Obama is not only admittedly interested in redistribution of wealth from one sector of the US to another, but he is also committed to redistribution of wealth from the United States to other countries.

This isn't theoretical, it has already happened.  One of the very few pieces of legislation that they freshman senator is responsible for, is the "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433)" (proposed & sponsored by Barack Obama and rushed through congress by a suspicious VOICE ONLY vote by none other than Joe Biden). The legislation moves to make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, and would push the U.S. to spend 0.7 percent of GNP on foreign aid.

The bill cites the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goal (established by the UN in 2000) as underlying framework, which calls for “the eradication of poverty” by “redistribution (of) wealth and land”. It has among its provisions: a "currency transfer tax," ; a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources"; "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection -- oil, natural gas, coal"; "fees for the commercial use of the oceans and fees for airplane use of the skies", fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum", "fees on foreign exchange transactions", and a "tax on the carbon content of fuels". These would be UN taxes on US buisness and individuals. Add to the taxation tiers of local, state, federal taxes under which you suffer our new UN taxes!

Obama states: “I fully support the Millennium Development Goals.”..."As President, I will make the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals], America’s goals." http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=3879851

Now charity is close to the heart of most Americans, but why subjugate ourselves to an external governing body to dictate how, when, where, and why we will be charitable?  Will there be oversight and stipulation to prevent the money from ending up in the war chests of despotic leaders and warlords?  Will there be sufficient oversight to prevent the majority of the money from being quietly absorbed by the bureaucracy administering it?  While it is Charity based in language, in fact it is nothing less than mandatory international redistribution of wealth, AT BEST.

Charity by definition is a voluntary act.  For it to actually be Charity, it should be established as a fund to which there are encouragements and incentives for participation (as in clarity, transparency, and monetary efficiency of operations).  Not only is the UN based action established by the bill prone and magnetic to mismanagement and theft, it simply un-American.  The United States voluntarily gives profound and significant aid across the globe every year, but now this act suggests a persistent US OBLIGATION to redistribute US wealth to a foreign agency; who will then decide for us where there are entities deserving our surrendered capital.  Is there any doubt that this global "poverty" fund will find itself routinely participating in political influence? (it is handled by the UN, after all).  Without accountability, this third party globally elite agency can and undoubtedly will practice some level of embezzlement, influence peddling, political meddling, and admitted redistribution of wealth.  The US does not under any circumstance need to OBLIGE itself to suffer law which commits us to hand over our wealth to another non domestic agency with no return of any kind, nor insurance of delivery of this wealth to the intended parties.  What is the point?

Will our money go to help poor Georgians, or poor Russians?  Do we get to say?  Do we get to even know?  Do we get to care why one would be chosen over the other?  No, we would not.

There are other aspects of the bill which are even MORE troubling, though digressions.  Language in the bill flirts dangerously close to committing United States citizens to obey foreign bodies (UN) regarding gun possession. The bill meddles in language suggesting establishment of powers for UN committees over nations for the banning of"small arms and light weapons"  Ideally, this aspect of the laws would be intended to disarm violent insurgents and lawless rebel factions (as if there was any possibility it would work in any way, shape, or form).  But, backed by anti-American sentiment, perhaps it would be molded to demand the US legislation comply with international mandates of prohibition of private arms?  Is anyone able to promise this is not one possible direction of our signed subjugation?

It is bad enough that socialist tenants of redistribution can pervert the framework of American entrepreneurial lifestyle, but Obama has unequivocally proven he is also willing and interested in collecting our wealth and sending it to the UN.  Obama has made his stance clear.  This is practically his ONLY large legislative act in a short Washington career.  If poverty is at the heart of his concerns, why didn't he start in Illinois, and specifically Chicago, at the least, instead of aggressively seeking to redistribute US wealth oversees.  After all, the people of Chicago and Illinois are the ones who gave him his job.  Where do his commitments lay?