Accuracy in Media

Many in the media are intrigued
by Rep. Ron Paul’s success in the presidential campaign but usually
focus on how much money he is raising. In terms of issues, some think
he is rising in the polls because of his opposition to the Iraq War.
That may be a factor, but my research convinces me that he is doing
well primarily because he has a traditional Republican message of returning
to smaller and less expensive government. More than that, however, he
is talking about the threat posed by global institutions.  

The media, which adore the
U.N. and believe it is the last best hope of mankind, do not recognize
the appeal of Ron Paul’s no-global-government message. Most reporters
probably think it is rather silly. But it is becoming a major issue
among the conservative Republican grassroots. It is so big that it could
sink Senator John McCain, who is on record in support of U.S. participation
in the U.N.’s notorious International Criminal Court (ICC).   

The ICC could become a major
issue, regardless of what happens in the presidential campaign, as the
$6.4 billion left-wing MacArthur Foundation has indicated that it will
spend tens or perhaps even hundreds of millions of dollars in a campaign
to force U.S. acceptance of the ICC and “raise the profile of international
justice issues during 2008.”  

In a speech entitled,
The Case for an International System of Justice,” MacArthur
President Jonathan Fanton declared that the ICC has jurisdiction over
“hate speech,” a comment suggesting that this U.N.-backed tribunal
could even be given the go-ahead to prosecute talk-radio hosts like
Michael Savage for being critical of radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) has been trying to force Savage off the air by threatening
his advertisers.  

It just so happens that the
main author of the ICC is a Muslim associated with CAIR by the name
of M. Cherif Bassiouni, a Professor of Law at DePaul University. 

While the ICC looms as a major
issue, conservative activists have been currently trying to defeat the
U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, which is now pending in the U.S. Senate.
They found that Ron Paul had come out against it many years ago. He
was way ahead of his time in confronting the dangers posed by international
arrangements, treaties and institutions that sap U.S. sovereignty. 

He introduced a bill to get
us out of the U.N., which not only would have saved some of our sovereignty
but billions of American tax dollars that ended up in the coffers of
corrupt bureaucrats.  

Mike Huckabee has tapped into
conservative sentiment on this issue as well, such as when he told the
“Values Voters” summit in Washington that he not only opposed the
Law of the Sea Treaty but wanted to see federal judges impeached for
using foreign law in their judicial decisions. The comments drew strong
applause. After that speech, most of the Republican candidates started
falling in line against the Law of the Sea Treaty. McCain, who once
supported it, now suggested he was opposed but would have to study it.   

Paul goes much further. His
website includes an issues category
labeled “American independence and Sovereignty.”
Among other things, it declares, “So
called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the
International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are
a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our
government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers
as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get
a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments
could be banned.” 

Paul also denounces the U.N.
for promoting a global tax on America, saying, “?if we are going
to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we
will need leadership from the White House.” Such a tax was proposed
at the recent U.N. climate change conference, where the Bush Administration
promised to help draft a new global warming treaty tougher and potentially
more damaging to our economy than the first one that it rejected.  

A fascinating article has just appeared in the San Francisco
Chronicle on where the candidates stand on the U.N.’s International
Criminal Court. In looking at Democrats and Republicans, it notes, “At
one end of the spectrum is Mike Gravel, a former senator from Alaska
and one of the Democrats who backs U.S. membership in the court. In
a recent San Francisco appearance, he said he considers himself a ‘globalist’
and ‘a citizen of the human race, first and foremost. Only secondly
do I consider myself an American.’ At the other end is Ron Paul, a
Republican congressman from Texas, who said in 2002 that both the court
and the United Nations ‘are inherently incompatible with national
sovereignty. America must either remain a constitutional republic or
submit to international law because it cannot do both.'” 

“Unlike the rest of the Republican
field,” reporter Bob Egelko said, “Sen. John McCain has said he
would like to see the United States join the international court, although
he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel.” The ICC
would strip Americans of Bill of Rights protections if they were apprehended
and put on trial for alleged international crimes. The article did not
explain how McCain would change the institution, which is now in existence,
in order to require those protections. Most of the rest of the world,
led by the European Union, rejected any safeguards for U.S. citizens.  

One of the most critical constitutional
protections rejected by the ICC is trial by jury. Foreign judges preside
over ICC cases. So it really cannot be “fixed” to accommodate American
concerns.  

The fact of McCain’s support
for the anti-American ICC could prove fatal to his campaign, if it is
widely publicized. It has gotten very little attention until now. However,
I discovered a press release from the Citizens for Global Solutions
(CGS) back in January of 2005 hailing McCain for his support of the
ICC. While McCain was quoted as saying about the ICC, “I’m not satisfied
that there are enough safeguards” for U.S. citizens, the CGS said
that “his declaration at the World Economic Forum was the strongest
indication to date that he would be in favor of the United States joining
the ICC in the near future.”  

One can understand why McCain
wouldn’t want these comments publicized, as he seems to be gathering
momentum in the presidential race, and why he wouldn’t want the CGS
“endorsement” of his views given any publicity. The CGS is the new
name of the World Federalist Association, a group that openly favors
world government financed by global taxes. Democratic Party presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton endorsed the group’s activities when she
was First Lady.  

That was on the occasion of the organization giving former
CBS Evening News anchorman Walter Cronkite its global governance award.
Cronkite used the event to promote the Law of the Sea Treaty, the International
Criminal Court, and several other U.N.-backed measures.  

It is interesting to note that
Cronkite’s agenda is the same as that of Hillary and most national
Democratic candidates. Will any of the national Republican presidential
candidates other than Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee make a big issue out
of it? By doing so, they will have to endure the ridicule of the national
press. But it could help them capture the White House in the end. 




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

Comments

Comments are turned off for this article.