Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Americans Have a Right to Know About the Council on Foreign Relations
The New American ^ | September, 1994 | John F. McManus

Posted on 11/10/2001 12:41:58 AM PST by Verax

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-203 next last
To: Economist_MA
I would be interested in your comments relative to the following which I pulled from the' neti n a general search

"Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties Peruse a 1979 essay by U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater on elitist sentiments from Council on Foreign Relations members. Includes CFR listings. http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/illuminati/cfr_2.html"

Here's a list of some of the members past and present according to the above:

(How many of these people do you know?)
(What position of Government do they hold today?)

DAVID ROCKEFELLER
Chairman of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
(A private organization formed in 1921) to be THEIR PRESIDENT! Groomed and Trained by BRZEZINSKI!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Bank HENRY KISSINGER - CFR - T Advisor

W.B. DALE - CFR International Monetary Fund

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBS

William Burden - CFR
Roswell Gilpatric - CFR
James Houghton - CFR
William Paley - CFR
Henry Schache - CFR
Frank Stanton - CFR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NBC

T. Bradshaw - CFR
H. Schlosser - CFR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABC

J.T. Conner - CFR
G. Jenkins - CFR
R. Macioce - CFR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA - MISC. REPORTERS

Elie Abel - CFR
David Brinkley - CFR
William Buckley - CFR
John Chancellor - CFR
Marquis Childs - CFR
C. Collingswood - CFR
Charliane Gault - CFR
R.C. Hottelet - CFR
Norman Isaacs - CFR Jim Lehrer - CFR
Irving Levine - CFR
Robert McNeil - CFR
Bill Moyers - CFR
Michael O'Neill - CFR
Harry Reasoner - CFR
Victor Reisel - CFR
John Scall - CFR|
Daniel Schorr - CFR
Barbara Walters - CFR
Theodore White - CFR

Why have these reporters failed to tell the American public the truth about the C.F.R. many years ago?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME Inc./TIME MAGAZINE

Hedley Donovan - CFR - T
Alexander Heard - CFR
James Linen - CFR
Sol Linowitz - CFR - T
Marshal Loeb - CFR
Rawleigh Warner - CFR
Thomas Watson - CFR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK TIMES

Harding Bancroft - CFR
Amory Bradford - CFR
Orvil E. Dryfoos - CFR
Max Frankel - CFR
Richard Gelb - CFR
J.L. Greenfield - CFR
David Halberstram - CFR
Walter Lippmann - CFR
L.E. Markel - CFR
H.L. Matthews - CFR
John Oakes - CFR
Adolph Ochs - CFR
James Reston - CFR
A.M. Rosenthal - CFR
Jack Rosenthal - CFR
Harrison Salisbury - CFR
William Scranton - CFR
A. Hays Sulzberger - CFR
A. Ochs Sulzberger - CFR
C.L. Sulzberger - CFR
Symour Topping - CFR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWSWEEK/WASH. POST

Frederick Beebe - CFR
Robert Christopher - CFR
A. de Borchgrave - CFR
M. de B. Katzenbach - CFR
Osborne Elliot - CFR
Philip Geyelin - CFR
Kathrine Graham - CFR
Philip Graham - CFR
Joseph Kraft - CFR
Kermit Lausner - CFR
Murry Marder - CFR
Eugene Meyer - CFR
Arjay Miller - T
Malcolm Muir - CFR
M. Parker - CFR
G.F. Will - CFR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. SENATE (Past & present members

* = Panama Canal Give-away Team
* Howard Baker (Tenn.) - CFR
* Birch Bayh (Ind.) - CFR
* Lloyd Bentsen (Tex.) - CFR
William Brock (Tenn.) - CFR
* Edward Brooke (Mass.) - CFR
* Clifford Case (N.J.) - CFR
* Frank Church (Idaho) - CFR
* Dick Clark (Iowa) - CFR,
William S. Cohen (Maine) - T
* Alan Cranston (Calif.) - T
John Cooper (Ken.) - CFR
* John Culver (Iowa) - CFR
* John Danforth (Mo.) - T
* John Glenn (Ohio) - T
Hubert Humphrey (Minn.) - CFR
* Jacob Javits (N.Y.) - CFR
Gale McGee (Wyo.) - CFR
* George McGovern (S.D.) - CFR
* Charles Mathias (Md.) - CFR
Walter Mondale (Minn.) - CFR
* Daniel Moynihan (N.Y.) - CFR
* Edmund Muskie (Maine) - CFR
* Claiborne Pell (R.I.) - CFR
* Abraham Ribicoff (Conn.) - CFR
* Paul Sarbanes (Md.) - CFR
* Adlai Stevenson (Mo.) - CFR
Stuart Symington (Mo.) - CFR
Robert Taft, Jr. (Ohio) - T

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS

John Anderson (Ill.) - CFR - T
* Les Aspin (Wisc.) - CFR
* J.B. Bingham (N.Y.) - CFR
* John Brademas (Ind.) - CFR - T
* Barber Conable, Jr. (N.Y.) - T
* William R. Cotter (Conn.) - CFR
* Dante Faxcell (Fla.) - CFR
* Thomas Foley (Wash.) - T
Donald Fraser - CFR - T
* Stephen Solarz (N.Y.) - CFR
William Brock, Chrmn., Republican National Committee - CFR

Pretty impressive list of powerful people. Do you think they only have a "advisory" or a more direct influence on our foreign policy? BTW, there are 22 search "finds" on CFR.

101 posted on 11/11/2001 5:11:31 PM PST by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: rdavis84
((((The Attacks on September 11, 2001 appears to have been a wet dream of the CFR)))))

The CFR in 1998 in it's Foriegn Affairs Magazine in 1998 tells how an attack taking down the world trade center (by nuclear,etc) would transform America:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM

by Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow

From Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today's terrorists, be they international cults like Aum Shinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety of motives than ever before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, germ dispensers, poison gas weapons, and even computer viruses. Also new is the world's dependence on a nearly invisible and fragile network for distributing energy and information. Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response to the attacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.

American military superiority on the conventional battlefield pushes its adversaries toward unconventional alternatives. The United States has already destroyed one facility in Sudan in its attempt to target chemical weapons. Russia, storehouse of tens of thousands of weapons and material to make tens of thousands more, may be descending into turmoil. Meanwhile, the combination of new technology and lethal force has made biological weapons at least as deadly as chemical and nuclear alternatives. Technology is more accessible, and society is more vulnerable. Elaborate international networks have developed among organized criminals, drug traffickers, arms dealers, and money launderers, creating an infrastructure for catastrophic terrorism around the world.

The bombings in East Africa killed hundreds. A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.

The danger of weapons of mass destruction being used against America and its allies is greater now than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. It is a national security problem that deserves the kind of attention the Defense Department devotes to threats of military nuclear attack or regional aggression. The first obstacle to imagination is resignation. The prospects may seem so dreadful that some officials despair of doing anything useful. Some are fatalistic, as if contemplating the possibility of a supernova. Many thinkers reacted the same way at the dawn of the nuclear age, expecting doom to strike at any hour and disavowing any further interest in deterrence as a hopeless venture. But as with nuclear deterrence, the good news is that more can be done.1

ORGANIZING FOR SUCCESS

The threat of catastrophic terrorism spans the globe, defying ready classification as solely foreign or domestic. As the 1993 World Trade Center incident demonstrated, a terrorist group can include U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, operating and moving materials in and out of American territory over long periods of time. The greatest danger may arise if the threat falls into one of the crevasses in the government's overlapping jurisdictions, such as the divide between "foreign" and "domestic" terrorism or "law enforcement" versus "national security."

The law enforcement/national security divide is especially significant, carved deeply into the topography of American government. The national security paradigm fosters aggressive, active intelligence gathering. It anticipates the threat before it arises and plans preventive action against suspected targets. In contrast, the law enforcement paradigm fosters reactions to information provided voluntarily, uses ex post facto arrests and trials governed by rules of evidence, and protects the rights of citizens.

President Bill Clinton appointed a national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counterterrorism in May 1998 to "bring the full force of all our resources to bear swiftly and effectively." There is no harm in the designation of a White House aide, but one should not place faith in czars. Real power still resides in the executive departments that have people, equipment, money, and the capacity to get things done.

Because most of the government functions addressing the danger of catastrophic terrorism apply to other purposes as well, the people making decisions about these capabilities against terrorists should be the same people who consider the other missions and can reconcile competing demands. The U.S. government must create unglamorous but effective systems for accountable decision-making that combine civil, military, and intelligence expertise throughout the chain of command; integrate planning and operational activity; build up institutional capacities; and highlight defensive needs before an incident happens. This strategy has four elements: intelligence and warning; prevention and deterrence; crisis and consequence management; and coordinated acquisition of equipment and technology.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also from the Council on Foriegn Relations

Beyond Border Control, Stephen E. Flynn

(November/December 2000)

Argues that the global economy has opened national borders to goods and people, legal and illegal; terrorists and their weapons enjoy easier passage than ever before. Corporations and governments must work together, developing new technologies and techniques to help border control keep pace with booming commerce

(Where the CFR author calls for more Globalism instead border and immigration control to control terrorism Click here to read the CFR's solution to everything--GLOBALISM/World Government--But Never common sense ideas like border control, deprtation of illegal aliens, etc.
-------------->Beyond Border Control

102 posted on 11/11/2001 5:17:04 PM PST by t-shirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
Good Find on that CFR article. Why, they're more paranoid than the JBS members !!!! :-)

And almost phophetic, too, huh?

Why don't you make a post of that? With the right Bolding and Highlighting we could use their article for "KooK" practice ;-)

103 posted on 11/11/2001 5:24:50 PM PST by rdavis84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
Kinda like their asinine view on Open Borders--------

"developing new technologies and techniques to help border control keep pace with booming commerce!"

 

104 posted on 11/11/2001 5:28:57 PM PST by rdavis84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
Bump!
105 posted on 11/11/2001 5:39:48 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: poet
As you could have seen from the stuff I posted above from their webpage, the CFR invites new members who are either already in a position of power, or are expected to gain one soon. The fact that their members are pretty powerful people then means.... that they are actually doing what they are advertising.

Now that we have established that their members are pretty powerful people, we may also notice that the members encompass a pretty broad political spectrum. The common denominator seems to be that they are against isolationism. Other than that I have a hard time spotting too many similarities.
106 posted on 11/11/2001 5:41:40 PM PST by Economist_MA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Verax
The date mentioned, June 17, 1919, is before the Treaty of Versailles was signed (June 28, 1919). The treaty included the charter of the League of Nations, so the Senate had not yet had a chance to vote one way or the other. In fact the final Senate rejection did not happen until early in 1920.

George F. Kennan's article outlining the idea of containment of Soviet communism was published in the CFR journal, Foreign Affairs. Was that also part of the Communist conspiracy? Nixon attacked containment in 1952 when running as Eisenhower's running mate, but Eisenhower continued the policy and it finally worked under Reagan.

107 posted on 11/11/2001 5:42:03 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdavis84
What's so asinine about it? Most (true) conservatives like free trade and booming commerce, and would like to keep our borders under control so illegals and criminals can be kept out. Or probably I missed the sarcasm.
108 posted on 11/11/2001 5:44:16 PM PST by Economist_MA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

Comment #109 Removed by Moderator

To: t-shirt
((((The Attacks on September 11, 2001 appears to have been a wet dream of the CFR)))))

That's just bizarre - you find an excellent analysis of the terrorist threat which happened to be right on the money, including their prescriptions for prevention, and then you assert that the authors like terrorism. Or how is "wet dream" to be interpreted?

By your logic, anybody warning against the dangers of Nazi Germany would have been a hidden supporter of Hitler. I am sure that can't be what you mean.
110 posted on 11/11/2001 5:47:18 PM PST by Economist_MA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: winodog; t-shirt
Since I am a bible believer I know there will be a one world government and religion.

Well, that's what I've been thinking to myself as I've read through all the posts. It may not be the CFR that the world is united under, but I know as a Christian and Bible believer myself, there will be a one-world government in the future. Nothing can be done to prevent it, that does not mean I condone inaction. Merely saying it will happen. Human intervention may only delay it for a season. Perhaps the delay has already occurred. I cannot believe that GW would want any part of a one-world government, but Gore would have given away anything if he could be president or stay president.

111 posted on 11/11/2001 5:49:06 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Economist_MA
Most Conservative grassroots do, however The CFR does not advocate controlling our borders or deporting illegals.

Go to the CFR website and see the insane policies they propose and see all the terror they predicted would occur and how they push all the globalist policies that they often admit cause terrorism to escalate. But they accept this terror as a necessary evil in achieving globalization (world interdependency and World Government).

112 posted on 11/11/2001 5:50:53 PM PST by t-shirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Verax
BOO!
113 posted on 11/11/2001 5:53:53 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Windy-Dave
The subject is too frightening for most people to even comnsider thinking about, so the I don't care attitude is easiest for them.
114 posted on 11/11/2001 5:54:54 PM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
I disagree with your assessment of the goals of the CFR, simply because their goals aren't remotely as neatly defined as you make them up. The CFR is a pretty mixed bunch of people with diverging opinions on many issues. Just read a few issues of Foreign Affairs, you'll see many different opinions and vantage points, and many articles which simply contain excellent analyis of the issues. Just like the one you were kind enough to post above.
115 posted on 11/11/2001 5:55:01 PM PST by Economist_MA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Economist_MA
The CFR has never advocated any common sense way to stop terrorism.

Had we enforced all our immigration and deportation laws, the September 11th attacks would not have occured!

116 posted on 11/11/2001 5:55:44 PM PST by t-shirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Economist_MA
The CFR is a pretty mixed bunch of people with diverging opinions on many issues. Just read a few issues of Foreign Affairs, you'll see many different opinions and vantage points, and many articles which simply contain excellent analyis of the issues. Just like the one you were kind enough to post above.
--Economist_MA

LOL!!!!!

Ok name me someone on the CFR who advocates deporting illegal?

Just one please...

Tell me of one just one, it shouldn't be hard since they are "people with diverging opinions" LOL!

117 posted on 11/11/2001 6:00:58 PM PST by t-shirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Economist_MA
I find it amusing and amazing the way intelligent people such as yourself will not ignore thread hackers. What is it about a strangers off subject comments that rile you to the point where you even bother to answer them?

I allowed two people to discuss an off subject matter in my Northcut threads merely because it was a way of bumping it BTTT. I know this kept some people from joining in but at least they read the article.

118 posted on 11/11/2001 6:01:00 PM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Economist_MA
Okay, if you say so. we'll just leave it at that. Thanks for your comments. FReegards
119 posted on 11/11/2001 6:02:15 PM PST by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: t-shirt
Had we enforced all our immigration and deportation laws, the September 11th attacks would not have occured!

This is your view, and I respectfully disagree, mainly on operational grounds. Unless you want to turn the US into a locked-up isolationist police state there will always be a way for terrorists to infiltrate if they really want to. It's part of the price of freedom. You may be willing to pay the price necessary for total security, I am not, and I think we should just leave it at that. I still fail to see the connection to a CFR conspiracy, but you may be able to enlighten me.
120 posted on 11/11/2001 6:02:18 PM PST by Economist_MA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-203 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson