Where was the mainstream news media when Hillary Clinton introduced
Walter Cronkite to the World Federalist Association on Oct. 19?
Television cameras focused on Hillary’s baseball cap; it is far more
important that voters know where she stands on the issue of national
sovereignty. Not until
reported the Cronkite speech Nov. 30, did Americans discover that both
Hillary and Walter are avid advocates of world government.

Cronkite says, “democracy, civilization itself, is at stake,” unless
the “basic structure of our global community” is changed in the next few
years. Cronkite’s appeal for world government came only five days
before the release of the Charter for Global Democracy which embodies
the version of world government preferred by the United Nations

Both the UNA and the WFA have been promoting world government for
years. Cronkite’s group, the WFA, prefers a “federalist” system which
would create a weighted system of voting in the U.N. General Assembly to
create a legislative body roughly akin to the American Congress. The
UNA prefers a “consensus” process that takes into account
recommendations offered by civil society (non-government organizations
accredited by the U.N.).

Both organizations want to elevate the U.N. to world government
status and empower the U.N. to enforce all international law. In fact,
in 1986, the WFA filed suit against the United States over U.S. foreign
policy, arguing that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution made the U.N.
Charter as well as other U.N. treaties, the “supreme law of the land.”
The courts ruled against the WFA in 1989.

Hillary’s presence at the WFA meeting, and her introduction of
Cronkite, directly aligns her with the world government movement, and
particularly with the WFA’s world government aspirations.

Cronkite called for the “revision” and limitation of the veto power
of permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The Commission on
Global Governance and the Charter for Global Democracy call for the
elimination of both the veto and permanent member status on the Security
Council. This latter recommendation will be presented as the needed
“reform” to the Millennium Assembly next September. Cronkite’s more
timid approach, as well as his “federalism” ideas have been overwhelmed
by the U.N.’s “consensus” process now on a fast track toward adoption.

Cronkite called for the immediate ratification of a laundry list of
U.N. treaties, including the infamous Convention on the Rights of the
Child; the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW); and, “most important,” Cronkite says, the
International Criminal Court, which empowers the U.N. to prosecute
American citizens whether or not it is ratified by the Senate.

Hillary made her support for these positions clear when she attended
the U.N. Beijing Conference on Women in 1995.

Cronkite said in order to achieve world government, “Americans will
have to yield up some of our sovereignty.” He said, “the notion of
unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy.”

Under the world government scheme embodied in the Charter for Global
Democracy, any individual nation could wield only the power assigned to
it by the U.N. National armies would be disarmed to the level of a
national police force. The U.N. would maintain a “directly recruited”
standing army under the direct authority of the U.N. Secretary-General.
Private citizens would be disarmed, and the U.N. would control the
manufacture, sale, licensing and distribution of all firearms.

To finance this expanded world government, the U.N. would be given
the authority to impose taxes on the exchange of currency, on the use of
resources, including the air, outer space, and the seas. Taxing
authority is seen not only as the source of unlimited revenue, but also
as a way to force a reduction of natural resources, especially fossil
fuels, water, trees, and minerals.

Like the Clinton administration, and other world government
advocates, Cronkite demeans opponents. He says that like America’s
rejection of the League of Nations, current opposition to world
government is “led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue
their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s

He goes even further to single out the “Christian Coalition and the
rest of the religious right wing” as the culprits who have kept the
world in a state of sovereign anarchy and prevented the emergence of a
“civilized force of law” administered by the United Nations.

The fact that people of the stature of Hillary Clinton and Walter
Cronkite are now willing to publicly advocate world government is an
indication of their confidence that the world is now ready to accept
their plan. World government is no longer the exclusive domain of the
“black helicopter crowd.” Finally, the sinister plans to rule the world
are being exposed by those who expect to rule.

The timeline is, indeed, short. After decades of silent and denied
preparation, the United Nations has made public the millennium year
agenda which is crowned by the largest gathering of heads of state in
the history of the world next September.

World government, called “global governance” by the U.N., will not
occur on any certain day. It is a process that has been under way for
years. The Millennium Assembly and summit
next September, with the adoption of the Charter for Global Democracy,
is seen to be the point from which there is no turning back.

The only way to stop world government at this late date, is for the
American people to send a government to Washington in the next election
that can muster the courage to just say, “No.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.