U.N. hopes for an Obama win; it's the ‘spread the wealth’ thing

A Washington Post story published Sunday declared, ‘At the U.N., many hope for an Obama win.’ I assume they are filled with hope for change like so many others who support Sen. Barack Obama. But jaded soul that I am, I also know money talks and the U.N. loves money. One bill Obama managed to sponsor is S. 2433: The Global Poverty Act. If Democrats win all the spoils at the ballot box in November, the act will more than likely get the legs it hasn’t found yet. That act will commit no less than 7 percent of a country’s gross domestic product to the UN for the purpose of reducing by one-half the number of people worldwide who live on less than $1 a day with a target date for completion by 2015. James Pethokoukis wrote at US News and WorldReport: “What this bill would do, in short, is commit the United States to the U.N. declared goal that industrialized countries should spend 0.7 percent a year of their gross domestic product on foreign aid. Over the next decade or so, that would work out to around $850 billion.”

Many of us remember the scantily reported ‘Oil for Food’ scandals perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and his friends. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s son Kojo participated in that, although he allegedly committed no crime. His role was explained as consultancy fees. And liberal magazines like The Economist apologized it all away—what’s a measly $100 billion among friends?

Democrats experience heart palpitations when Obama’s views are described as Marxist. But the Global Poverty Act is a version of wealth redistribution. The Act is also a nod to global community. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Marx believed, "[t]hat real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation."

Is it a good, compassionate objective to feed the poor? Absolutely. But do large ungovernable programs like the Global Poverty Act—remember, in the Oil for Food scam, the UN basically took the attitude they weren’t responsible for policing it—create a situation where the very people who should receive the aid are often left wanting? The U.S. government can’t even demonstrate responsible oversight of Medicaid, Medicare and lending. Billions of dollars are lost in domestic entitlement programs--to fraud.

Who will pay for this act? All of us living now; our children; our grandchildren.

Will any amount of money help countries where there is internecine warfare and genocide? Where there is corruption in the leaders who bilk their own people? Where women are still treated like cattle? Where slavery is still acceptable? Where there is no leadership and no conduit of accountability for dispersing such vast sums? Where there is no guarantee of equal rights or freedom of the press?

Obama has made the U.S. economic crisis front and center in all his campaign addresses. He’s already promised a tax increase and it is likely his Education and Labor Committee will succeed in pushing Government Retirement Accounts on American workers and do away with deductions for contributions to accounts like the 401k. To fund those little GRAs the government will kick in $600 per worker each year—after they lop off 5 percent of the worker’s gross salary and stick it into the accounts which are basically another version of the social security tax we already pay. He hasn't spoken about how we will pay for all this. If you're an American worker making more than $30,000 a year, go look in your mirror to see who will pay for all these social welfare programs. And if you are in your 40s or 50s, don't count on getting anywhere near what you paid into social security out of it when you retire.

If a political party succeeds in redistributing wealth so that everyone must rely on the government for basic needs, with the federal government so aggressively leaching money the states are held in thrall, and there is only one socio-economic class with power and money—the political class—you have succeeded in creating a socialist state. In my opinion. And this is not done by the sword. It is accomplished by mobilization of bias--by giving the people what they believe they need. In actuality, you are giving them what they want--more of something and possibly more of something they did not earn.

Oh, and there’s another factor for Obama popularity in the UN. George Clooney, who outsourced a major fundraiser for Obama to Switzerland, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars according to liberal blogs, is a Messenger of Peace for the UN. When you have the Hollywood lobby in your court, your subjects are more easily swayed. In the end, though, the UN has an eye on spreading the wealth. The organization stands to benefit tremendously.

[For source articles and further reading, click the 'References' link below.]

In 2001, Obama was an Illinois state legislator. He explained some of his ideas about the constitution and redistributing wealth to Chicago Public Radio. If you're in a hurry, advance the video to 1:45.