By Cliff Kincaid
Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton (D-N.Y.) believes in a world government under the auspices of
the United Nations that will destroy American sovereignty and
traditional families.
A media black-out has
kept most Americans in the dark about the support that Mrs. Clinton and her husband gave to
the World Federalist Association (WFA),
a controversial organization which openly advocates world
government. The WFA says that by adding more power, authority and
functions to the United Nations, “national sovereignty would be
gradually eroded until it is no longer an issue.” [1] The group promotes “global
citizenship” and such international agencies as the International
Criminal Court (ICC), a “World
Disarmament Authority” to control the weapons of the world, nuclear and
even small arms; and an independent “peacekeeping” army for the U.N.
In its final days, the
Clinton Administration signed the U.N. treaty to create an ICC, which
could prosecute and imprison Americans for alleged war crimes.
President Clinton had initially opposed the treaty, because of Pentagon
fears the court would go after American military personnel, but he
approved it anyway. [2]
Another key objective of
those devoted to world government is to defeat or derail President
George W. Bush’s plan to deploy a national missile defense system.
National missile defense makes a U.N.-sponsored “World Disarmament
Authority” unnecessary and unwise. If we can protect and defend
ourselves, we don’t need the U.N. to do it for us through global
bureaucracies and treaties. Missile defense reaffirms national security
and survival.
Both the Russians and
the Chinese have advocated a U.N. ban on a missile defense system, and
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has argued that missile defense
“poses a serious threat to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty” and
threatens “strategic stability.” [3]
U.N. Boss Annan
opposes a missile defense system for America.
Annan, however, has not
been critical of the Russian anti-missile system and Russian violations
of that treaty. Former CIA/DIA official William T. Lee’s book [4] proves that the Russians have
already violated the ABM treaty by integrating thousands of dual
purpose anti-aircraft weapons
with large radars that provide warnings of a missile attack. Lee
says the Russians are set to obtain
a big strategic advantage if they continue to improve their nuclear
arsenal and if we continue to adhere to the discredited ABM treaty.
Such an imbalance puts Russia in the position of being able to
launch a successful nuclear strike on the United States and protect much of its own
territory and people with its own national missile defense. It’s no
wonder that the Russians -- and the U.N. -- want the ABM treaty to
remain in force for the United States. It leaves us defenseless.
While the Clinton Administration postponed deployment of a missile
defense system and ultimately embraced the ICC, it also rushed ahead
with the U.N. military agenda,
issuing a secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-25)
deploying our troops to the world organization and prosecuting Army soldier Michael New
for bad conduct for refusing to wear a U.N. uniform and report to a
foreign U.N. commander.[5] U.S. troops are now in over 100
countries.
Mrs. Clinton is best known
for her support of the radical U.N. agenda that affects families, women
and children.
One of Mrs. Clinton’s favorite U.N.
agencies, the U.N. Development
Fund for Women (UNIFEM), has a slogan, “Women Hold Up Half the Sky,”
which was used during the age of Chinese Communist mass murderer Mao
Tse Tung [6] to highlight the role of women in the Communist revolution.
Mrs. Clinton adopted the slogan as her own in a speech to the U.N. [7]
Over the years, she has
given several speeches at U.N. events, including an address at a 1995
“women’s conference” in Communist China, where human rights are
severely curtailed and Christians are persecuted. [8]
Although a woman’s
reproductive rights are controlled by the state in China, some feminists believe that Mao’s China is a model for the world. Mao
himself said, “Genuine equality between the sexes can only be realized
in the process of the socialist transformation of society as a
whole.” [9]
U.N. Boss Kofi Annan’s
wife, Nane, the “First Lady of the United Nations” and an ally of
Hillary Clinton.
-------------
The U.N.’s radical
agenda in both social and military affairs is embraced by the World
Federalist Association, which hosted the then-First Lady on October
19, 1999.
When Mrs. Clinton spoke to the group, she was approving an organization
that, like the U.N. itself, was on the wrong side of the Cold War.
During the historic
stand-off between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the WFA collaborated with the
Soviet Peace Committee, an instrument of the Soviet Communist regime.
The WFA staged a “Mission to Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for
the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete
“disarmament” and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” [10]
At the time, the Soviets
were trying to defeat the Reagan conventional and nuclear arms build-up
and policy of supporting anti-Communist freedom fighters.
In particular, the WFA
and its officials strongly opposed the policy of assisting Nicaraguan
freedom fighters who were opposing the Soviet- and
Mrs. Clinton’s allies
in the World Federalist movement
wanted to make Central America safe for Communism.
Cuban-backed
Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship. A suit filed by the WFA with the
U.N.’s International Court of Justice had declared U.S. support of the freedom fighters,
known as “Contras,” to be a violation of international law. [11]
If the U.S. had complied with this dictate, Nicaragua would have remained a Communist
dictatorship and Communism could have taken over all of Central America. But the Reagan policy forced the
Sandinistas into holding free elections that the Communists lost. This
defeat led to the Communists in El Salvador giving up their armed struggle and
making peace with the government.
From the start, the U.N.
was viewed as an instrument of Communist policy. The U.N.’s first Secretary-General,
who assumed the post in a temporary or acting capacity, was Soviet spy
Alger Hiss, an official in President Franklin Roosevelt’s
Administration. The new book, The Venona Secrets, documents how
the founding conference of the U.N. in 1945, which Hiss attended, was
“an important opportunity” for other members of a Soviet spy ring,
including Roosevelt’s Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter
White, a Harvard economist whose policies produced the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank. [12]
White, who also attended
the U.N’s founding conference, gave the Soviets information on the
American delegation’s internal discussions [13] which enabled the Soviets to counter
U.S. proposals.
Oleg Kalugin, former
chief of counterintelligence and major general in the Soviet KGB, says the Soviet mission to the U.N.
became “little more than a nest of
KGB spies and intelligence officers” and notes that he, Kalugin, was
elected as vice-president of the U.N. Correspondents Association. [14]
There is no reason to
believe that the U.N. has ceased to be a massive base of espionage and
intelligence operations against the U.S.
Yet this is the
organization that the WFA wants to transform into a global state with
independent military, police and judicial powers.
Another prominent figure
in the WFA was the late Alan Cranston, the far-left former California
Senator who became chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation, named for the
former Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, who leads it. Cranston,
himself accused of having a pro-Communist bent, [15] spoke on the subject of a
“nuclear-free world” at the twentieth anniversary conference of the
Council for Secular Humanism, which envisions “a future without
religion.” [16]
Nevertheless, the WFA
was a recipient of $15,000 in American taxpayer money from the $11
million-a-year Congressionally-funded U.S. Institute of Peace to
analyze the prospect of
“standing peace forces and peacekeeping reserves” for the U.N.;
international tribunals; and a “world court on human rights.” [17]
When the
organization was founded in Asheville, North Carolina, in
1947, the local paper headlined the event “World Government Plan
Outlined by Speakers.” [18]
This event produced the
United World Federalists (UWF), whose first president, Cord Meyer, Jr.
(1947-1949), had served as chief of the International Organizations
Division of the CIA. The UWF
board included such figures as Albert Einstein, the renowned
physicist who “never wavered from his basic conviction that only a
world government could secure peace,” [19] but who has subsequently been linked
to Soviet intelligence. [20]
Today, the World
Federalist Movement, as it’s called, features strong
The pro-world
government World Federalists received $15,000 from U.S. taxpayers.
backing
from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who says, “Your movement has helped
keep alive for fifty years the values which inspire the creation of the
United Nations...”
The WFA’s sister
organization, the Campaign for U.N. Reform (CUNR), endorsed or
financially supported dozens of
Congressional candidates. Don Kraus, executive director of the
group, says that over 60 percent of those candidates in the 2000
election won their races. CUNR drafted legislation for Rep. Jim
McGovern (D-Mass.) authorizing U.S. funding of a U.N.-sponsored rapid
reaction military force. Another
WFA favorite, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), has been described as one
of the “most outspoken” supporters of an International Criminal
Court.
Some of CUNR’s more
prominent victories in the House were Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.), a
leader of House Democrats, and Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), a member of the
International Relations Committee. In the Senate, victories include
Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Paul Sarbanes
(D-Md.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and James Jeffords (R-Vt.).
With the loss of
several prominent conservatives, such as Senator John Ashcroft, a
strong opponent of the
International Criminal Court, the evidence suggests that the U.N. lobby is stronger
than ever on Capitol Hill and that Senator Clinton could emerge as its
champion.
U.N. treaties which have
remained dormant in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could be
forced to the Senate floor for a quick vote. Mrs. Clinton might be able
to persuade just enough liberal or “moderate” Republicans to ratify
these documents.
Mrs.
Clinton’s appearance before the WFA marked the third time that a
prominent U.S. official had addressed the
organization. The others occurred when President Bill Clinton had sent
a message to the group on the occasion of the WFA’s awarding of a
“global governance” award to his Deputy Secretary of State Strobe
Talbott, who handled Russian affairs.
Global Citizens
Talbott, a former
columnist for Time magazine, wrote a column entitled “The Birth
of the Global Nation,” arguing that in the next century “nationhood as
we know it will be obsolete,” that we would all some day become world
citizens, and that wars and human rights violations in the 20th century
had clinched “the case for world government.” [21]
Hillary Clinton and
Strobe Talbott had been friends at Yale University. [22]
In his message to the
group, dated June 22, 1993, Bill Clinton noted that Norman
Cousins, the WFA founder, had “worked for world peace and world
government.” Clinton didn’t disagree with those goals, adding, “Best wishes...for
future success.” So when Hillary Clinton gave her video-taped address
there can be no doubt that she was aware of its pro-world government
orientation.
Mrs. Clinton’s address
was delivered in the context of commending Walter Cronkite, the former
anchorman of the CBS Evening News, and the WFA. Cronkite, who received
the WFA’s 1999 global governance award, declared that “we must
strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world
government” and that America must “yield up some of our
sovereignty.” [23] Mrs. Nane Annan, the Swedish wife of the U.N.
Secretary-General, was among those honoring Cronkite.
Cronkite also called for
passage of several U.N. treaties, including:
• The treaty to ban land
mines [24];
• The Law of the Sea
Treaty;
• The Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty; [25]
• The Convention to
Eliminate All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women;
• The Convention on the
Rights of the Child; and
• The treaty for a
permanent International Criminal Court.
As Senator from New York, it is expected that Mrs. Clinton
might embrace treaties which her husband’s administration had initially
refrained from signing or endorsing, such as the treaty banning land
mines [26] and the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty.
The Clinton
Administration resisted the land mine treaty under Pentagon
pressure because it would outlaw
mines on the border between North and South Korea which deter a Communist invasion. [27] The Administration initially
resisted the ICC, again under Pentagon pressure, because it could
target American military personnel.
As a Senator, Mrs.
Clinton can ignore that kind of pressure. As First Lady, she had been a
vigorous supporter of so-called ad hoc U.N. criminal courts, such as
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which targets citizens of that
country for alleged crimes against humanity, and the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. [28] One U.S. resident, a Rwandan pastor,
was arrested by the FBI and extradited to Rwanda to stand trial,
despite serious doubts about the case against him.[29]
The Rwanda tribunal had a budget of $40 million, $12 million of
that supplied by the U.S.
In addition to Mrs.
Clinton’s glowing remarks about him,
Cronkite was presented at the WFA affair with an award “honoring
his support of world government” by WFA President and CEO John
Anderson, a former Republican Congressman and independent candidate for
president.
The event was held at
the U.N. and videotaped by the U.N. Department of Public Information.
In his book, A
Reporter’s Life, Cronkite says that if we are to avoid a global
nuclear war, “a system of world order -- preferably a system of world
government -- is mandatory.” [30]
Though described as “the
most trusted man in America,” the record shows that the CBS
Evening News, under his direction, had a “bias against a strong
national defense” that was evident
during the 1970s and continued into the 1980s. The CBS Evening
News propagandized against the military build-up initiated by President
Reagan that turned out to be a major factor in the demise of the old
Soviet Union and the U.S. victory in the Cold War. [31]
Another WFA fellow
traveler is Richard J. Barnet, a member of the WFA board of advisers,
who is a founder of the controversial Institute for Policy Studies
(IPS), a Marxist-oriented think tank. [32]
Journalist and author
Brian Crozier wrote in National
Review that IPS “is the perfect intellectual front for Soviet
activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly
from the KGB.” [33]
S. Steven Powell’s book
on IPS includes actual photographs of identified
Soviet
agents who attended IPS functions or associated with IPS personalities.
He names two as KGB officers. [34]
Samuel Rubin, a member
of the Communist Party and a
Russian emigre, founded the Rubin Foundation, which provided the bulk
of IPS’s funding. [35] His daughter, Cora Weiss, worked with the IPS and organized
anti-Vietnam War activities at the request of the Communist Hanoi
government. [36] Weiss was the President of the Hague Appeal for Peace
Conference, May 11-15, 1999, which was co-sponsored by the World
Federalist Movement. A picture of Weiss is included in the 1999 annual
report of the WFA. [37]
Robert Borosage, who
served as director of IPS, was “a colleague and close acquaintance” of
Hillary Clinton, according to Barbara Olson’s book, Hell to Pay.
[38]
Olson writes that Mrs.
Clinton operated in the “reaches of the left including Robert Treuhaft
and Jessica Mitford,” who had been “committed Communists” and
“Stalinists.” [39] Olson says that Hillary
worked for Treuhaft and paved the way for Mitford to lobby
then-Governor Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue.
Olson described Hillary
as a “budding Leninist” who understood the Leninist concept of
acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost. [40]
However, Olson also
writes that:
“Hillary has never
repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or
explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of
course, no one has pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown
that she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has
learned that she does not need to -- remarkable in an age when political
figures are allowed such little privacy.” [41]
In college, Hillary
Clinton expressed admiration for an article written by a 1960s SDS
student protest leader, described as a Marxist or Maoist, who “defended
Ho Chi Minh and Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence.” [42]
Over the last several
years, as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton seems to have emulated
the notorious pro-Communist and pro-U.N. activist, Bella Abzug. At the
U.N., Abzug promoted women’s rights and environmental causes.
In one of several
speeches over the years to U.N. agencies and events, Hillary hailed
Abzug’s work and career. [43]
When Mrs. Clinton was
urged not to attend the women’s conference in Communist China, because
of human rights problems there, Abzug was among those saying she should
go. [44] Mrs. Clinton went.
One of Hillary Clinton’s
role models is Bella Abzug, the
late pro-Communist and pro-U.N.
activist.
Abzug was a member of several
Communist Party front groups. When Abzug ran for congress, the
Socialist Party opposed her for having shown “a general unwillingness
to be outspokenly critical of Communist actions threatening the peace
and freedom of the world.” Abzug
opposed allowing Vietnamese refugees to come to the U.S. after the
Communist takeover, arguing that they “deserved the punishment that
awaits them.” Such punishment for thousands was death. [45]
Abzug, a long-time
feminist, also favored federal financing of 24-hour-a-day child care
centers. [46]
At a U.N. public
tribute, described as an “unprecedented use” of the U.N. General
Assembly, personalities such as Jane Fonda, Shirley MacLaine, Phil
Donahue, and
Timothy
Wirth, former senator and a
former assistant secretary of state who became head of Ted Turner’s
U.N. Foundation, paid homage to Abzug.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan described Abzug as “a fixture
at the United Nations during this past decade...” and said that “All of
us here today” were influenced by Abzug’s organization. Her legacy
“shall endure,” he said.
Senator Mary Landrieu
(D-La.) called Abzug “a unique and effective spokesperson for women,”
and that she, Landrieu, had been “influenced” by her and was a friend. [47]
Although Abzug was
reported to be an “active Zionist” during her collegiate days, she went
on to brand Israel as an “imperialist aggressor” during proceedings of
a 1967 radical conference. [48]
Mrs. Clinton
flip-flopped in the opposite direction. Olson noted that she has “a
lifetime record of support for the Palestine Liberation Organization,” [49] which had once been labeled a
terrorist organization. But during her run for the Senate, in an effort
to attract Jewish votes, Mrs. Clinton denounced “Chairman Arafat,” the
head of the PLO, and called on him to “end the violence” engulfing the
region. She called for a peace agreement “that guarantees Israel’s
security.” [50]
Such
a “guarantee” may consist of U.S. troops deployed to the region as U.N.
“peacekeepers.”
Clinton adopted the
pro-Israel tone in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), where she hailed the CFR for challenging “the forces of
isolationism” and championing “internationalism.” She urged further
efforts to create a “stronger constituency for American international
leadership here at home.” She also took the following positions on
foreign policy issues:
• Defended the Clinton-NATO
war on Yugoslavia;
• Supported normal trade
relations with China;
• Urged payment of “our dues” to the U.N.; [51]
• Called on “international
organizations” to ensure “fair labor standards” and “environmental
protection” around the world;
• Urged the G-8 group of countries and
the World Bank to tackle the issues of illiteracy, foreign debt, and
AIDS;
• Recommended passage of a
U.N. treaty on international organized crime and the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty.
Despite Mrs. Clinton’s
attempt to portray herself as a friend of Israel, she had earlier
chaired a group, the New World Foundation, which awarded a $15,000
grant to an organization with direct ties to the PLO. [52]
Mrs. Clinton chaired the
group during a time, 1982-1988, when it also gave grants to the
Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), a
front group for the Communist terrorists; the National Lawyers Guild,
identified as a Communist front; and the Christic Institute, [53] an extreme left-wing group of
lawyers which practiced “legal terrorism” against citizens, retired
military and intelligence officials, and others who were perceived to
be supporting the cause of freedom from Communism in Central America. [54]
But as Abzug’s support for federal
day-care centers illustrates, the extreme left has always supported
causes which have the same potential as the growth of Communism to
alter American society. The target has usually been the traditional
family.
In the same way that
Mrs. Clinton promoted a federal takeover of the health care system, her
promotion of feminism and “children’s rights” serves to promote
government control of family life and the raising of children. Mrs.
Clinton, whose book, It Takes a Village, promotes less parental
involvement with children,
shares Abzug’s belief in a national network of
federally-financed day-care centers where professional bureaucrats and
“educators” take control of the lives of the young.
It is significant that Mrs. Clinton,
in a speech to a U.N. conference on population issues, also spoke
favorably of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, for
her “family planning” work. [55] Although Sanger has been portrayed
as a fighter for women’s rights, she abandoned her family while her
marriage was collapsing in order to push the birth control cause.
Sanger was a Socialist and a racist,
having made brazen pronouncements in favor of population control
programs targeting blacks and other minorities as “human weeds.” A
central focus of her work was getting the U.S. Government to endorse
and promote her work.
The clear intention of
the birth control movement from the start was not to give individuals
the right to make decisions, in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but
rather to empower government to regulate and control human beings.
The
radical feminists do not support family planning but family control. The
real purpose of so-called “reproductive rights” is to control the size
of families. When the feminists talk about “educating” young women
about their rights, the aim is to made sure that they choose
contraception, abortion or sterilization, and avoid motherhood. Another
popular U.N. phrase, “improving women’s status,” is another way of
saying that women will be less likely to have children if they are
forced into the career world.
Under the Clinton
Administration, the U.S. funded Mrs. Clinton’s pet project, UNIFEM,
whose main goal was described as the
“integration of women into the national economies of their
countries.” This is another way of saying that women shouldn’t be home
having and raising children.
Feminism to Communism
The scheduling of the
1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Communist China was
controversial but no accident. It is relevant to what the U.N. planners
and the feminists have in mind for the world.
Not too far from the
five-star hotel where the feminists were meeting, baby girls and boys
were being starved to death at Communist Chinese orphanages. Pictures
of this brutality were smuggled out of the country by Human Rights
Watch. One showed an emaciated 11 year-old girl tied down to a bed
withering away to nothing. A British film about the problem, The
Dying Rooms, showed children tied to wooden toilets, sleeping in
their own excrement. One British reporter was shocked to find a baby
hidden away in a towel and being allowed to die.
These children were fortunate;
they were allowed to live -- for a while.
In China, a woman can be
forced to
undergo
abortions and sterilization to comply with the state-mandated one-child
per-family policy. If a mother has more than one child, government benefits
can be taken away or her children killed outright.
If the U.N. program is
completely implemented on a world-wide basis, population control could
be a more efficient way of running peoples’ lives than Communism.
Indeed, population control may be more of a danger than Communism
because it is packaged so attractively as something that will benefit
women and even save the planet’s resources.
Subverting Congress
Mrs. Clinton has already
left her mark on the federal government and its policies, which also
affect the private sector. As First Lady, Hillary was involved in
creating the President’s Interagency Council for Women, described by
her as an effort “to ensure that every single government agency works
to fulfill the promises that we made in Beijing” at the U.N.’s Fourth
World Conference on Women.
The council was “charged
with coordinating the implementation of the Platform of Action adopted
at Beijing,” said a White House press release.
Rather than submit the
“Platform of Action” to the Senate in the form of a treaty for
ratification, the White House moved to implement it unilaterally. The
Council was comprised of representatives of 30 different federal
agencies and offices, as well as the World Bank. Like Hillary’s
Socialized medicine task force, they worked largely in secret to
radicalize the government and its policies, even as they affected
private business.
Hillary Clinton served
as honorary chair of the council, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, who
served as co-chair of the official U.S. delegation to Beijing, was the
chairman.
While it is impossible
to determine with certainty how many rules and regulations were
imposed as part of this effort,
a General Accounting Office (GAO) study found that 13 different federal
agencies, without congressional approval, had spent about $5.9 million
on the 1995 conference itself
and an associated forum for non-governmental organizations, most of
them feminist groups.
One of the seven “commitments”
made by the U.S. at Beijing was passage of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
One provision of the
document calls for “equal remuneration” for “work of equal value,”
which is a “comparable worth” scheme amounting to what Rep. Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) calls
“government wage control.”
Hence, CEDAW is a rationale for the Socialization of the economy in the
name of “women’s rights.”
One might think there
would be no chance of getting the
U.S. Senate to ratify such a radical measure. But this view ignores the
political power of the “gender gap” - the perception that conservatives
are on the wrong side of so-called women’s issues.
Conservatives can
reformulate the political debate and expose the U.N. as a global
instrument of discrimination against women, especially mothers who want
to have and raise children. The Achilles heel of CEDAW is Article 16,
Section 1 (e), which requires governments to allow women “to decide
freely and responsibly on
the number and spacing of their children.” (emphasis added).
This rather
innocuous-sounding provision can be interpreted to mean not only
abortion on demand but forced abortion if a government requires it.
It is significant that
Communist China has interpreted CEDAW to allow its practice of
compulsory abortion.
Another U.N.treaty, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is strongly backed by
Clinton, would also mandate government control or even a break-up of
the family. It would subject U.S. policies on families and children to
approval by an international body.
Conservative activist
and lawyer Phyllis Schlafly notes that the treaty asserts no rights for
parents, [56] while Focus on the Family says the
treaty would elevate children’s rights over parental authority
The treaty also asserts
that children should be “brought up in the spirit of the ideals
proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations...” [57]
Back in 1973, notes
Clinton biographer Barbara Olson, Mrs. Clinton had herself written on
the topic, expressing a “contemptuous tone toward the family” in a 1973
Harvard Educational Review article comparing marriage to slavery and
living on an Indian reservation. Olson says it is apparent that
Hillary’s early writings were shaped
by academic Marxism and
feminism [58]
and that she opposes “patriarchy.”
However, Hillary
completely flip-flopped on the “children’s rights” issue when her
Administration supported the return of Cuban refugee boy Elian Gonzalez
to his father and Communist Cuba. He had been rescued at sea after his
mother had fled Communism to seek a life of freedom in the U.S. for her
son. He was seized by federal
agents from his relatives, with whom he had been placed, when they staged a pre-dawn raid
and invaded a Miami home with
automatic weapons. The agents took him to a U.S. military base to be
with his father, who had been allowed by Castro to visit the U.S. for
the purpose of taking custody of him.
In Cuba, children are
separated from their parents for extended periods of time and
indoctrinated in Communist dogma.
Global Education
Mrs. Clinton also favors
more federal and even global control over the educational system.
However, federal control has already proceeded at a rapid rate, and
both major presidential
candidates in the 2000 election, Al Gore and George W. Bush, favored
even more federal spending on education, a traditional local
responsibility. Bush spoke of local control but “accountability” to the federal
government.
There is major concern
that a new education package coming out of Congress could reflect Mrs.
Clinton’s influence and be hijacked by the radical left.
One reported candidate
for Secretary of Education, even in a Republican Bush Administration,
was said to be Democratic Governor James Hunt of North Carolina, the
vice chairman of the National Center on Education and the Economy
(NCEE), a group closely linked to Clinton.
In a November 11, 1992,
letter to Mrs. Clinton, the group’s president, Marc S. Tucker, had
hailed the election of the Clintons in 1992, and said that he had just
left David Rockefeller’s office in jubilation over what could be
accomplished. Tucker then laid out a plan to impose control over the
educational system for the purpose of making students into workers in
the global economy. [59]
In 1990-1991, the NCEE
paid Mrs. Clinton $101,630 -- payments that came under the scrutiny of
New York State Attorney General Dennis Vacco. [60]
It was unclear if Hillary got the money personally or if the
funds went to Mrs. Clinton’s Rose law firm.
American students are
becoming “global citizens” who
lack knowledge of American history and American
founding documents.
Dr. Dennis Cuddy, a former
senior associate in the Department of Education under President Reagan,
says the plan is modeled on how former Soviet-bloc countries
managed “human resource
development” in their educational
systems.
[61]
Another NCEE board
member was Ira Magaziner, who helped Hillary create her Socialized
medicine plan. Hillary and Magaziner in 1992 wrote an article in Education
Leadership about channeling
students into selected jobs by granting them each a “certificate
of initial mastery” for certain skills.
The Education
Reporter newsletter says the
goal is to achieve “interlocking control over both the public school
system and the nation’s economy.” [62] Under this workforce development
scheme, students are guided or even coerced into a career path, from which it
is difficult to change, as early
as the eighth grade. These decisions are made by educators and
bureaucrats in collaboration with corporate and governmental needs.
In common parlance, the
approach has come to be known as “Outcome-Based education” and
“School-to-work” educational schemes.
This is in direct
contrast to the traditional view of education, which holds that
students should be given a well-rounded education and become
independent and intelligent so they can pursue their own career
choices. Traditional education
holds that students should be given academic skills and an essential
body of knowledge, presented in a context of moral absolutes.
A key aspect of the new
approach to education is to downplay such areas as U.S. history and
civics. The evidence is already around us:
• A federal survey
discovered that only 41 percent of 4th graders could correctly answer a
multiple choice question on why the Pilgrims came to America. [63]
• A survey of teenagers found
that while 75 percent knew the city with the 90210 zip code, only 26
percent knew the U.S. Constitution was written in Philadelphia. [64]
• A survey of seniors from
America’s elite colleges and universities found that while 99 percent
could identify Beavis and Butthead, over one-third were unable to
identify the U.S. Constitution as establishing the divisions of power
in American
government.
[65]
An example of this new approach to
education can be found in the Exploris middle school in North Carolina and a
related “global experience center.”
Consultants to Exploris
included “global education experts” such as Charlotte Anderson of Education for
Global Involvement (EGI) and
Andrew Smith of The American Forum for Global Education (TAF).
EGI
works with the U.N. Association to promote “Model U.N.” programs
in public schools, in which students learn about the organization by
acting like ambassadors. TAF distributes a publication, The United
Nations, Come Along with Me!, conceived and written by Nane Annan,
the wife of the U.N. Secretary-General, and designed to introduce
second and third grade children to the U.N.
Dennis Cuddy says the
Clintons modeled their own Arkansas Governor’s School, designed for
gifted and talented high school students, on the Exploris
concept.
But it is a nationwide
problem. In Grove City, Pennsylvania, one elementary school teaching
outcome-based education was caught having students reciting and signing
a “pledge of allegiance to the world.” The written pledge was printed
on a
certificate-like
form that has the U.N. logo at the top.
At the World Economic
Forum, Mrs. Clinton described how her husband had spoken of their
educational scheme “providing better educational opportunities, so that
we have more of our people trained so they can take the jobs that are
available in the global economy.” [66]
But Mrs. Clinton was
never content to operate in her husband’s shadow. In a
question-and-answer session after the speech, she was asked if she
thought it was time for “a strong, brilliant woman” to be U.S.
President. “Yes,” she said, “and I look forward to voting for her.” [67]
Socialized Medicine
Is Mrs. Clinton that
candidate? Her critics have frequently been wrong about her plans and abilities.
Radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh, for instance, never thought she would
run for the Senate, and many conservatives believed Mrs. Clinton, a
carpetbagger, would lose the race to Rep. Rick Lazio, a native New
Yorker with a “moderate”
reputation. However, Clinton crushed Lazio by twelve points, 55-43
percent.
One mark on her record
is her Socialized medicine scheme, unveiled in the first Clinton-Gore
term, which went down to a disastrous defeat. That was primarily
because some elements of the insurance and medical industries had
strongly opposed it. The Clinton scheme was criticized for laying the
groundwork for centralized health care planning and rationing. Such an
approach has been adopted on the global level by Socialist Gro Harlem
Brundtland, the director of the U.N.’s World Health Organization (WHO).
[68] The
WHO held a news conference on December 18, 2000, in Washington
urging the Bush Administration to spend more on global health
initiatives.
Domestically, Mrs.
Clinton has discovered that Socialism in health care must be
implemented on an incremental basis. She has also learned that she must
enlist Big Business in her radical crusades.
Hillary addressed the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce on April 13, 1999, and hailed the group for
its involvement in the “Campaign to Preserve U.S. Global Leadership.”
This was described by Hillary as a partnership involving major
corporations and businesses, together with the non-profit sector, to
promote “higher levels of funding for our international commitments.” [69]
That means more spending on the U.N. and foreign aid.
It may seem curious that
the Chamber, a pro-business group, should be so cozy with Hillary
Clinton, who had tried to foist that Socialize medicine scheme on its
members. But the Chamber received millions of taxpayer dollars through
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)[70] and has advocated trading
with Castro’s Cuba.
READ
MORE