Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Walter Cronkite said WHAT?!

Recs

14

July 19, 2009 – Comments (12)

I don't watch the network news so I barely knew who Walter Cronkite was, but I've heard of him and I know how important he was to the State's propaganda efforts.  The other day I came across this statement Cronkite said in accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award at the ceremony at 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 [emphasis mine] patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. 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. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.”

Wow!  Here are some other quotes that help put Cronkite's quote into context:

"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful!... The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

"The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind." George Herbert Walker Bush

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties." New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power." Curtis Dall, FDRs son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law  

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable." Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?

"The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship." Former Congressman John Rarick 1971

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFRs journal, Foreign Affairs.

"Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws..." Meyer Nathaniel Rothchild in a speech to a gathering of world bankers February 12, 1912. 

====================================================

These are things that make me bet on inflation.

Enjoy your weekend!

David in Qatar

12 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 19, 2009 at 2:50 AM, DaretothREdux (43.62) wrote:

These are things that make me bet on inflation.

Hmmm....so then by that account the UN and NWO would want Ron Paul's bill to pass so that our central bank is disgraced and they can then create a one world currency because the solution to all of life's problems is more government...

Dare

Report this comment
#2) On July 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM, whereaminow (20.94) wrote:

Hmmm....so then by that account the UN and NWO would want Ron Paul's bill to pass so that our central bank is disgraced and they can then create a one world currency because the solution to all of life's problems is more government...

Although I don't claim to understand how the little power broker turds among the bureaucratic elite of the world's *great* governments interact, it is possible that destruction of nationalized paper currencies is a goal in hopes of garnishing support for a world paper currency - removing one more barrier to a de facto world government, (He who has the money, makes the rules.)   But do they want to be caught in the act, as would happen if H.R. 1207 were to pass?  I don't think so.   It is possible that they will do anything to fight a true audit - even enlisting the help of their hand picked puppet Barack Obama, who has already announced his intention of protecting the Federal Reserve. 

At this point, I suspect that the bankers are working furiously to bury HR1207 and S604 to avoid the spectacle of Barack Obama being forced to veto it after he has made so many claims of transparency.

The only thing that is transparent here is that the entire system is a sham.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On July 19, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

David:

Generally, your commentary is insightful and cogent.  This blog, to an intelligent reader is, how shall I put it, fluff and meaningless.  It has nothing meaningful to do with Walter Cronkite, cobbles together a mish-mash of commentary on unrelated subjects, and reaches no conclusion based upon the evidence presented.

Not up to your usual standards.

Report this comment
#4) On July 19, 2009 at 7:43 AM, whereaminow (20.94) wrote:

Donnernv,

Well they can't all be winners, but I'm glad you like my usual stuff.  Let's chalk it up to the fact that a mish-mash of commentary with nothing pertinent to say was what I was going for :)

But there are dots to be connected, if one was so inclined.  I just didn't have the time today.  I have something in the works, but I need a day off to write it.  Give me time :)

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#5) On July 19, 2009 at 8:33 AM, cthomas1017 (86.57) wrote:

Sorry David, I have to agree on this on with Donnernv.  I have no doubt that Cronkite wasn't who he portrayed himself to be.  And I don't doubt a "hidden hand" in Washington (and New York for that matter).  Walter certainly shouldn't have ever been trusted much less be packaged up as the "most trusted man in America".  But to go to linking "Buildup-burgers" conspiracy quotes takes the argument to a place where it's no longer credible with most people (myself included).

It's ironic that so much of the self-congradulating press are holding Walter up as their model for how to conduct journalism.  I agree, and the fact that every major newspaper and every television newsroom is bankrupt (both is money and in morals) points to where Walter led them. 

It's interesting that all the sentimentality is almost exclusively restricted to the press, politicians, and a few celebs.  I contrast this isolated adulage to what happened when Paul Harvey died and the response came from across the spectrum of society and people spoke of the kind of man Paul Harvey was, not just the kind of journalist (ie, commentator) he was.  RIP Mr. Harvey. :)

Report this comment
#6) On July 19, 2009 at 9:00 AM, whereaminow (20.94) wrote:

cthomas1017,

It may have been a half arsed post, but a fella like you came along and said the smartest darn thing I've heard all day:

I contrast this isolated adulage to what happened when Paul Harvey died and the response came from across the spectrum of society and people spoke of the kind of man Paul Harvey was, not just the kind of journalist (ie, commentator) he was

Well said and thank you! 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On July 19, 2009 at 9:46 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

I am greatly honored to receive this award for two reasons: first, I believe as Norman Cousins did that the first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world law that will assure peace with justice among the peoples of the world; second, I feel sentimental about this award because half a century ago Norman offered me a job as spokesman and Washington lobbyist for the World Federalist organization, which was then in its infancy.

I chose instead to continue in the world of journalism. For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience. Now, however, my circumstances are different. I am in a position to speak my mind. And that is what I propose to do.

Those of us who are living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.

For most of this fairly long life I have been an optimist harboring a belief that as our globe shrank, as our communication miracles brought us closer together, we would begin to appreciate the commonality of our universal desire to live in peace and that we would do something to satisfy that yearning of all peoples. Today I find it harder to cling to that hope. For how many thousands of years now have we humans been what we insist on calling "civilized"? And yet, in total contradiction, we also persist in the savage belief that we must occasionally, at least, settle our arguments by killing one another.

While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort to establish a lasting peace. Meanwhile, emphasizing the sloth in this regard, those advocates who work for world peace by urging a system of world government are called impractical dreamers. Those "impractical dreamers" are entitled to ask their critics, "what is so practical about war?"

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 with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen. The circumstances were vastly different, obviously. Yet just because the task appears forbiddingly hard, we should not shirk it. We cannot defer this responsibility to posterity. Democracy, civilization itself, is at stake. Within the next few years we must change the basic structure of our global community from the present anarchic system of war and ever more destructive weaponry to a new system governed by a democratic U.N. federation.

Let's focus on a few specifics of what the leadership of the World Federalist movement believe must be done now to advance the rule of world law. For starters, we can draw on the wisdom of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution of 1787. The differences among the American states then were as bitter as differences among nation-states in the world today. In their almost miraculous insight, the Founders of our country invented 'federalism,' a concept that is rooted in the rights of the individual. Our federal system guarantees a maximum of freedom but provides it in a framework of law and justice. Our forefathers believed that the closer the laws are to the people, the better. Cities legislate on local matters; states make decisions on matters within their borders; and the national government deals with issues that transcend the states, such as interstate commerce and foreign relations. That is federalism.

Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system of enforceable world law --a democratic federal world government-- to deal with world problems. What Alexander Hamilton wrote about the need for law among the 13 states applies today to the approximately 200 sovereignties in our global village: "To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages." Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law.

Ours will neither be a perfect world, nor a world without disagreement and occasional violence. But it will be a world where the vast majority of national leaders will consistently abide by the rule of world law, and those who won't will be dealt with effectively and with due process by the structures of that same world law. We will never have a city without crime, but we would never want to live in a city that had no system of law to deal with criminals.

Let me make three suggestions for immediate action that would move us in a direction firmly in the American tradition of law and democracy.

Keep our promises: We helped create the U.N. and to develop the U.N. assessment formula. Americans overwhelmingly want us to pay our U.N. dues, with no crippling limitations. We owe it to the world. In fact, we owe it as well to our national self-esteem.
Ratify the Treaty to Ban Land Mines, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most important, we should sign and ratify the Treaty for a permanent International Criminal Court. That Court will enable the world to hold individuals accountable for crimes against humanity.
Consider, after 55 years, the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision making at the U.N. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system for the General Assembly. The World Federalists have endorsed Richard Hudson's Binding Triad proposal. George Soros, in "The Crisis of Global Capitalism," has given serious attention to this concept which would be based upon not only one-nation-one-vote but also on population and contributions to the U.N. budget. Resolutions adopted by majorities in each of these areas would be binding, enforceable law. Within the powers given to it in the Charter, the U.N. could then deal with matters of reliable financing, a standing U.N. peace force, development, the environment and human rights.

Some of you may ask why the Senate is not ratifying these important treaties and why the Congress is not paying our U.N. dues. As with the American rejection of the League of Nations, our failure to live up to our obligations to the U.N. is led by a few willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation's conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. Attempts for world order before that time are the work of the Devil! This small but well-organized group has intimidated both the Republican Party and the Clinton administration. It has attacked presidents since F.D.R. for supporting the U.N. Robertson explains that these presidents are the unwitting agents of Lucifer.

The only way we who believe in the vision of a democratic world federal government can effectively overcome this reactionary movement is to organize a strong educational counteroffensive stretching from the most publicly visible people in all fields to the humblest individuals in every community. That is the vision and program of the World Federalist Association. The strength of the World Federalist program would serve an important auxiliary purpose at this particular point in our history. There would be immediate diplomatic advantages if the world knew that this country was even beginning to explore the prospect of strengthening the U.N. We would appear before the peoples of the world as the champion of peace for all by the equitable sharing of power. This in sharp contrast to the growing concern that we intend to use our current dominant military power to enforce a sort of pax Americana.

Our country today is at a stage in our foreign policy similar to that crucial point in our nation's early history when our Constitution was produced in Philadelphia. Let us hear the peal of a new international liberty bell that calls us all to the creation of a system of enforceable world law in which the universal desire for peace can place its hope and prayers. As Carl Van Doren has written, "History is now choosing the founders of the World Federation. Any person who can be among that number and fails to do so has lost the noblest opportunity of a lifetime."

...Walter Cronkite

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." -- Anais Nin

Report this comment
#8) On July 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Persuter (44.16) wrote:

"I don't watch the network news so I barely knew who Walter Cronkite was"

 

lol, always good to start off with a truly stunning admission of total ignorance of your subject. Walter Cronkite was probably one of the fifty most famous men of the twentieth century, but hey, you've never heard of him so he's a nobody, right?

 

"Here are some other quotes that help put Cronkite's quote into context"

Followed by a bunch of quotes ranging from 1922 to 1991, made by a bunch of people totally unrelated to Walter Cronkite, most of which are not even vaguely relevant to the question. That is not "context" - it is in fact the opposite. You have searched through the entirety of the twentieth century in a desperate search for quotes to MANUFACTURE a context.

 

The fact that Walter Cronkite had actual political beliefs should not come as a surprise. As he specifically said in the speech, he did his best to hide the beliefs and not let them come out. That is BASIC JOURNALISTIC ETHICS. You are trying to make it seem as if it's something sinister, when in fact that's the way it used to be done. Today newsrooms are nothing more than political propaganda, but in Cronkite's time they were something much different. I'd advise you to maybe, you know, read a book on the man or something before you start accusing him of treason.

Report this comment
#9) On July 19, 2009 at 10:46 AM, cthomas1017 (86.57) wrote:

David,

Considering the time difference, I am honored since your day is almost over and mine has just started. :p

CT!

Report this comment
#10) On July 19, 2009 at 12:52 PM, kaskoosek (61.81) wrote:

David

 

I am intrigued. You don't have to answer if you do not want to.

 

Which industry do you work for in Qatar. 

Is it journalism or research? 

Report this comment
#11) On July 20, 2009 at 8:23 AM, NHampshire (< 20) wrote:

Ah finally someone who tells the truth about Cronkite -- one-world, media propagandist that he was.

I hope people are finally waking up to the time they waste on R vs D when it's US vs THEM.

That's what REALLY scares the government!

 A yellow flag with a snake on it shows that you know what is really going on and won't be fooled by labels.

 

 

Report this comment
#12) On July 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM, RandolphFL (< 20) wrote:

David,

You and cthomas seem both to be privy to a word to which Merriam-webster and I are not.

ADULAGE ???

My guess is that this is related to Adulation, but I'd like to feel confident of proper use.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement