'Non-Partisan' Becomes An Oxymoron

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 5/25/04 | Sterling Rome

[kattracks]

Documentary film-maker Michael Moore won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival for Fahrenheit 911, not because the awards jury wanted to endorse his politics, but because it was "the best film at the festival" according to festival jurist Quentin Tarantino.

Never mind that Moore immediately said he hoped his film "would affect the outcome of the 2004 election." We are still supposed to believe that the film was judged on its artistic merits, and nothing else.

Add this to some other remarkable facts that we are supposed to believe about the "non-partisan" nature of other efforts to enlighten us: like the MTV 'Rock The Vote' campaign, which was literally run by the Democratic Party until recently when some astute journalists began to point out that calling the campaign "non-partisan" was simply insulting.

A Pew Center Survey just revealed that the overwhelming majority of people working in the media are liberals or centrists. Shocking! Who knew! Yet, despite the glaring results of these studies, people in the media (and especially the news media) will still look you in the face and tell you they don't have a political agenda. Much the same way that Quintin Tarantino will tell you that Michael Moore is an artist, and not a political hatchet man.

Certainly all political parties are equally culpable of utilizing propaganda where they can, but what angers me about the way many left-leaning organizations do it is that they self-righteously wrap themselves in the guise of charity, or human rights, or democracy.

For example, a well-meaning friend of mine recently sent me a link to the website for The World Votes organization, dedicated to 'global democracy.' Wow. Who isn't a supporter of global democracy? (Except maybe a few billion communists and socialists?) Anyway, considering the fact that we are fighting a war in Iraq to bring democracy there, I thought I would check out their campaign.

The World Votes describes itself as dedicated to "all citizens around the world who are committed to building a democratic international system of governance that is based on respect for universal human rights."" Uh-oh. There are those two words again "human rights." In as much as I unconditionally support human rights, it's usually a politically correct way of suggesting that if you don't agree with the agenda -- you're evil.

The World Votes website goes on to say, "In November 2004, U.S. citizens will elect their new president. The outcome of these elections directly influences the lives of citizens around the world. Ensure that your voice is heard by registering electronically and add momentum to a worldwide drive to establish global democracy."

I'm no genius, but this is beginning to sound like a campaign to allow foreigners to pretend to vote in our elections. How the hell is that 'encouraging global democracy?' Are we encouraged to vote in their elections? No. But it gets worse. I scroll down the webpage to learn that The World Votes plans on publishing their results on November 2, 2004.

Just as I am beginning to smell something very bad, I notice that theworldvotes.org has a special note for U.S. Citizens. It reads, "The World Votes is most certainly not intended to be an anti-American or anti-G.W. Bush platform. We welcome U.S. Citizens to register and have their voice heard as well. We encourage U.S. Citizens to cast their votes in the traditional polling station as well." As well?

I do a little research and find this admission on another page: "If millions of people join The World Votes, it will have the effect of a global petition that may sway undecided voters in the United States."

Yes, you read that correctly, this organization dedicated to "human rights and global democracy" would like to directly affect the outcome of our sovereign elections -- not unlike some terrorist organizations, albeit non-violently.

Despite a disclaimer that they are "not an anti-G.W. Bush platform" I decided to follow links to those organizations that support The World Votes. This immediately led me to justact.info, which says it stands for "'demanding implementation of all UN resolutions by all member states" and "calling on the U.S. to adhere to international treaties and not just use her power for her own interests' and finally 'to actively support sanctions through the UN and EU (against the U.S.)."

Where is The World Votes based, you ask? Ironically, at The Hague; home of the World Court and understood capitol of the European Union. So, ultimately, what we have is a "non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to global democracy and human rights" as long as it's not American democracy or American human rights, and as long as the outcome supports empowering the EU and the UN.

Meanwhile, I will UNCONDITIONALLY guarantee you that on November 2, 2004 our "non-partisan" friends in the mainstream news media will breathlessly report the results of the World Votes election with a headline like ' World Rejects Bush!' Never mind that to date the number of World Citizens that have cast their vote is: 7885.

Unfortunately, we all must now read the fine print before we believe anything we are told. 'Non-partisan' organizations are often more partisan than their counter-parts with the decency to call themselves PAC's. Organizations that preen about a dedication to "human rights" may be very selective about which humans they believe should have any rights at all.

And finally, organizations that extol the virtues of 'democracy' are really supporters of theocracy, bureaucracy, and not just a little -- hypocrisy.

Copyright 2004, Sterling Rome

[weegee]

...like the MTV 'Rock The Vote' campaign, which was literally run by the Democratic Party until recently when some astute journalists began to point out that calling the campaign "non-partisan" was simply insulting.

Rock The Vote HAD to proclaim itself "non-partisan" because it was a 501c3 "tax dodging" PAC. It still is.

[weegee]

Much the same way that Quintin Tarantino will tell you that Michael Moore is an artist, and not a political hatchet man.

There are still those who insist that Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi films are "art". She was even honored/remembered at this year's Oscars broadcast.

I hear that she "couldn't refuse". Fritz Lang was offered the job first. He got out and left his Nazi-sympathizing wife behind. You make your choices in life.