Accuracy in Media

Barack Obama’s $65 billion-a-year “Global Tax” proposal is creating a firestorm on the
Internet, sparked by articles by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media in
February. In response, left-wing supporters of Barack Obama are feverishly
striving to defuse the controversy, attempting to discredit, dismiss, or
diminish the story first revealed by AIM’s Kincaid.

In what may be his
only achievement in national politics, Senator Obama introduced S. 2433, the “Global
Poverty Act,” in 2007. Then, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) rammed Obama’s “Global
Poverty Act” through his committee as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee—without any hearings. S. 2433 is expected to reach the full Senate
floor for debate any day. A similar bill already passed the U.S. House of
Representatives, making final passage a dangerous possibility. The pressure on
President Bush to sign it would be intense, especially from Obama’s supporters
in the media.

If the contents of legislation could be judged by the title dreamed up
by spinmeisters, anything named “Global Poverty Act” would involve noble goals
of alleviating poverty. However, we were taught from childhood not to judge a
book by its cover. We must also not judge legislation by its title.

The Hidden Agenda

Obama’s Global Poverty
Act is in fact a stunning and sweeping step toward socialism and one-world
government. When we look beyond the seductive title, and read the actual
contents, we discover that Obama and Biden are setting America up for
imposition of a global tax, controlled by the United Nations. For the first
time, the U.S.
could be forced to adopt a global tax at the behest of an international body.
The planned amount is 0.7% of America’s
Gross National Product (GNP) or $65 billion per year, in addition to America’s
current foreign aid budget.

Obama’s legislative
record in this regard is so damaging that the left-wing blogosphere has gone
into over-drive to muddy the waters. The left-wing “Media Matters” has gone on
the attack, and others have taken up the chorus. When Senator Biden’s opponent
for election, Christine O’Donnell, revealed Biden’s promotion of Obama’s Global
Tax on Fox News, Media Matters attacked within minutes.

Rather than addressing
the substance of Kincaid’s revelations, Obama’s defenders invent a straw man to
knock down instead. Media Matters argues that S. 2433 does not directly impose
any tax. But Kincaid never said that it did. As Kincaid revealed, S. 2433 is
clearly intended to engineer, or lay the groundwork for, a global tax. Kincaid
never suggested it would happen in a single step. Yet S. 2433 can have no other
long-range purpose.

As Kincaid explained,
the bill does not attach a dollar figure—and does not need to—because that is
contained in the 2002 so-called “Monterrey Consensus,” which grew out of the
2000 Millennium Declaration, which is cited in the bill. Understanding this
critical fact is a simple matter of reading the appropriate U.N. documents. The
sponsors could count on the major media not to do so.

The Millennium
Declaration, which was issued in 2000, specifically called for a “Financing for
Development” conference, which was held in 2002 in Monterrey, Mexico,
and produced the “Monterrey Consensus.” This document committed nations to
spending 0.7 percent of Gross National Product (GNP) on official development
assistance (ODA), otherwise known as foreign aid. It says, specifically, that
“We recognize that a substantial increase in ODA and other resources will
be required if developing countries are to achieve the internationally agreed
upon development goals and objectives, including those contained in the
Millennium Declaration.” It goes on to call for “concrete efforts towards the
target of 0.7 percent” of GNP as ODA and proposes “innovative sources of
finance” to pay for the increased foreign aid, a reference to global taxes.

The Price Tag

Jeffrey Sachs, who ran
the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” which monitors compliance with and progress
toward these goals, 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. “We are short by $65 billion each year, which may seem like a vast sum,
but it represents just 0.5% of our GNP,” says Sachs.

As Kincaid, using
Sachs’s figures, calculates it, 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 himself wrote, is
through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama claims that S.
2433 merely declares U.S.
policy to fight poverty. But if that were true, then S. 2433 does nothing at
all. The U.S.
has already been fighting poverty around the world for many decades. Starting
with the Marshall Plan after World War II, and accelerated by John F. Kennedy’s
idealism, Americans have spent gigantic fortunes on ending poverty globally,
for at least 60 years. Does Obama really not know what the U.S. has
already been doing for decades on the world stage? Why would Obama propose what
the U.S.A.
has already been doing without him?

S. 2433 is clearly
setting the stage for a global tax, by backing the U.S. into a corner. Once the U.S. commits
through international diplomacy to the goal of contributing 0.7% of its GNP and
the Congress enforces this goal through Obama’s legislation, the U.S is on the
road to accepting the global tax to pay for it.

This is the critical
point: S. 2433 mandates that the president actually implement these goals and
not merely discuss them. A future president— possibly a liberal like Obama
himself— would be obligated to actually “make it happen.” Obama’s bill does not
just declare policy. It mandates actual implementation of the $65
billion-a-year “contribution” to foreign aid by the next president. If the U.S.
has already agreed to this through Congress, the final step in international
negotiations over implementation of a global tax will become difficult, if not
impossible, to resist.

No Hearings

Disputes about the real meaning of Obama’s legislation might have been
avoided if Joe Biden hadn’t slipped the bill through without any hearings. If
the goal were innocent, Obama and Biden would have wanted maximum
publicity—even campaign “photo ops.” Instead, they quietly slid the bill
through unnoticed, in a hurry. Why?

Of course, the United States
is already the most generous nation on Earth. S. 2433 is not needed to declare U.S. foreign
policy to fight poverty. Helping poor countries is why the U.S. government priced U.S.
manufacturers and exports out of the market with a strong dollar policy and
encouraged imports of products from poor nations.

Unfortunately, projects to
develop Latin America, for example, turned out
to be like plowing the sea. The cause of poverty was not lack of U.S. funding,
but their socialist governments and unjust legal systems. We must export the
real causes of our success, not just send money. Certainly, the United Nations
will be part of the problem in this, not part of the solution. But Obama seems
to trust the United Nations.

OBAMA PLAYS REAGAN ON WORLD STAGE

By Cliff Kincaid

An interesting contribution to Barack Obama’s campaign shows up in the records of
the Federal Election Commission. Casey Kauffman of Al-Jazeera, who lists his
occupation as a journalist in Doha, gave the Democratic candidate $500 in February.

Al-Jazeera, which most
U.S.-based cable and satellite providers have rejected for airing because of
its terrorist links and anti-American programming, probably won’t be playing
much of a role in the American presidential campaign. But the contribution is
indicative of the bias that infects the media here and around the world.

The depth of the
deception that is now underway can be understood by analyzing the significance
of Obama’s “I love America” anti-communist foreign policy speech in Berlin,
Germany, in view of the fact that the candidate and his media acolytes continue
to conceal the central role that a Stalinist Communist by the name of Frank
Marshall Davis played in his upbringing.

In Berlin,
Obama almost sounded like Ronald Reagan, who became a strong anti-communist by
fighting them in Hollywood.
“And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the
western part of the city,” Obama noted. “They cut off food and supplies to more
than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom
in Berlin.
The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet
retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe.
Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All
that stood in the way was Berlin.
And that’s when the airlift began—when the largest and most unlikely rescue in
history brought food and hope to the people of this city.”

Flip-Flop

Obama sounded like a
veteran anti-communist. But in his record has he ever shown hostility to
communism? His remarks were completely at variance with what we know about him.
Obama closely associated with communists for much of his life and career. We’ve
heard about some of them, including communist terrorists Bill Ayers and
Bernardine Dohrn. But one communist that few in the media want to talk about is
Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and father-figure. Davis
actually wrote a poem in honor of the Soviet Red Army that Obama denounced in Berlin.

The “Red Army” poem
goes beyond hoping for the communists to beat the Nazis in World War II and
hails the Soviet revolution. It says:

“Show the marveling multitudes

Americans, British,
all your allied brothers

How strong you are

How great you are

How your young tree of
new unity

Planted twenty-five
years ago

Bears today the golden
fruit of victory!”

Obama refers to Davis as just “Frank” in
his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, but does note that he was a
contemporary of black authors Richard Wright and Langston Hughes. What Obama
doesn’t mention is that “Frank” stayed with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
while Hughes and Wright broke from it. In fact, Davis was so extreme that he accused Wright
of “treason” for exposing the CPUSA.

Davis’s influence over Obama is demonstrated by the fact
that Obama left Davis in Hawaii, attended socialist conferences and
picked Marxist professors as his friends in college, went to Reverend Jeremiah
Wright’s church with his children, and then launched his political career in
the home of Ayers and Dohrn.

Dohrn’s Bloody Hands

While Ayers gets most
of the attention, it is Dohrn who is more important. She refuses to deny
credible reports that she planted a bomb that killed a San Francisco policeman. The whole story is
detailed in our last AIM Report. But is anybody in the media willing to ask
Obama about her terrorist activities?

While Ayers and
Dohrn and their comrades took instructions and advice from Hanoi
and Havana and even Cuban and Soviet
intelligence operatives, Davis
was even more notorious.

He not only belonged
to the CPUSA when it functioned as an apologist for Stalin, but Davis took the Stalinist
line when Stalin made common cause with Hitler. The Germans at Obama’s speech
might be interested in this aspect of the story. So might an American audience.

We already knew Davis was a Stalinist.
NAACP member Edward Berman testified that “comrade Davis”
tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii “for the purpose of converting it
into a front for the Stalinist line.”

But veteran
anti-communist researcher and author Herbert Romerstein has now brought to our
attention even more damaging information. He points out that Davis was one of the signers of a statement
issued by the League of American Writers in June of 1941 during the Soviet-Nazi
Pact.

It said in part, “We
have warned that America
must be defended not by involvement in this war, or by steps toward
dictatorship, or by pursuing a course of imperialist expansion, but by
preserving peace and expanding democracy on the economic, political and
cultural levels. Today, we must ask whether the present policy of the
administration and the program of big business are not leading us toward war
and fascism in the name of resistance to war and fascism.”

In other words, as
long as the Nazis and the Soviets were allies, Davis
didn’t want the U.S.
to go to war against the Nazis.

The statement asked a
number of questions, including, “How best as writers can we resist the drive
toward war and reaction which threatens our democratic culture?” The statement
is printed on page 973 of Appendix IX of the Special Committee of Un-American
Activities in 1944.

Romerstein comments
that “This is clear support of the Soviet-Nazi Pact by Davis
a short time before June 22, 1941, when Germany
attacked the Soviet Union and the Communist
Party line changed from peace to war.”

The point bears
repeating: once the Soviets came under attack, the CPUSA line, which was
adopted by party member Davis, turned into one supporting war on the Nazis.

This is the man that
Obama’s white grandfather selected as the future candidate’s role model and
mentor.

And yet in Berlin, Obama declared himself on the side of those who
opposed Davis.
“When you, the German people, tore down that wall—a wall that divided East and
West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope—walls came tumbling down around the
world,” he said.

Davis was an apologist for that tyranny. He read his
“poems” to a teenage Obama and advised him that his white grandmother had a
right to fear black people and that black people had a reason to hate white
people, which certainly helps explain why Obama would eventually end up in
Wright’s church.

Has Obama truly
broken with the forces of international communism, which had so much influence
over him? If the media don’t ask the question, the increasing numbers of those
who know about Davis, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn and other questionable Obama links
and associations will see the media coverage for what the McCain campaign
labels it—a love affair with Obama. In short, the pro-Obama media bias may
backfire in a big way. There is evidence it already is.

Professor Paul Kengor,
author of a book about Reagan’s anti-communism, examined the work that Accuracy
in Media has done on the Obama-Davis relationship and concludes that the
evidence must not be ignored. Yet liberals and “progressives” in the press and
elsewhere ignore, distort or downplay it. Some reporters, like Dana Milbank of
the Washington Post, have treated it as a laughing matter.

Giving Davis
A Pass

Kengor wonders what
the press would think “of, say, a John McCain mentor who had toed the line for
Hitler? I can tell you that I, as a conservative Republican, would be pretty
darned disappointed and would demand some answers. I would not turn it into a
joke. And if McCain did not absolutely, convincingly repudiate it, I absolutely
would not vote for him.”

But when it comes to Obama,
Kengor notes that “The end result is that the bad guys on the communist
far-left, such as the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, continue to get a pass
long after they’ve departed this world, as will those who consider them
mentors. These were extreme leftists who hurt liberalism—who hurt some of the
dearest liberal causes. Davis,
in death, is protected, his dirty work covered up, by a press who must now
protect their anointed one.”

Obama, of course,
is the anointed one, for the U.S.
press as well as reporters for the Arab government-funded Al-Jazeera. Now we
witness the latest phase of the love affair as Obama, with the help of the
media, portrays himself as an anti-communist in the Reagan mode who truly
understands the battle between Soviet tyranny and human freedom and came down
on the right side. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The good news is that
a Rasmussen poll finds that many people aren’t buying it. It found that 49
percent of voters think that reporters are trying to help Obama win in
November.

The Findings

A July 21 release from
the firm declared that “The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in
November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest
Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy
involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most
reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a
month ago. Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little
changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most
reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.”

It also found that
45 percent say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the
candidate they wanted to win.

What could that
information be? Could it have something to do with Frank Marshall Davis? Or
Bernardine Dohrn? Are there more red skeletons in the closet?



Comments