Accuracy in Media




John
McCain may send Sarah Palin to the United Nations next
week in order to “boost” her foreign policy credentials, according to media
reports. The McCain campaign seems to think that having Palin rubbing elbows
with the global elite and international bureaucrats will make her look good.
But that’s like visiting Lehman Brothers to accentuate her economic expertise.
She should tell the McCain campaign, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

To
add insult to injury, Palin has also been told she will have to sit down for a
grilling by Katie Couric, the CBS Evening News anchor who was honored in
July by the National Organization for Women. The Congressional Host Committee
of the Couric event, which included CBS as a “champion” sponsor, included Rep.
Tammy Baldwin, the lesbian Democrat from Wisconsin.
On September 16, not surprisingly, NOW endorsed the Obama-Biden
ticket.

One
has to assume that Couric will be armed with all kinds of “gotcha” questions to
spring on Palin from her allies in the feminist wing of the Democratic Party.
If Charles Gibson of ABC News wasn’t able to finish her off in her first
network news interview, the liberals must figure that Couric will go in for the
kill. It’s difficult to see anything good coming out of an interrogation of
Palin by a media feminist. 

When the media are not slicing and dicing her,
the McCain campaign seems to be doing its best to mute her strong conservative
message.

It is not reassuring that after the Gibson
interview, during which Palin expressed her moral opposition to embryonic stem-cell
research, the McCain campaign came out with a
radio ad
saying the McCain-Palin Administration would promote stem-cell
research. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told The Hill newspaper that the purpose
of the ad was to support “all forms of stem cell research, including
experiments using human embryos and those using cells from adults.”

By contrast, Palin told ABC’s Gibson that “we
should not create human life, create an embryo and then destroy it for
research, if there are other options out there.” She noted that one of the
other options was adult stem-cell research.

Clearly,
the McCain campaign is letting it be known that Palin’s “personal” views, which
are strongly pro-life, will not affect the policies of the McCain-Palin
Administration.

We
don’t know Palin’s “personal” views on the United Nations, but before being dispatched to the U.N., she and her “Country First” running mate may
want to take a look at the Republican Party platform they are supposed to be
running on. The platform calls
the U.N. “scandal-ridden and corrupt.”

The GOP platform also makes reference to the
possibility of a “UN-imposed
tax” and declares categorical opposition to any such scheme.

Amid
financial turmoil in the U.S.
and federal financial bailouts of bankrupt institutions, is it wise to be seen
at the headquarters of an organization that is seriously entertaining
imposition of a global tax on America?

GOP
opposition to a U.N. tax may be an indirect reference to Barack Obama’s Global
Poverty Act, which lays the groundwork for such a tax through legislation to
mandate federal compliance with the U.N. Millennium Development Goals.

The
platform language reflects a grassroots uprising against the U.N. and its drive
for more power and control over our lives. We saw more evidence of this in Virginia on September
16, when the Midlothian American Legion Post voted to oppose the Obama bill.
The resolution, which passed unanimously, was introduced by World War II
veteran Ben Trotter, a member of the American Legion for more than 40 years.

Here
is the language of the resolution:

“SUBJECT:
THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT

“WHEREAS,
The American Legion since its founding has promoted ‘100 percent Americanism’
in all its programs; and

“WHEREAS,
the concept that foreign governments or combinations of these governments shall
be given the legal right to levy taxes on the USA is directly antithetical to
this provision of The American Legion’s constitutional preamble; and

“WHEREAS,
the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 24, 2008 passed the
Global Poverty Act, Senate Bill 2433 as amended, without holding any hearings
and this bill could soon reach the Senate floor for debate, and the fact that
the U.S. House of Representatives already has passed a similar bill (H.R. 1302)
makes widespread knowledge of the contents of S.2433 important; and

“WHEREAS,
S.2433 does not impose any tax itself but mandates that the U.S. President
enforce the monetary and other recommendations called for by an international
anti-poverty ‘Financing for Development’ conference held in Monterrey, Mexico
in 2002; the definitive document from this conference, called the ‘Monterrey
Consensus’ committed nations to spending .7 percent of Gross National Product (GNP)
on increased foreign aid to be administered by the United Nations, presumably
to augment income for the world’s poorest individuals; and

“WHEREAS,
S.2433 as amended, if it becomes law would require the USA, led by the
President, to pay an estimated $65 billion per year over and above its already
generous foreign aid budget and this annual amount clearly provides the
background for increased federal taxes; and

“Now
therefore be it RESOLVED, by Post No. 186, The American Legion, Department of
Virginia, in regular meeting assembled in Midlothian, VA., September 16, 2008
that The American Legion shall oppose all provisions of Senate Bill 2433 and
House Resolution 1302, or other legislation, which conceivably could lead to
foreign taxation, including UN taxation, of American citizens.”

One
addition to the resolution, planned by Trotter, will make it clear that the
$65-billion-a-year figure is part of a 13-year plan that amounts to $845
billion.

McCain
is not a sponsor of the Global Poverty Act, but he hasn’t opposed it, either.

In
direct opposition to a plan to merge the economic and political systems of the U.S., Canada
and Mexico, the GOP platform
says that “Our strong ties with Canada
and Mexico
should not lead to a North American union or a unified currency.”

McCain
has not specifically endorsed a North American Union, but he has called for
fulfilling the “promise of North, Central, and South American life” and has
expressed the view that “the Americas
can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and
South.” It is not exactly clear what he is talking about.

Perhaps
McCain should start answering some questions on this matter before sending
Palin out to meet and greet the media sharks. 

On
another global issue, the Republican platform declares that “For several
reasons, particularly our concern for US
sovereignty and America’s
long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal,
and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty.” 

This
is an interesting plank because McCain supported the U.N.’s Law of the Sea
Treaty before he was against it. It’s not clear where he stands now.

The
treaty’s “tax regime” is another variation of a global tax and the treaty gives
the U.N. jurisdiction over natural resources that have already been claimed by
American explorers, such as the oil, gas and mineral riches in the North Pole
region near Palin’s home state.

It
is entirely legitimate to ask where Sarah Palin stands on these issues. But if
the answers are not her own, or else are treated as “personal” by the McCain
campaign, then what purpose is served by doing these media interviews?

On
the matter of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, however, it is McCain who owes
the public some answers. Since the liberal media favor the treaty and don’t
want to make it into a controversy, the conservative media will have to
vigorously press him on it. 




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

Comments

Comments are turned off for this article.