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
