Accuracy in Media

Our media are running
stories about the planks in the new 2008 Democratic Party platform but they’ve
missed a big one―expansion of the power of the United Nations, and especially
more U.S. involvement in U.N.-authorized military operations.

In another bow to the
world organization, the platform indirectly endorses Senator Barack Obama’s
controversial pro-U.N. Global Poverty Act. “It is time to make the U.N.
Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015,
goals as well,” the
says. It leaves out the estimated cost―$845 billion over 13 years.

This plank is listed
under the “Invest in Our Common Humanity” title of the platform. The word
“invest” is as deceptive as the legislation. It means to spend taxpayer

While it may seem
strange that the platform would not endorse the legislation by name, this
reflects awareness of how controversial the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) and
its federal commitment to the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals have become.
Increased foreign aid spending is not popular with the hard-pressed American
taxpayer. So the one piece of legislation actually introduced by Senator Barack
Obama (which passed the House and Senator Joseph Biden’s Foreign Relations committee
by voice vote without hearings) is mentioned only indirectly.

A section titled, “Revitalize Global Institutions,” is more
direct. It declares the need for “stronger international institutions” on “issues
from weapons proliferation to climate change.” While admitting that the U.N. is
in need of “reform,” the organization is said to be “indispensable” and the U.S. must
rededicate itself “to the organization and its mission.” This inevitably means
more money for the world body.

Even though the U.S. public
school system is rotting from within because of unaccountability and incompetence,
the platform calls for more spending on educational systems in other parts of
the world. It urges a $2 billion Global Education Fund that will “bring the
world together in eliminating the global education deficit with the goal of
supporting a free, quality, basic education for every child in the world.”

On another international
matter, the Democrats declare that “We will repeal the global gag rule and
reinstate funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).” This means
that Americans will be called upon to spend more on international abortion
“services” and population control. In this context, the platform urges support
for “Health Infrastructure 2020,” which is described as “a global effort to
work with developing countries to invest in the full range of infrastructure
needed to improve and protect both American and global health.” No cost is put
on this effort.

Similarly, we are not
told about how much it will cost to launch the “collective action” needed to
confront the “global challenge” of climate change. But we are told that it will
require a “Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next
generation of climate protocols.” It declares the need for a “global response
to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing
emissions…” This means more U.N. treaties impinging on our freedom and

It may surprise some
“progressives” to learn that while Obama wants to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, he has no plan to reduce the
size of the U.S. Armed Forces. Instead, “We support plans to increase the size
of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops,” it says.

If these troops are not
going to be in Iraq,
where will they be going? “We believe we must also be willing to consider using
military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the
common security that underpins global stability―to support friends, participate
in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

Phrases such as “beyond
self-defense” and “common security” constitute an endorsement of the U.N.
doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect.” Since the platform declares that
U.N. “peacekeeping” operations are “overextended,” this means U.S. forces will have to be redeployed from Iraq and other areas to address civil wars and
problems in other countries that pose no direct security threat to the U.S.

Meanwhile, the platform
says the U.S. Armed Forces under President Obama will be expanded to include
open and active homosexuals, despite its obvious negative impact on morale and
recruitment. If normal heterosexuals leave the Armed Forces as a result of this
policy, Obama may be forced to reinstitute the military draft to create the
bigger military he seeks.  

Thanks to conservative
talk radio and other such outlets, the shocking facts about the Democratic
Party platform will be provided to the American people. The conservative media
have been a thorn in the side of the liberal establishment ever since President
Reagan’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began the deregulation of the
media and new voices started emerging.

But the Democrats, whose
base of support is in the old media, which are losing viewers and readers, want
more, not less, regulation.

“We will encourage diversity in the ownership
of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression
of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of
broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum,” the Democratic platform says.

While this may sound
appealing, terms like “diversity” and “diverse viewpoints” are liberal code
words for using the power of the federal government to muzzle conservative talk
radio and turning over broadcast properties and airtime to “progressives.” This
is the goal of George Soros-funded groups like the Free Press, which puts on an
annual National Conference for Media Reform. As I reported in June, at this
year’s event,
the conference turned into an Obama for president rally.

Translated into ordinary
language, the term “we” in the context of the Democratic platform plank on the
media means more federal government interference.

As explained by Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School
Professor and chairman of Free Press, the U.S. Constitution is flawed because
the founders did not anticipate the problem of “the abuse of private power.”
The Bill of Rights was merely designed to protect people against government and
the founders were concerned about the exercise of “public power,” he explained
to the National Conference for Media Reform.

In direct contradiction
to the intent and precise wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution,
in terms of prohibiting Congressional abridgement of freedom of speech, this
grant of massive authority to Congress and the federal government means that
the FCC will decide what constitutes “diversity” and the “public interest” in
broadcasting. Hence, the FCC, rather than market forces and the people, will
decide who gets on the air, who can own media properties, and even who gets
Internet access. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic
Congress can be counted on to increase U.S. taxpayer support for public TV
and radio. 

Conservative FCC
Commissioner Robert McDowell recently warned that the Fairness Doctrine, which
allows federal bureaucrats to monitor and dictate broadcast editorial content,
may be brought back under a different name. “I think it won’t be called the
Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called
something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality
debate,” he told the Media Research Center.
The term “net neutrality,” as defined by George Soros-funded “progressive”
organizations, means that federal authorities will monitor and regulate Internet
networks, rather than letting private competitive forces operate on their own
without governmental interference.

But other powerful
“progressive” individuals and groups want the Fairness Doctrine back directly
and immediately. The public should know that Democratic control of the White
House would result in a 3-2 liberal majority in the FCC and the possible return
of the Fairness Doctrine through administrative and executive action without
any congressional approval required. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already declared she is in favor of it. That’s why she refuses to bring the Broadcaster Freedom
Act to a vote in the House. The Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905) would
prevent the FCC from unilaterally imposing the Fairness Doctrine on

The Democratic platform,
in short, calls for more and bigger government on the domestic and
international levels. This is the real story that the mainstream media won’t

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


Comments are turned off for this article.