taken up the cry for immediate acceptance of this scheme is a group called ATTAC, the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions to Aid Citizens. The name says about all that is needed to be said at this time about this group. Under their ideology, the Tobin Tax would be used to raise money to spend in the Third World, but it involves calling people on the streets not to denounce capitalist exploitation, so they claim, but to demand a minimal tax on the financial transactions in which capitalists try to swindle each other out of the proceeds of their past exploitation of the working class. It really is one of the most pathetic reform proposals for which people have ever been called upon to demonstrate. When one reads the code words it is easy to see the real intent and purpose of this schemeredistribution of wealth.

Have you listened well to Michelle Obama and Barrack Hussein Obama, who both have embraced the theology of the church they attended for over 20 years that teaches Black Liberation Theology, whose goal is to create racial strife, just as the stated goal of Marxist class propaganda was to whip up class war? According to this group of people, all adhere to the belief that capitalism operates according to the rules of "no profit, no production" and "can't pay, can't have." They claim that, in the world market system, capitalism is what is responsible for the desperate plight of most of the world's population, and before anything lasting and constructive can be done about this, capitalism has to go; the productive resources of the Earth have to become the common heritage of all humanity, so that production can be directed to meeting people's needs—all people's needs—instead of to making profits.

How does this tie to George Soros?

Hopefully, you are beginning to see the picture, but here is an explanation of how it works together.

George Soros had taken the Tobin Tax a step farther and created what he calls SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, which is the method by which the taxes would be distributed. SDRs are part of a country's official foreign exchange reserves. They serve as a means of payment among Fund members. IMF creates SDRs "through a process of allocation and distribution to IMF members (International Monetary Members, created by the UN)." Before the U.S. could become involved in this scheme, it would have to be implemented by the U.S. Congress. Now hang on and you will see shortly how Barack Hussein Obama and his Global Poverty Bill fits into this scheme. Soros sees in this pending SDR allocation a readily available means "to finance the provision of public goods on a global scale as well as to foster economic, social, and political progress in individual countries ..." (Richer countries would donate their SDR allocations to specific improvement projects in poorer countries. Poorer countries would keep their allocations as an addition to their monetary reserves. Can you say, redistribution of wealth?)

Projects worthy of funding proposed by poorer countries would win a place on an approved list created by an independent international board to be set up by the IMF. "Eminent persons"(rest assured that George Soros would be the appointer) appointed for fixed terms and free of control by their governments would make up this board.

Donor countries, using their SDR allocations, would choose to fund any program from the list created by the international board. But unlike the usual practice in traditional foreign aid, the donor countries would not control the programs. An audit commission, separate from the international board, would monitor and evaluate. Donors' choices would be made public. Soros would limit the initial round of eligible programs to a few high-priority areas such as public health, education, information technology, or judicial reform.

The IMF's international board would thus work roughly the way philanthropic foundations work. Poorer countries would submit a proposal to the board the way, say, a college now submits a proposal to, say, the Mellon Foundation. But the board's approval of a program would merely be an enabling act. A richer donor country, interested in giving its SDR credits to a poorer country, would have to step up and select a project for funding from the list of approved projects. In doing so, it would be agreeing to follow the rules established by the board and IMF. Those rules would aim at keeping the donor country from using the "grant" for its own political purposes; and they would aim to place responsibility for executing the program in the hands of locals who were not agents of their governments. So far this type of system has failed but regardless there are those who will continue to call for such redistribution of wealth.

By now, hopefully, one should be getting the idea of where this is going. Now if you are familiar with Obama’s Global Poverty Bill you are seeing the complete picture of how all these are tied together.

Here is a bit about Obama’s only major sponsored bill during his “career” of 143 days in the US Senate. Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. Not surprisingly Joe Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Back in February, Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. Is it any surprise why Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate? To think that many thought he was chosen because of his “foreign affairs expertise.” We now see that they are like-minded when it comes to giving away U.S. taxpayers' money to foreign countries.

The bill, which was item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day." (Like his half brother, so it was discovered, who lives in Kenya on $1.00 per day.)

The legislation itself requires 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."

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development." Here one can see the tie between Soros' version of the Tobin Tax, his SDRs and Obama’s Global Poverty Bill.

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Of course, the leftists and Obamazombies deny that this is true, no matter that the information comes from the individual who is the expert on the Millennium Project, Jeffery Sachs. They claim that the money is only a suggestion, but we can see that Sachs says different and that the U.S. would be forced by the UN to pay this tribute to them. All the claims of helping those in the U.S. first seems to disappear when one gets the entire picture and ties all the ends together. They do not make for the picture that Obama wants to paint of the U.S. citizens first. Joe Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate (and we are sure to hear about this in the upcoming weeks) and a way to “buy” U.S. acceptance in the world view. If elected and the one to sign this bill because Bush will not sign it, the world would see Obama as the savior of the world, the messiah, the one who has come much the same way as the leftists and the guilt-ridden white liberals who see electing him as a means of penance for racial wrongs. The remainder of the Millennium Project and Obama’s Global Poverty Bill encompasses the broader vision, which Obama has spoken of during his many speeches. Of course, hearing it depended on which crowd he was addressing when you heard him speak. "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," according to Sachs. Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims. If you have been paying attention, these are all goals that Barack Hussein Obama has expressed and said that he would implement if elected.

So now you know the rest of the story and how George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, and the Tobin Tax are melded together in the Gordian knot. I would ask if this is the type of leadership that we want or need in this country. Only you can answer on election day.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

scary stuff...

Kathy from Kansas said...

CEDAW (the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women) and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would both enshrine abortion as a universal human right. Soros, by the way, is also a total madman when it comes to abortion. He LOVES abortion, wants to see as many abortions as possible, promotes and encourages abortion in as many situations as possible. He is one sick puppy.

Which brings me to the particular lens I see the world through: where does the person being evaluated stand on baby-killing? On all those other, very complicated issues, it's very easy for the media to spin things every which way. But simply see where the candidate stands on baby-killing--and that tells you everything you need to know. As you see from AF Ticker's article, with George Soros as Exhibit A, people who get it wrong on baby-killing usually get it wrong on a whole bunch of other things, too! And if you don't have any scruples about killing an innocent baby, how can we trust you'll have scruples about much lesser things--such as lying, defrauding, cheating and stealing?

Ticker said...

Thank you for your contribution Kathy from Kansas. I see we agree on the status of one George Soros.

Anonymous said...

A really nicely written article, cudos!

Alltough; The war machine America has killed thousands of innocent children around the world. This is global retribution for the slaughtering of those children. Your Empire is crumbling and your country is being eaten from within by foreign interests. "Destruction cometh; and they shall seek peace, and there shall be none".