Investor's Business Daily is brave enough to go there -- calling Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act suspiciously similar to a government redistribution of US taxpayer wealth.  Well, technically they use the 's' word.  Socialism. That's a heavy charge, and it's one that needs to be backed up with specific examples.  This op-ed makes a convincing case that the Global Poverty Act could qualify as a socialist proposal.

While I know that one example of bad policy wouldn't brand someone like Barack with the socialist label, it's troubling that this Global Poverty Act would redistribute our wealth to those in other countries.  We wouldn't even benefit from all this increased spending, unless international good will can be bought with this high price.  That premise is highly questionable.  If the world's affection can be bought with enough foreign aid money, we should have the receipt for it already.

Here's how Investor's Business Daily first described this bill:

Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts, which is at least $30 billion over and above the exorbitant and wasted sums we already give away overseas.

The bipartisan bill would require the president "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 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."

To say that the United States government has far exceeded its Consititutional mandate would be understating the case.  Charity shouldn't (and doesn't) begin and end with the federal government.  Americans are generous people.  Through non-profit charitable organizations and our own churches, we are reaching out to people here in this country and around the world, and it's having an impact.  This shouldn't be a role of the federal government.  That's the flaw in this legislation -- requiring United States taxpayers to subsidize some mandate thrown down by the U.N. and the international community.  The financial obligation of the federal government should be first and foremost to the citizens of the United States -- not to the world community or the U.N.

So how much would this boondoggle of a foreign kiss-up effort cost you and me?  Here's some numbers(with bold text added for emphasis).

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.

If Barack Obama wants to religiously follow the U.N. Millenium Development Goals,  and could get something even half this bad passed through a Democratic Congress, it will destroy our economy.   If we are struggling with high energy costs and high gas prices now,  imagine how hard it will be to afford energy when we have to pay additional taxes to fill up our cars and heat our homes.  Forget for a second that something like this would allow the U.N. to control a part of US tax policy, which is completely unacceptable.  It is also politically tone-deaf in this country, when we want solutions that increase supply and reduce costs for energy.

All we hear these days from the Democrats is how much the average American is struggling and how bad the economy is.  But not to worry, fellow citizens.  They haven't forgotten about us.  Senator Obama has new spending programs to cover the needs of each and every American, all paid for by your friendly neighborhood federal government.   When will we learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially on the federal tab?  And now we will be required to help finance the U.N.'s new war on poverty?  Count me out.  If that makes me an ugly American, I am proud to be one.

If you want to read Barack's Berlin speech, go here.  No average citizen of the world gets to make that speech.  I can't call Chancellor Merkel and book time to speak to the people of Germany in a historic place.  So it's somewhat disingenuous of Obama to insist that he has this opportunity to speak in Berlin and that it has nothing to do with being a candidate for President. There are a few problems with what Obama had to say,  but the bigger problem I have is with his whole European tour.   The Obama campaign is taking a huge risk by keeping their candidate off of the domestic campaign trail to meet with all of these world leaders and to press the flesh with his European fans and his buddies in the media.  No doubt there is huge press that goes with a world tour, as well as much adulation from foreigners because they know he won't be a "cowboy" like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.  But is this the way to win an American election?

Greatness and legacy are not borrowed by copying phrases or words.  They are earned, and Barack has done nothing to claim the mantle of either Ronald Reagan or JFK.  That's why the comparison of Barack's speech to similar speeches made by these two men is inaccurate.  Both Reagan and JFK said stuff that was unpopular at the time, and didn't apologize for it.  When was the last time Barack said something unpopular that he hasn't apologized for?   He doesn't admit mistakes very often. (Does this sound like anyone the left has consistently hammered the past 7 years or so?)  Most importantly, both men had been elected by the people of the United States to speak on their behalf and to shape the foreign policy of this country.    Barack Obama has no such mandate from us.  He hasn't been elected yet, and he and his advisors would do well to remember this.

For the must-read of the weekend, check out Gerard Baker's absolute skewering and mockery of Barack Obama.  It's hilarious.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love Senator DeMint?

Senator Jim DeMint writes to Obama requesting hearings on Afghanistan(pdf here -- h/t Sister Toldjah):

Dear Senator Obama,

In the coming days, I understand you will travel to Afghanistan for the first time and visit with a few of our European partners.  Like my travels to these regions, I trust this trip will afford you a unique opportunity to see the facts on the ground firsthand and witness the work of our brave men and women who sacrifice so much to secure our freedom.

In February, I had the privilege of visiting and talking with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These brave Americans serve their country with incredible passion, pride and courage.  As you know, NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) plays an integral part in the current operations and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

There are concerns about the imbalance between some European nations, their level of commitment to the fight in Afghanistan, and caveats these nations place on their forces in theater.  I trust you will become well acquainted with these issues.  The Bush Administration has worked hard to maintain and increase the level of forces our European allies have committed to the fight.

However, despite these successes, I am concerned our Subcommittee has not held any hearings on these issues over the last two years.  With oversight of NATO relations and its role in Afghanistan, I believe it is time for us to focus closely on these issues. As Ranking Member of your Subcommittee on European Affairs, I would welcome a chance to hold a hearing on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan upon your return.

The success of Afghanistan is critical to the future of NATO and vital to our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  As the situation in Afghanistan grows more tense, it is time for us to hold a hearing on the mission there. I look forward to working with you to schedule this hearing.

While it's nice to see that Senator Obama recognizes the importance of sending more troops in to stabilize Afghanistan, it's also fair to point out that he hasn't exactly made Afghanistan a top priority until now. Senator DeMint draws attention to this without being nasty about it, and the indirect reply to DeMint's letter is that his letter was "politically motivated".   If DeMint is on McCain's VP shortlist, that's news to all of us.  (I wish that this was true, but it's probably not.)  He raises a legitimate question and Obama should give a straight answer to it.  I can buy the argument that Obama's subcommittee might not be the most appropriate venue for Afghanistan hearings, but why not just say that, instead of taking a shot at DeMint?

Senator Joe Biden attempts to rescue Obama by pointing that out, and he is unsuccessful. As Sister Toldjah points out in her post,  Senator Biden's defense of Obama falls flat because Biden himself had previously criticized Obama for not holding hearings on Afghanistan. Oops.

Biden does deserve some credit here -- he has been consistent in requesting a "surge" of troops for Afghanistan.  That's one thing that the press release quoted by Politico brings into sharp focus.  I'm surprised that Joe Biden hasn't brought this up very often.  Why are Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrats so convinced that adding additional military personnel in Afghanistan would achieve the desired objective?  After all, they aren't even sure that that the Bush-Petraeus-McCain strategy of sending additional troops worked in Iraq.  Afghanistan is far less stable than Iraq.  Might they want to focus more on the all-important political objectives before sending in the brute force?  It's a puzzler.

Fear not, liberals progressives.  Barack hasn't abandoned you.  He still believes in all those progressive ideas he started out believing at the beginning of his primary campaign.  Pay no attention to the appearance of centrism you may think that you see.  The progressive Barack is the real Barack...and you can trust him on that.  For the record, I believe him. I think that all these attempts to paint Obama as a flip-flopper on Iraq are misguided, because his position has always been somewhat nuanced...except for the times he implied that he supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  This was the position progressives liked very much and many of them supported him over Hillary because they thought he was for immediate withdrawal.  Joke's on them I guess.  It's an unusual talent some of these Democrat politicians have -- to convince each person that the politician actually shares their values.  Barack is especially good at doing this, and it shouldn't come as a shock that he hasn't been exactly what progressives expected him to be.

Those who bought into Barack's promise of a new kind of politics must not have been around the game long enough to be cynical about promises like that.  It's still hard to condemn the idealism that all these young voters have brought to the process.  We would all like to believe a candidate that we work for has the ability to be transformative and bring needed change to the Washington establishment.  When we find out that the guy or gal we campaign for isn't everything we expected, it does cause some to be disallusioned with the process. But in this case, did these progressives believe that Barack was going to continue to speak their language going into the general election against John McCain?  Surely they know deep down Barack is still one of them, no matter what he's saying right now. If not, they should believe it.  It's far more likely that Barack will stay left once elected than it is that he will embrace some kind of new centrism that is closer to George W. Bush than it is to Bill Clinton.

In case we have forgotten about the severe left-ward bent of the New York Times, a new editorial puts in all back into focus.  In "A Supreme Court on the Brink" they worry about the future direction of the Supreme Court, specifically that a McCain administration could undo all the liberal decisions the Supremes have made over the years, including Roe V. Wade.  This is a needless fear.   Not even Reagan managed to accomplish that goal, and McCain can hardly be accused of such extreme conservatism.  McCain will keep his word on this, if not on anything else, but conservatives shouldn't get their hopes up that McCain could get a Samuel Alito or John Roberts through the expected Democratic majority in Congress.  Unless the Democrats inexplicably cave in, there's no way this will happen.  A more plausible scenario is that McCain attempts to put through judges the base approves of, and he is brutally rebuffed by the Democrats.  Then he gives in and nominates someone like Harriet Miers.  Yikes.  Of course this all assumes McCain beats Barack Obama.  Is the New York Times worried about their golden boy's chances in November?  Say it ain't so guys.

Some of the Court's rulings were questionable, and the assessment of their overall record this year as "muddled" is a fair way of describing it.  Even so, I shouldn't be surprised that the New York Times wants to be on the record supporting the Court's decision denying the death penalty to the child rapist.  The ruling was misguided to say the least.  If we are going to have the death penalty as a punishment for crime, not too many crimes are worse than child rape.  The child will be scarred for life.  I'm not sure that life in prison is a sufficient punishment for what the child went through at the hands of this monster. Then there's the more well-known decision to give habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees who -- may I remind everyone -- are not American citizens.  It's a bad idea to give foreigners access to American courts, and I still haven't heard a great explanation of why Constitutional rights and protections can be given to non-citizens.  At least the New York Times is consistent in their worldview and we know what to expect from the majority of their columnists and their op-eds.

Those of us on the right always point to stuff like this as a example of how out of touch the mainstream media is (and the New York Times usually provides most of the ammunition for these critiques).  If we spent half as much time focusing on what we can do to fix what the Republican politicians have broken, we might have more of a reason for confidence going into November.  As it stands now, we have an uphill climb ahead of us.