|
Democrats Endorse Expansion Of U.N. Power
By Cliff
Kincaid
August 22, 2008
Our media are running stories about the planks in the new 2008 Democratic
Party platform but they’ve missed a big oneexpansion 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, America’s goals as well,”
the document 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 dollars.
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 sovereignty.
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 stabilityto 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 broadcasters.
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 tell.
© 2008 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
Untitled
| When honest people who hold strong opinions come together, it is natural that they state their opinions, and that those opinions occasionally clash. The articles that you see on this website represent the opinion of the writers, and are not the official opinion of this party. To see the official party position on any question, the reader is referred to the Party Platform. |
|
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author,and our URL. www.cptexas.org. All CP Texas reports, and all editorials are property of The Constitution Party of Texas © 2008 (unless otherwise noted).
Untitled
|
