Walter Cronkite prides himself on being the consummate newsman. Yet,
in his retirement years, he’s become little more than a poster boy and PR man
for a new global political order — one that even he admits would deprive
Americans of their sovereign rights and independence.

In November, I told you about Cronkite’s low-profile appearance at the United Nations.
On Oct. 19, he accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the
World Federalists Association at the United Nations in New York.

He told those assembled, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the
first step toward achieving a one-world government — his personal dream — is
to strengthen the United Nations.

“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual
catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step
toward a world government patterned after our own government with a
legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws
and keep the peace,” he said. “To do that, of course, we Americans will have
to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would
take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.”

In a more recent interview with the BBC, Cronkite was not quite so delicate in his plea for world government.
There was no call for an American-style tri-partite system. What Cronkite
described sounded more like a militaristic world dictatorship.
The BBC’s Tim Sebastian asked Cronkite if the United Nations had lived
up to his earlier dreams for a “Parliament of Nations.” Here’s what he said
in response:

I wouldn’t give up on the U.N. yet. I think we are
realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law. We need
not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military
forces to enforce that law and the judicial system to bring the
criminals to justice before they have the opportunity to build military forces
that use these horrid weapons that rogue nations and movements can get hold
of — germs and atomic weapons.

Note that Cronkite advocates having “an executive” make international
law. That’s the way it works, I guess, in Cuba, Iraq, Libya and a few other
totalitarian hellholes around the world. Is that what Cronkite has in
mind? And this executive — presumably unelected and unaccountable, except,
perhaps, to a handful of Cronkite’s elitist friends — would be backed
by a global military monopoly that would hunt down rebels even before they
armed themselves or committed any “international crime.”
So now the “newsman” is advocating the creation of global thought
police. Hmmmm.

But it gets worse.

“American people are going to begin to realize they are going to have
to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law,
and I think that’s going to come to other people as well,” he says. “It’s a
fair distance to get there, but we are not ever going to get there unless we
keep trying to push ourselves onto the road.”

Most people do not take such talk seriously. They say, “Oh,
Cronkite’s just an old dreamer. There’s no real threat of world government on the
horizon.” Don’t be so sure.

WorldNetDaily reported last week

that the United Nations is sponsoring a global government conference
in the fall designed to examine “the future of the world,” and to create
“an organizational structure whereby the peoples of the world can participate
effectively in global decision-making in the context of the United
Nations system.”

Called the “Millennium Assembly and Summit,” the meeting is part of
the United Nations’ latest initiative to implement global government. That’s

what the United Nations has always been about, and that’s why the U.S.
should have nothing to do with the organization. World government means
the end of American sovereignty and liberty. The two concepts are
incompatible — even Cronkite acknowledges that.

I take this stuff seriously. If you don’t — if you let this camel’s nose
under your tent — someday there will be no stopping the movement. While we
have the chance — while we maintain some vestiges of freedom — we must
put a stake in the heart of dangerous ideas like global government.

Can you imagine a so-called “newsman” promoting the ultimate form of
centralized, all-powerful government? It’s incongruous. It’s
mind-boggling. It’s … betrayal.

Thomas Jefferson, who told us that the government that governs best governs
least, must be rolling over in his grave. One of America’s most important
“founding fathers” had this to say: “Were it left to me to decide whether
we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a
government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” That’s

always been my attitude. It certainly ought to be the attitude of real
news people the world over.

Hey Walter! The central role of the free press is to serve as a
watchdog on government. It’s certainly not to help lay the groundwork for the most
tyrannical and powerful system of government the world has ever known.
That’s what you’re doing, Walter. It’s time to turn in your press
credentials — permanently.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.