[Let me first apologize for the length of this piece, it is long, but it is simply not possible to cover the issues in much less space. In fact, it could easily be three or four pages longer]

The purpose of this commentary is to illustrate why Obama’s bill (S.2433) is dangerous to the United States’ sovereignty. It is primarily because it legally ties us to one of the UN’s goals for global governance. This will be the first time that a U.S. law specifically supports, by direct mention, one of the UN’s specific directives.

The linkage is found in the language of the bill itself. The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress:

Global Poverty Act of 2007 – Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide who live on less than $1 per day.

Does the bill actually provide funding for the development goal? No, it doesn’t, but it does establish the underpinnings for the President to include appropriations for the additional foreign policy funding in the budget he submits to congress.

Why hasn’t it been voted on by the full Senate and submitted to the President for approval – what’s the holdup? Simply, they’re awaiting additional democrat Senators (via 2008 elections) to assure passage and … a President Obama to sign it into law.

So, let’s look at the history of the UN’s Millennium Declaration (55/2) (which includes the United Nations Development Goals), how the goals were developed to further the global governance ambitions of the UN, and why it should matter to us.

In 1999 and 2000, under the auspices of the UN, groups called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) held meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy (CGD). The CGD document was developed as a blueprint for achieving global governance.

You might ask, “What are non-governmental organizations”? The answer is, nothing more than political groups with their own agendas. The UN says these NGO’s will become the “Assembly of the People,” and will be the new governing authority of the UN.

The CGD described its goals by way of 12 principles:

1. Consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.
2. Registration of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an international code of conduct governing environmental and labor standards.
3. Consider various methods to create sources of revenue for the UN, such as taxes on international money transactions, taxes on flights, shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN calls the “global commons.” This includes the use of air, water, and natural resources.
4. Would eliminate the permanent member status in the Security Council. The U.S. is currently a permanent member of the Security Council and has veto power over council resolutions. Principle Four would essentially eliminate the U.S.’ power and influence in that world body. Instead, the CGD called for creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be hand-picked by the non-governmental organizations.
5. Would authorize a standing UN army.
6. Would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction ofall national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.
7. Would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.
8. Would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations.
9. Called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”

10.        Would establish an International Environmental Court.

11.        Demands an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest and will create a team to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights.

12.        Demands the cancellation of all debt owed by the poor nations, global poverty reductions, and the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN.

As you can see, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air, and seas. In addition, it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wildlife, and energy sources. This control would allow the UN to tax everything that could be defined as having come from the earth’s resources – the “global commons.”

The UN would become the policing agency for the entire world. With its own standing army and corresponding reductions in all national armies, the UN’s word would be law. Remember that the UN will be governed by the “Assembly of the People” – their word will be law.

Later, in September of 2000, the UN held a “Millennium Summit” which was attended by literally every head of state and world leader (including then-President Bill Clinton). The original “Charter for Global Democracy” was renamed the “Millennium Declaration” and contained watered-down wording to achieve the same ends but to arouse less negative reaction. No vote or debate was allowed.

The original twelve principles were magically morphed into eight goals. These eight goals are described in much more politically correct terms, to keep from alarming the masses but the intent of the original twelve principles is still there.

Here are a few selected passages taken directly from 55/2 United Nations Millennium Declaration:

• To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures.
• To make every effort to ensure the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol ~ and to embark on the required reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.
• To take measures to ensure respect for and protection of the human rights of migrants, migrant workers and their families, to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies.
• Global challenges must be managed in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic principles of equity and social justice. Those who suffer or who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.
• Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social development, as well as threats to international peace and security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multilaterally. As the most universal and most representative organization in the world, the United Nations must play the central role.
• To strengthen respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs and, in particular, to ensure compliance by Member States with the decisions of the International Court of Justice.

I selected those few items above from nine pages of single-spaced fluff. Most of the declaration is devoted to rhetoric that no one can quibble with – here are a couple of random examples, under item 20: “To develop and implement strategies that give young people everywhere a real chance to find decent and productive work,” and under item 25: “To strengthen the capacity of all our countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights, including minority rights.” Who could oppose such noble goals?

I’d be less than honest if I didn’t state that thus far, Obama’s bill only ties us to the first goal. It is the one that proposes to “Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty.” But that is the goal that specifies 0.7 % of “gross national income.” This bill, if it becomes law, will ease the camel’s nose way under the tent, with more to surely follow.

Lest there be any accusation of a misinterpretation of the 0.7 % “assessment,” UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said it plainly in 2005, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7 % target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015,” pretty plain, huh?

Consider what we now know about the UN’s effective stewardship of money, Iraq’s Oil for Food program, for example. It is now accepted fact that the program suffered from widespread corruption and abuse. Many UN officials have been accused of taking kickbacks and commissions, some amounting to millions of dollars. At least three indictments have been issued thus far and investigations are continuing. It has been estimated (by our Government Accounting Office) that Saddam Hussein’s regime generated over $10.1 billion dollars in illegal revenues. Even Kofi Annan and his son were among those included in accusations of kickbacks and corruption.

And regarding the effect of our foreign aid, it has been said that “U.S. handouts go into the hands of corrupt dictators who hate us and vote against us in the UN, and that only 30 percent of American foreign aid ever reaches the poor.”

Ask yourself this question: “Am I prepared to pay yet another new tax to the UN so they may distribute those funds to third-world leaders in expectation that it will find its way to those in need?”

Obama, following the directive of Kofi Annan, has taken the first step in preparing to assess U.S. taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme to provide welfare to third-world countries.

Is this the kind of “leadership” we want? Starting down the road to yielding our national security and our national sovereignty to the United Nations?

That is not an American position, it is a “global citizen’s” position.