I understand, but look, the Harvard Law School doesn't have a position on the Constitutionality of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions even though many, probably most of its members are against it. Not every organization holds official positions, and the CFR is one of those that does not. And the CFR does not greatly influence the foreign policy establishment by any means--- rather, it tends to reflects the conventional wisdom of that establishment.
It should not be equated with, say the Open Society which is devoted to borderless government, drug legalization, Peter Singer style euthanasia laws and the rest. And neither should be elevated into some sort fo boogeyman that is somehow supposed to able to control someone more powerful than than the full complement of eithers' membership, George W. Bush.
Sorry, I meant to say "the Harvard Law School doesn't have a position on the Constitutionality of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions even though many, probably most of its members are FOR them."
I understand your point and how it is logical from your perspective and probably that of many others.
I still do not trust the CFR at all. As far as I'm concerned it is extremely dangerous and peopled by folks who are plenty Machiavellian and evil in their goals.
It IS one of the international political forces very committed to a global government; facilitating the networking of same and the putting forth of ever more details and refinements toward the global government.
I don't know if everyone is a satanic ritual baby sacrificer; global government fanatic or not. Probably not. But they are all, to greater or lesser degree working for, contributing toward the global dictator and his government. That much, to me, is inescapable.
They exist to influence! Sure, they don't meet the definition of lobbyists, attempting to influence legislation, but their goal is to shape the debate and public opinion thereby influencing the foreign policy agenda that will set the basis for subsequent legislation. They target leaders in all groups of government, industry and society to "educate" them and thereby influence their opinions.
I know wikipedia and about.com aren't the best resources, but here is their description:
Formally established in 1921, it is one of the most powerful private organizations with influence on U.S. foreign policy. It has about 4,000 members, including former national security officers, professors, former CIA members, elected politicians, and media figures. The council is not a formal institution within U.S. policy making.
They are quick to say they don't "influence policy", but their own documents say otherwise. As an example, below is an excerpt from the President's message included in their last annual report. Influencing opinion in all circles is the name of the game.
Simultaneously, we want to increase the time, energy, and resources we commit to a broader set of activities targeted to nontraditional constituencies, such as state and local officials, religious leaders, educators and students, and members and leaders of a broad range of nongovernmental organizations. Many of these individuals and groups are not normally associated with foreign policy, but their voices and support are critical to the policy choices our government makes and will make in the future. We are actively planning various workshops, seminars, and mini-conferences targeted to different groups of leaders whom we hope to engage more meaningfully in the national foreign policy debate.We are also looking at what more we can do internationally. The influential Task Force on North America is one model, for which the Council joined with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. We anticipate future Task Forces that involve institutions and individuals from abroad.