CFR documents on the North American Union [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums

PDA

View Full Version : CFR documents on the North American Union

jmdrake

12-13-2007, 10:17 AM

Devil_rules_in_extremes

12-13-2007, 10:34 AM

Good stuff...

Oliver

12-13-2007, 02:47 PM

For all of the those out there who try to lay the "tinfoil hat" charge on those of us who believe there is a concerted effort to set up an North American Union, please read:

http://www.cfr.org/search.html?q=north+american+union&x=0&y=0&ie=&site=cfr&output=xml_no_dtd&client=cfr&lr=&num=50&proxystylesheet=cfr&oe=&getfields=authors.pubtype

Note that in these documents the plan is called the North American Union! Oh and Fred Thompson and Dick Cheney are both admitted members of the CFR.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Quoting the CFR-Document:

THE COUNCIL TAKES NO INSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON POLICY ISSUES AND HAS NO AFFILIATION WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. ALL STATEMENTS OF FACT AND EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION CONTAINED IN ITS PUBLICATIONS ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR OR AUTHORS.

murrayrothbard

12-13-2007, 02:55 PM

Quoting the CFR-Document:

Ok? What are you intending that to mean?

Oliver

12-13-2007, 03:31 PM

Ok? What are you intending that to mean?

It means what it says: "We, the CFR-Authors are not representing
actual US-policies in this document - just stating our opinions."

Oliver

12-13-2007, 03:34 PM

murrayrothbard

12-13-2007, 03:39 PM

Oliver

12-13-2007, 03:57 PM

I'm confused. Did someone say the CFR was a government agency?? :confused:

No, some people claim that the CFR is evidence for a
"New World Order Conspiracy to take over the world
by transforming it into NAFTA-Highways, sending out
FEMA-killing squads, putting 90% of US-citizens into
FEMA-Camps, overthrowing the rest of the world to
build a Global Government and then blowing up the
whole place so the Elite can enjoy the rest of their
life on a distant planet thanks to the Jesus-Area51
Ufo's."

[/sarcasm]

Or in other Words: The CFR documents are worthless
and prove nothing but paranoia.

murrayrothbard

12-13-2007, 04:01 PM

pcosmar

12-13-2007, 04:02 PM

forsmant

12-13-2007, 04:04 PM

Many congressmen and women are members of the CFR. Many within the Bush and Clinton Administrations are members of the CFR. Providing those members share the beliefs of the CFR, that gives them the power to create policy. They don't have to be an agency of the government. There are many pushing this ideology and few in DC who think differently.

0zzy

12-13-2007, 04:06 PM

ronpaulblogsdotcom

12-13-2007, 04:07 PM

Oliver just because those losers on that other board use that argument doesn't mean it is a good one.

What do you expect the CFR to say. We are a bunch of old white dudes and megalomaniacs. We will devalue your dollar, increase the amount of hours you work, export your jobs so our companies make more money and then come to your house and shoot your dog?

I imagine they say that on every document but I don't have time to research right now. They say in that document that they want this by 2010. What more exactly do you want them to say?

Nothing is upfront and exactly what it really is on the surface. There is a bill called the Patriot Act, it is not by Patriots, for Patriots, or envisioned by Patriots. Why is it called that? Its fluff and window dressing.

pcosmar

12-13-2007, 04:14 PM

No, some people claim that the CFR is evidence for a
"New World Order Conspiracy to take over the world
by transforming it into NAFTA-Highways, sending out
FEMA-killing squads, putting 90% of US-citizens into
FEMA-Camps, overthrowing the rest of the world to
build a Global Government and then blowing up the
whole place so the Elite can enjoy the rest of their
life on a distant planet thanks to the Jesus-Area51
Ufo's."

[/sarcasm]

Or in other Words: The CFR documents are worthless
and prove nothing but paranoia.

Or in their own words.

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Quote by: David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather
Source:Sept. 23, 1994

"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 subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now 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
auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

Quote by: David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather
Date:June 1991 Baden, Germany
Source:Bilderberger Meeting, Baden, Germany

Oliver

12-13-2007, 04:18 PM

LOL. True true. However, you don't see a trend towards supra-national governing bodies?

I see this trend - and it doesn't surprise me at all since this
is the most natural thing in the world - at least for humans.

History:

- First there were Families as the smallest social units.

- Then Families built societies in form of small villages
(Family Unions) to unite their efforts.

- Then those villages grow and transformed into cities.

- Then those cities interacted with each other and they
formed Kingdoms.

-Then those Kingdoms united into Countries.

- Then those countries traded with each others.

- Then some countries united and transformed into unions.

- Then ...

It's no conspiracy at all. It's called social progression.
That's probably one of the most natural human things
in the world - besides begetting stupid children.

Anyway: As long I don't see any official US-Document
providing indisputable evidence for a NAU, I simply
take the think tanks for what they are:

Philosophy.

pcosmar

12-13-2007, 04:22 PM

I prefer Our Constitution. I prefer National Sovereignty.

murrayrothbard

12-13-2007, 05:14 PM

I see this trend - and it doesn't surprise me at all since this
is the most natural thing in the world - at least for humans.

History:

- First there were Families as the smallest social units.

- Then Families built societies in form of small villages
(Family Unions) to unite their efforts.

- Then those villages grow and transformed into cities.

- Then those cities interacted with each other and they
formed Kingdoms.

-Then those Kingdoms united into Countries.

- Then those countries traded with each others.

- Then some countries united and transformed into unions.

- Then ...

It's no conspiracy at all. It's called social progression.
That's probably one of the most natural human things
in the world - besides begetting stupid children.

Anyway: As long I don't see any official US-Document
providing indisputable evidence for a NAU, I simply
take the think tanks for what they are:

Philosophy.

except the vast majority of these moves towards centralization have been the result of conquest. It's not really a "natural" system at all, which is why these unions are always unstable.

Oliver

12-14-2007, 06:15 AM

except the vast majority of these moves towards centralization have been the result of conquest. It's not really a "natural" system at all, which is why these unions are always unstable.

When was the last time your Neighbors Family robbed you or a
Wolf ate you? Historically that was a good argument - and it's still
a good one concerning problems we're able to solve nowadays in
a much more effective way thanks to Unions.

It is completely natural for the human nature - thanks to the
human intellect - or in other words: The human Brains capabilities
concerning what we call: learning.

- First there was no Union whatsoever besides the Family/couple.
(Which historically was the smallest natural Union of Individuals)

- Then Families built Family-Unions (Clans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clans)/Villages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villages)). This way they
shared their work like hunting, farming - and they were more
dominant against all natural enemies. And they learned from each
others, got new Ideas, had time to experiment with their Ideas
which led to science.

- Unfortunately, there were other Clans - and they weren't friendly.
So the Clans transformed into Clan-Unions (Monarchies/Kingdoms)
to protect themselves.

- Then many of those Monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms#Demise_of_monarchies) disappeared for many reasons,
including kicking the Monarchs ass - and Countries replaced those
Monarchies.

- Then some countries had the stupid Idea that uniting their
efforts would be good for the economy, much easier concerning
international trade and would make war between the member-
states much more unlikely. So they built the EU.

This is a rough compilation of the History of Unions.
It certainly is no Conspiracy once you understand the pattern
and how one thing led to another.

So is globalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization)Good or Bad? We don't know - history
will decide. All I say is that this isn't in any way a "Global Elite
will enslave us into FEMA-camps Conspiracy" - something some
people actually believe in.

I really wonder why those Anti-Globalists people love the Internet
so much - it's the biggest Globalization tool the world has ever seen.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this very message from Germany
in a virtual global Union called the "Ron Paul Forum", hosted on the
other side of the planet.

gilliganscorner

12-14-2007, 06:48 AM

My two cents.

People in political power join the CFR because it is the "in" thing to do. Remember, with the recent exception of Ron Paul, I don't think that any of these politicians are exceptionally bright.

They have advance agents, handlers, policy makers, campaign staff, speechwriters, image consultants, media relations people, and host of other people they source to manufacture, maintain, and project an image of themselves that they can sell to the public - yet that image may be completely different from who they are. However, I think these types of folks want power and prestige, just like some people buy hot sports cars and get a thrill out of seeing the envious looks of their neighbors. I dislike this type of ilk. Power should be given to the people that least want it. Note that I did not say that power should be given to those who are incompetent to entrust it with.

The CFR is yet another extension of that. It is an elite country club where they go to to rub elbows together and be taught what to think, what's right, and what's wrong by the policymakers in that group. The bone of contention here is who and what is influencing the CFR facilitators and why are they doing it? They might even think what they are doing is altruistic and good for the planet - who knows? I am not likely going to be a CFR member as I disagree with their ideology.

This is part of the reason I like RP. He seems straight up, honest, and does not cultivate this sense of plasticity that other candidates have. He is not groomed for the camera. He is well educated - I have been reading his speeches to Congress for the last 5 years. In short, he seems to be the real deal, hence my curiosity and support for him.

Anyway, thought I would throw that up there.

However, Oliver, I found a statement you made a bit curious:

I really wonder why those Anti-Globalists people love the Internet
so much - it's the biggest Globalization tool the world has ever seen.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this very message from Germany
in a virtual global Union called the "Ron Paul Forum", hosted on the
other side of the planet.

Anti-Globalists and most folks love the Internet as it allows everyone to have a voice and speak to each other, mostly unregulated - yet. In other words, ideas can be projected, organized, and allow folks to communicate to each other without the barriers of entry traditional media has. Where would the Ron Paul campaign be without the Internet? Do you think Old Media would have carried hi message to so many people? So yes, the Internet is a Global tool, but not in the context of Globalization. Thanks!

Oliver

12-14-2007, 08:04 AM

... but not in the context of Globalization. Thanks!

You're deadly wrong.

The Internet removes national hurdles. Both of us talking about
it in an Internet Forum with people from ten or more other countries
is the best evidence for that. So people are getting closer to each other,
learn about each others Ideas, share their knowledge and so on.

That's a huge step towards Globalization and building Unions - not
the other way around.

Why? Because the Internet drastically pushes the Ideology of a
Global Community. There is no "those evil Arabs or Germans" - in the
Internet there is only "You, Me, Wong, Rob, Fatma, Francesca
and all the other people."

And this trend will finally eliminate the Ideology of nationalism.

From historical point of view, America itself is the best evidence
for that. They came from all over the world to the new continent
and somehow managed to come along and call themselves
AMERICANS, no matter where they came from.

And Americans feel the same way. Paul doesn't say he's German
because his Grandpa came from there. He honestly says, feels
and thinks that he's an American. Which is his definition of
where he feels he belongs to.

The Internet is the same thing. Once people don't feel that they
are part of a Nation anymore but rather part of a global community,
and this change is already happening, then there is no reason to
have sovereign nations or nationalistic Ideologies anymore.

It's just a matter of how people think about the world they live in.

And the Internet is changing that rapidly what people think about
other Nations - thanks to exchange of Ideas and Goods. No matter
if you like it or not:

It's speeding up Globalization.

Welcome to the New Age.

And as a side note: Ron is supporting "trade, talk to each other, be
friends with people and nations" - and he supports the Internet
without limitations. To me this sounds pro-globalism - with the limitation
that he opposes other Governments influence and efforts.

To me, all of this is related.

Anyway: Being skeptical, I see no way to stop Globalism. Just like it's
impossible to go back to anarchy or moving Americans back to the
countries they came from.

So why care or being worried about that anyway?
No conspiracy here. Just evolution.

pcosmar

12-14-2007, 09:32 AM

Anyway: Being skeptical, I see no way to stop Globalism. Just like it's
impossible to go back to anarchy or moving Americans back to the
countries they came from.

So why care or being worried about that anyway?
No conspiracy here. Just evolution.

We still have the Constitution. That is the Law here.
Globalization will be resisted as long as people love Freedom and have the will to fight for their rights.

Oliver

12-14-2007, 10:30 AM

We still have the Constitution. That is the Law here.
Globalization will be resisted as long as people love Freedom and have the will to fight for their rights.

And? Don't you see that the Constitution is the reason for all
your anger towards the US-Government we know today?

The constitution didn't protect you from ending up where we
are. So the interpretational level of the constitution itself may
be flawed - being written in a time without planes, internet,
Globalization, TV etc...

So even if I support Ron's stance on traditional values, I blame
the Constitution for today's America since it didn't prevent what
the Forefathers probably intended - but we're seeing today
nevertheless...

gilliganscorner

12-14-2007, 10:47 AM

You're deadly wrong.

So why care or being worried about that anyway?
No conspiracy here. Just evolution.

You have to recognize the difference between the people wanting to communicate face to face vs. virtual contact.

Your argument could apply to the proliferation of the telephone in the 20th century. It allows us to talk globally with anyone in the world. I am sure that once it began appearing ubiquitously in all different countries, there were other people who saw it as a mechanism for erode people's concept of nationalism. That didn't happen. The heart of nationality still beats strongly in most people. In fact, it is a tenant of the RP campaign - a message that is resonating very strongly with alot of people.

Most people (unless you are neurotic) make a clear distinction between virtual and physical reality. And they like it that way. As soon as you and I stop conversing on this thread, we may or may not cross paths again. Neither you nor I care.

The internet won't make us neighbors.

The Internet removes national hurdles. Both of us talking about
it in an Internet Forum with people from ten or more other countries
is the best evidence for that. So people are getting closer to each other,
learn about each others Ideas, share their knowledge and so on.

That's a huge step towards Globalization and building Unions - not
the other way around.

Why? Because the Internet drastically pushes the Ideology of a
Global Community. There is no "those evil Arabs or Germans" - in the
Internet there is only "You, Me, Wong, Rob, Fatma, Francesca
and all the other people."

Wrong. The Internet allows for the promotion of the seedier sides of us without physically being held accountable for what they say. For example, white supremacy sites, anti-muslim sites, and other forms of ugly collectivisms. Just like birds of a feather flock together in real-life, they will flock together on the web. People will always find ways to hate each other - virtually or physically.

From historical point of view, America itself is the best evidence
for that. They came from all over the world to the new continent
and somehow managed to come along and call themselves
AMERICANS, no matter where they came from.

And Americans feel the same way. Paul doesn't say he's German
because his Grandpa came from there. He honestly says, feels
and thinks that he's an American. Which is his definition of
where he feels he belongs to.

That's because they left home. Home didn't leave them - or taken from them. If that happened, imagine how that would have invoked nationalistic tendencies. There would have been blood all over the battlefield.

The Internet is the same thing. Once people don't feel that they
are part of a Nation anymore but rather part of a global community,
and this change is already happening, then there is no reason to
have sovereign nations or nationalistic Ideologies anymore.

It's just a matter of how people think about the world they live in.

Agreed. I do see the concept of world cropping up primarily in charities, but that is a voluntary basis. However, the gist of your point is not lost. Can you imagine a world government? And you think that your national government is not accountable to you now ... can you imagine a World government? A world taxing authority, a World banking system, a world military, one currency we all used that can be debased continuously? Hey, wait a minute. We're almost there! ... Stupid CFR.

And as a side note: Ron is supporting "trade, talk to each other, be
friends with people and nations" - and he supports the Internet
without limitations. To me this sounds pro-globalism - with the limitation
that he opposes other Governments influence and efforts.

You've interpreted this incorrectly. "Without limitations" means that he does not support the idea of censorship and centralizing control on it, not dissolving national borders or embracing the NAU, or a world government.

jmdrake

12-14-2007, 10:52 AM

It means what it says: "We, the CFR-Authors are not representing
actual US-policies in this document - just stating our opinions."

That's a straw man argument and totally illogical. The CFR is a think tank. They don't make policy they advise on it. Now go and do your own research. Read these CFR "opinions" compare them to the official documents at SPP.gov and get back with us. 2 + 2 still equals 4. If think tank A proposes policy B and government agent C enacts policy B but calls it something else it's still policy B. The Bush administration is enacting the North American Union, they are just calling it something else to throw off the completely gullible.

Regards,

John M. Drake

pcosmar

12-14-2007, 10:56 AM

gilliganscorner

12-14-2007, 10:57 AM

And? Don't you see that the Constitution is the reason for all
your anger towards the US-Government we know today?

The constitution didn't protect you from ending up where we
are. So the interpretational level of the constitution itself may
be flawed - being written in a time without planes, internet,
Globalization, TV etc...

So even if I support Ron's stance on traditional values, I blame
the Constitution for today's America since it didn't prevent what
the Forefathers probably intended - but we're seeing today
nevertheless...

That's because the people we elected to uphold the Constitution well, er, didn't. And we as the people, did not maintain eternal vigilance to ensure they did. These days, to get people to stop protesting, throw them an iPod - they have been trained from the cradle to the grave to be mindless consumers. Our school systems teach nothing of monetary theory - just prepare you to be a trained seal and launch you into the workforce. Our media is pretty much useless other than being primarily infomercials and act to bring the audience to the advertisor and nothing more - why do a report on how the inflation tax works, when it is easier to report Britney breaking a fingernail? Critical thinking is by and large dead.

You are wrong about assuming "what the Forefathers probably intended". The forefathers wanted a republic = decentralizing power of government towards more local government = more accountability of local government to the local people = anti-globalization.

It is alot easier to lynch your local politician when he lives in your district than fly to Washington to plead your case - assuming you are allowed on the government property of course.

lucius

12-14-2007, 10:58 AM

You're deadly wrong.

Nice self-assessment Oliver: :)

The Pentagon’s Information Operations Roadmap now describes the Internet as an enemy “weapons system.” The Pentagon doesn’t hide the fact that they want total control over information, or as they call it “information dominance.” They very plainly state that they seek to “control land, sea, space and information.” This is what they refer to as “full spectrum dominance.” If you don’t think they see this as a top priority, look at Iraq. The plan to “embed” journalists with the military in Iraq was a strategic operation that considered “journalism as part of psychological operations.” The journalists that weren’t “embedded” were considered “enemy combatants.” More journalists have been killed in Iraq than in any other war, and it is the US doing a large portion of the killing.

Read it off their website, JOINT VISION 2020: http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/jvpub2.htm

The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate even in the anti war movement. The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, the first sentence states unambiguously: ‘information is an element of combat power’. The Army defines Information Operations as: ‘the employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to affect or defend information and information systems, and to influence decision making’.

Headquarters, Department of the Army (2003) Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, November, FM 3-13(FM 100-6), piii.

Spin this if you can...

jmdrake

12-14-2007, 11:01 AM

When was the last time your Neighbors Family robbed you or a
Wolf ate you? Historically that was a good argument - and it's still
a good one concerning problems we're able to solve nowadays in
a much more effective way thanks to Unions.

It is completely natural for the human nature - thanks to the
human intellect - or in other words: The human Brains capabilities
concerning what we call: learning.

- First there was no Union whatsoever besides the Family/couple.
(Which historically was the smallest natural Union of Individuals)

- Then Families built Family-Unions (Clans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clans)/Villages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villages)). This way they
shared their work like hunting, farming - and they were more
dominant against all natural enemies. And they learned from each
others, got new Ideas, had time to experiment with their Ideas
which led to science.

- Unfortunately, there were other Clans - and they weren't friendly.
So the Clans transformed into Clan-Unions (Monarchies/Kingdoms)
to protect themselves.

- Then many of those Monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms#Demise_of_monarchies) disappeared for many reasons,
including kicking the Monarchs ass - and Countries replaced those
Monarchies.

- Then some countries had the stupid Idea that uniting their
efforts would be good for the economy, much easier concerning
international trade and would make war between the member-
states much more unlikely. So they built the EU.

This is a rough compilation of the History of Unions.
It certainly is no Conspiracy once you understand the pattern
and how one thing led to another.

So is globalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization)Good or Bad? We don't know - history
will decide. All I say is that this isn't in any way a "Global Elite
will enslave us into FEMA-camps Conspiracy" - something some
people actually believe in.

I really wonder why those Anti-Globalists people love the Internet
so much - it's the biggest Globalization tool the world has ever seen.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this very message from Germany
in a virtual global Union called the "Ron Paul Forum", hosted on the
other side of the planet.

It's funny that you've shifted from "The North American Union is just a conspiracy theory" to "it's a good idea after all".

Anyway here's the difference between the Internet and the North American Union. One is about freedom, the other is about control. The Internet is largely SELF organizing. The NAU is by its very nature organized by big government. If individuals in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada all decided they wanted to work together more I'd have no problem with that. But governments doing this without consent of the governed is the problem! Hey, let's say if someone comes up with the "eAmero" just like people have come up with "eGold". As long as that's individual people or groups doing it without the force of government behind it there's nothing wrong.

You live in Europe. Are you aware that the European Union is now trying to SNEAK an EU constitution through? The people have spoken. THEY DON'T WANT IT! I don't know why you choose to ignore THAT bit of recent "history".

And yes, there is historical precedent for global empire or people trying to establish global empire through force and/or stealth. Babylon, Meda Persia, Greece, Rome, Napolean, Hitler, Stalin etc. We're all quite aware of history.

Regards,

John M. Drake

gilliganscorner

12-14-2007, 11:07 AM

Nice self-assessment Oliver: :)

The Pentagon’s Information Operations Roadmap now describes the Internet as an enemy “weapons system.” The Pentagon doesn’t hide the fact that they want total control over information, or as they call it “information dominance.” They very plainly state that they seek to “control land, sea, space and information.” This is what they refer to as “full spectrum dominance.” If you don’t think they see this as a top priority, look at Iraq. The plan to “embed” journalists with the military in Iraq was a strategic operation that considered “journalism as part of psychological operations.” The journalists that weren’t “embedded” were considered “enemy combatants.” More journalists have been killed in Iraq than in any other war, and it is the US doing a large portion of the killing.

Read it off their website, JOINT VISION 2020: http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/jvpub2.htm

The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate even in the anti war movement. The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, the first sentence states unambiguously: ‘information is an element of combat power’. The Army defines Information Operations as: ‘the employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to affect or defend information and information systems, and to influence decision making’.

Headquarters, Department of the Army (2003) Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, November, FM 3-13(FM 100-6), piii.

Spin this if you can...

Awesome post, lucious. Thanks!

jmdrake

12-14-2007, 11:07 AM

And? Don't you see that the Constitution is the reason for all
your anger towards the US-Government we know today?

The constitution didn't protect you from ending up where we
are. So the interpretational level of the constitution itself may
be flawed - being written in a time without planes, internet,
Globalization, TV etc...

So even if I support Ron's stance on traditional values, I blame
the Constitution for today's America since it didn't prevent what
the Forefathers probably intended - but we're seeing today
nevertheless...

Ah. So the truth comes out. You don't support the constitution which means you really don't support Ron Paul.

Tell me this. What do planes have to do with the bill of rights? What part of the constitution prevents you from flying on an airplane? What part of the constitution prevents you from expressing yourself on the Internet? I would argue that in FACT it is the constitution that HELPED many of these things to come about! It's no accident that America has been one of the most innovative countries in the world. Our respect for private property and personal freedom is what has helped drive innovation. Do you think an internet could have been invented in communist China? Do you think they would have opened it up to masses of people? China spends most of its innovative resources looking for ways to BLOCK the Internet! I'm certain Ron Paul forums have a hard time getting through the "great firewall of China".

Ron Paul's chief "traditional values" are the freedoms outlined in the constitution. People should have the right to petition their government, to assemble (on the Internet or in person), to freedom of religion and of the press. If you don't support those values then you don't support Ron Paul's values.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Oliver

12-14-2007, 12:09 PM

Ah. So the truth comes out. You don't support the constitution which means you really don't support Ron Paul.

Tell me this. What do planes have to do with the bill of rights? What part of the constitution prevents you from flying on an airplane? What part of the constitution prevents you from expressing yourself on the Internet? I would argue that in FACT it is the constitution that HELPED many of these things to come about! It's no accident that America has been one of the most innovative countries in the world. Our respect for private property and personal freedom is what has helped drive innovation. Do you think an internet could have been invented in communist China? Do you think they would have opened it up to masses of people? China spends most of its innovative resources looking for ways to BLOCK the Internet! I'm certain Ron Paul forums have a hard time getting through the "great firewall of China".

Ron Paul's chief "traditional values" are the freedoms outlined in the constitution. People should have the right to petition their government, to assemble (on the Internet or in person), to freedom of religion and of the press. If you don't support those values then you don't support Ron Paul's values.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I support Ron Paul on many issues:

A. The War
B. Blowbacks
C. Diplomacy
D. Truth about real and fictional threats

I oppose him on:

E. Second Amendment (In Germany I don't care)
F. NAFTA (Same thing, doesn't bother me as non US-Citizen)

In any way. It would be more than nice if people would stick
to Ron's stance on the constitution. As far I see it, politicians
interpret it all they want.

That's a flaw of the Constitution's interpretational wording itself,
I realistically assume.

jmdrake

12-14-2007, 01:13 PM

I support Ron Paul on many issues:

A. The War
B. Blowbacks
C. Diplomacy
D. Truth about real and fictional threats

I oppose him on:

E. Second Amendment (In Germany I don't care)
F. NAFTA (Same thing, doesn't bother me as non US-Citizen)

In any way. It would be more than nice if people would stick
to Ron's stance on the constitution. As far I see it, politicians
interpret it all they want.

That's a flaw of the Constitution's interpretational wording itself,
I realistically assume.

I'm curious. If you "don't care" about the second amendment or NAFTA because you are a non citizen then why do you "oppose" those positions? That makes no sense. Thinks that I don't care about I don't "oppose". Anyway, are you ready to bring Turkey into the European Union? Are you ready to endorse the EU constitution even though voters in two different countries rejected it back in 2005?

As far as the constitution being "interpretational" that's true of most complex documents. Bu there are some things that are "self evident". The problem is that most Americans (sadly) haven't read the constitution and so they don't recognize gross deviations from it when they see it. Case in point the huff over Cynthia McKinney "striking" a capitol police officer. (She didn't actually hit him. She just knocked his hand away). The constitution specifically forbids police from bothering congressmen on their way to and from sessions. But most Americans can name all Simpson characters than they can name even the five fundamental freedoms listed in the first amendment.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Oliver

12-14-2007, 03:03 PM

I'm curious. If you "don't care" about the second amendment or NAFTA because you are a non citizen then why do you "oppose" those positions? That makes no sense. Thinks that I don't care about I don't "oppose". Anyway, are you ready to bring Turkey into the European Union? Are you ready to endorse the EU constitution even though voters in two different countries rejected it back in 2005?

As far as the constitution being "interpretational" that's true of most complex documents. Bu there are some things that are "self evident". The problem is that most Americans (sadly) haven't read the constitution and so they don't recognize gross deviations from it when they see it. Case in point the huff over Cynthia McKinney "striking" a capitol police officer. (She didn't actually hit him. She just knocked his hand away). The constitution specifically forbids police from bothering congressmen on their way to and from sessions. But most Americans can name all Simpson characters than they can name even the five fundamental freedoms listed in the first amendment.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I know about Turkey's attempts and I know that Germany and
their European Friend oppose major parts about Turkeys
interpretation on "equality of rights".

I read the EU-Constitution and from my layman perspective, it
isn't a threat to me from what I read. But maybe a lawyer thinks
otherwise about it. So far, the German media failed to point
out the threats to my personal freedoms. So yes, I probably
should investigate this topic more often.

Concerning Constitution:

While I disagree with US-Foreign policies that are far more
aggressive than necessary, of course I like Ron's stance about
it and the true things he says in general about the rest of the
world.

After all - and from what I see in the US-Media: America itself
is a pretty intolerant Nation concerning the world outside.
The Media doesn't tell both sides - nor does the education
criticize some major American History. The main-focus always
is:

Patriotism.

And that's a lie from a Non-American point of view.

Now concerning second amendment and constitution in
general.

The second amendment doesn't concern me that much, I never
had this right, I don't miss it, I don't see how it protected
you in any way from the government you have today.

It didn't protect you.

Which leads me to the Constitution: We don't know what
the Forefathers intended about Internet, Globalization,
Computer Warfare and all the other things that did not
exist back then.

This leads me to the conclusion - and the decisions
in congress prove my point - that the Constitution is
literally "interpretational".

That's a pretty weak point for a constitution, isn't it?
You can stick to old values all you want - but as soon
a constitution is "interpretational", it loses it's intention.

And yes, the Neocons (for example) know how to use those
lacks within the constitution for their own purposes. So
I'm unsure if the Constitution is the solution for all the
misuse we see today.

xao

12-14-2007, 11:23 PM

It means what it says: "We, the CFR-Authors are not representing
actual US-policies in this document - just stating our opinions."

Well we all know that the CFR think-tank/group pushes for these types of things, otherwise they wouldn't hedge for these ideas in there talking points, articles and meetings.

The CFR is a think-tank that hedges for globalism. Just as neocon think tanks ran by irving kristol hedged for war in Iraq and Israel expanding in the middle east.

These groups' globalist ideals go against everything the Constitution and the united state's national sovereigntry stand for.

xao

12-14-2007, 11:29 PM

xao

12-14-2007, 11:33 PM

I support Ron Paul on many issues:

A. The War
B. Blowbacks
C. Diplomacy
D. Truth about real and fictional threats

I oppose him on:

E. Second Amendment (In Germany I don't care)
F. NAFTA (Same thing, doesn't bother me as non US-Citizen)

It doesn't matter what you support or don't support over here. You are irrelevant. You aren't a U.S. citizen. :D

AisA1787

12-15-2007, 12:35 PM

This leads me to the conclusion - and the decisions
in congress prove my point - that the Constitution is
literally "interpretational".

That's a pretty weak point for a constitution, isn't it?
You can stick to old values all you want - but as soon
a constitution is "interpretational", it loses it's intention.

I'm just checking in again to correct a few things. The Constitution is not "interpretational" the way that most people think it is. The rule of law is based on the fact that the law is the intent of the lawmaker. This applies to the Constitution, because it is a set of laws. Laws don't change simply because some people choose to ignore the original intent. Under the the Constitution, there was a procedure for changing its laws which I'm sure you've heard of - it's called the amendment process. The bastardization and "interpretation" of the Constitution was kicked off in the 19th century by our Supreme Court and has been continued by legislators and Presidents in an insidious serious of poor decisions and illegal laws.

Let me explain. Between 1789 and the mid 1800's, the Supreme Court made most of their decisions by citing the Constitution, comments made by the framers during the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalist Papers, which were written by the framers to explain the meaning of the Constitution. The justices never philosophized or explained any more than they had to in order to give a proper decision about the case at hand. It was very simple.

In the mid-1800s, as the composition of the court began to change and became much more self-absorbed and proud, and the justices began to write lengthy decisions full of unnecessary language that could later be used as precedent. The prime example of this is decisions they wrote based on the Fourteenth Amendment. A little history - the Fourteenth Amendment was more or less thrust on the country by a group of northern Republicans after the Civil War to punish the South. Some people say it was intended to secure the rights of former slaves, but it was rarely used in that context. Many historians consider it to be an illegal amendment because the northern Republicans could only get enough states to ratify it by coercively forcing the hand of Southern states under military occupation and as a condition for re-entering the Union. In other words, in their total tally they counted states that had initially rejected the Amendment but were forced to accept it. This is an arguably illegal process but, as you know, in times of war and shortly thereafter, many illegal things slip through the cracks (Patriot Act, cough cough).

Most of the Fourteenth Amendment is a restatement of the Fourth Amendment, but many additions were made of course. A seemingly small and harmless addition was "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Supposedly, "equal protection" was meant to protect former slaves. However, they were already protected under the Thirteenth Amendment because it abolished slavery, thus former slaves were supposed to be protected under the Constitution like everyone else. So why restate it? The due process clause already appeared in the Fifth Amendment. Again, why restate it? Because it was a careless, illegal amendment pushed through to punish the South. There's no evidence in the record of the legislative process or the amendment itself to suggest that States must abide by Federal due process rules -- but that is exactly the way it was used by the Supreme Court. Before this, States had their own due process rules for different crimes and could apply them as long as they were consistent from case to case. But after the Fourteenth Amendment, the Federal Courts started to overflow with allegations of violation of due process by States, asking for Federal due process to be applied to State cases where it had never legally been applied before.

In the Slaughter House cases of 1873, among others, the Supreme Court rejected this logic. Finally, in Lochner vs. New York, a Supreme Court case in 1905, the court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment basically made everything into a Federal case, and so it overturned a New York state law regulating working hours in bakeries. Basically, the court passed judgment on an alleged "due process" violation, but went above and beyond that to pass judgment on social and economic conditions. It is now an accepted practice for the Supreme Court to render such decisions, and it is based on precedent set under an illegal amendment.

That opened the flood gates, and now people expect the Federal Government to make everything fair. First, it was "equal opportunity" laws. Now, with No Child Left Behind, it's "equal outcome" laws. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to equal opportunity or fairness, but I am opposed to the Federal Government shoving it down my throat. These are only a few examples among thousands or more. Many things the Government is doing today are completely illegal, but these changes have occurred over such a long time period that most people forget, and it's in the interest of those in power to not rock the boat. Just like these changes have occurred in an evolutionary manner over several generations, the sure and steady march towards an illegal North American "Community" is happening right now.

Let me summarize: Is the Constitution interpretable? Yes, to some extent. Hell, it's even amendable. Is it always interpreted in a legal manner? No. Laws never lose their original intent. If one court "interprets" a law in a manner inconsistent with original intent, it is a subsequent court's job to overturn that decision because it is an illegal decision. Interpretation can't change laws.

I'm sorry, I know this post is mostly off-topic but I am trying to illustrate for Oliver why the "it's an interpretable document" argument is completely wrong. Being German, I don't suppose he's had that many American History classes.

You can go back to your discussion about the CFR :D

Enoch

12-16-2007, 01:53 AM

So is globalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization)Good or Bad? We don't know - history
will decide. All I say is that this isn't in any way a "Global Elite
will enslave us into FEMA-camps Conspiracy" - something some
people actually believe in.

But history already has decided it. Anytime the "known world" has been conquered under 1 purpose, laws are enacted for the "people's protection" and supreme power is put into the hands of a circle of men to decide the fate of all, then it's just a matter of time. Men grow old, men die, new leaders come that don't remember the friends of their fathers nor hold their ideas and then dictators rise.

It happened in every great global empire throughout the history of mankind and within even recent times, there are leaders who create their "own worlds" within countries and see what they do? In Stalin's little world sure he built an empire a huge global machine within it's own little world, how well were the people treated? In Hitler's little world, how well were the people treated? In Kim Jong's little world, how well are they treated? Mugabe's little kingdom?

The Roman Empire was setup as a very good thing and sure they advanced many things and their power grew. But with advancement comes spoiled little brats with mental issues that grow up and have further mutated children as those in power continue to cross breed so they "keep it in the family" and their children rise to power, the latest twice as wacked as the former, with twice as much power.

It's just a matter of time...

I can see your point on the Constitution but you can't blame the Constitution but rather the people's empathy to make choices: a new car and a fat loan from the makers vs. bite the hand that feeds you and "take America back" which choice do we make?? Well, at this time of year just go on down to the mall and see what choice we make, it's really simple.

These men come in under a "free republic" and use the open market, no they aren't directly involved with the government, they are part of free trade. But they then use everyone's natural protection of free trade when they are threatened and then cling to the Constitution they so very much violate. "What are you a commie?!" when you threaten their dealings in any way.

Jefferson said the seeds of our destruction our in the Constitution because hevery much saw the catch-22 paradox that could arise. Free to trade and live, yet it can also be a shield for people who live and trade for our own destruction, and the people will defend them.

No, it's not a conspiracy but rather common sense and just a matter of time.

As for Germany, I have many German friends on the Internet I chat with daily, most are just as concerned about these problems as I am but they too think we Americans are a little conspiracy friendly. But they do understand and agree America needs to change and get back to helping and caring for their own. But it's so hard to do when we have such large establishments who defy our laws and Constitution yet run to it and quote it concerning free trade and rights when they are threatened. Most people here are too busy buying XBOXs and cell phones to really care. A narcissistic society of zombies for the most part, throw them an IPOD and a TV and they'll go along with the devil.

jmdrake

12-17-2007, 08:51 AM

I know about Turkey's attempts and I know that Germany and their European Friend oppose major parts about Turkeys interpretation on "equality of rights".

I read the EU-Constitution and from my layman perspective, it
isn't a threat to me from what I read. But maybe a lawyer thinks
otherwise about it. So far, the German media failed to point
out the threats to my personal freedoms. So yes, I probably
should investigate this topic more often.

Fair enough. I haven't read the EU constitution either. I'm simply looking at it from the "will of the people" based on those who have had a chance to vote on it. Since it's been roundly rejected twice in popular voting the continued efforts to get it passed (an now by dishonestly calling it something other than a "constitution") seem to be a subversion of democracy. How do you see that?

Concerning Constitution:

While I disagree with US-Foreign policies that are far more
aggressive than necessary, of course I like Ron's stance about
it and the true things he says in general about the rest of the
world.

After all - and from what I see in the US-Media: America itself
is a pretty intolerant Nation concerning the world outside.
The Media doesn't tell both sides - nor does the education
criticize some major American History. The main-focus always
is:

Patriotism.

And that's a lie from a Non-American point of view.

Intolerant? How so? America is probably one of the most tolerant countries on the planet. Just because most of us don't want to be merged with Mexico and Canada doesn't make us intolerant. It's simple economic sense. From what I recall west Germany's economy suffered after reunification. And you were two countries with a common language and history. There were plenty of non economic reasons for reunification. The only reason given for merger with Canada and Mexico is supposed economic benefits. So why should we want to do this?

Now concerning second amendment and constitution in
general.

The second amendment doesn't concern me that much, I never
had this right, I don't miss it, I don't see how it protected
you in any way from the government you have today.

It didn't protect you.

Logical fallacy. You really have no reference point for what America would be like WITHOUT the second amendment. We know what happened in Stalinist Russia without it. Same for Hitler's Germany. Your argument is like saying "I was in a wreck and had on my seatbelt and I still broke both of my legs so seatbelts don't protect people."

Anyway, I asked why you OPPOSE the second amendment. Even if we assumed your logical fallacy was correct that still gives no reason to OPPOSE it.

Which leads me to the Constitution: We don't know what
the Forefathers intended about Internet, Globalization,
Computer Warfare and all the other things that did not
exist back then.

Globalization existed back then. It was just called "empire". Have you never heard the saying "The sun never sets on the British empire"? Globalization may be more efficient now due to faster travel and communications but it always existed.

The internet? Really that's just another way to communicate. The constitutional protection of free speech and the press naturally applies. Anyone can see this. No need for "interpretation". In the 18th century individual speech was the "public square" and the postal service. Broadcast speech was through newspapers and books. In the 21st century individual speech includes email and telephone. Broadcast speech includes television, and websites. Things like blogs and YouTube fall somewhere in between individual and broadcast. All is protected. What you see as a "weakness" those with understanding see as a strength. The constitution is flexible! It's not tied to 18th century ways of communication. It easily covers the 21st century.

Computer warfare? What point are you trying to make? I suppose if we argue about the "right to bear arms" and if things like encryption are considered "munitions" than the 2nd amendment covers that. Certainly there was an effort to restrict Americans from being able to use encryption but it failed.

This leads me to the conclusion - and the decisions
in congress prove my point - that the Constitution is
literally "interpretational".

That's a pretty weak point for a constitution, isn't it?

No. The constitution is flexible. And that's very strong. Have you noticed that palm trees have a good ability to withstand hurricanes? That's because they are flexible.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/08/15/charley_wideweb__430x290.jpg

The same for Damacus steel. It was prized for being strong yet flexible. It could take a beating and still keep its edge.

http://www.arco-iris.com/George/images/khanjar3.jpg

You can stick to old values all you want - but as soon
a constitution is "interpretational", it loses it's intention.

The intention has not at all been lost. For instance part of the reason you are able to say what you want on this web forum is because the second amendment easily extends to the internet. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you.

Regards,

John M. Drake

C4talyst

01-24-2008, 02:19 AM

jesse27

01-24-2008, 03:04 AM

The fact that they are not part of the governing body, and that they are privatly funded, being corperate heads and the enormously wealthy,should concern everyone, their intentions cannot be benovolent, just think about, it a non governmental institution writing policies to form a noth american union, and they have people in government posititons to implement their policies. And it would be wise not to assume that any of their work should fall in favor of We The People.

Signzit

01-24-2008, 02:51 PM

Please wake up sheeple!

Check where the CFR get their funding!

you want proof check with texas department of transportation.
look at http://www.spp.gov
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com
need only do the smallest amount of research!
Stop being SHEEPLE and READ for yourself don't wait for the MSM, they are aware.

Stand up!
Stop being weak!
Educate yourself!
Please!

Dibold

01-24-2008, 03:05 PM

The CFR isn't a Government Organization.

No, but it's members are in government and run the government. So what's the difference, matey?

InLoveWithRon

01-24-2008, 05:28 PM

Okay, everyone in the know knows that the Trilateral Commission and the CFR work hand in hand.. Rockefeller was the founder of the CFR, and Rockefeller is the present chairman of the trilateral commission. The United Nations was built on Rockefellers land.. Rockefeller put up his own land to build and support the UN in New York.

Here is a quote by Barry Goldwater in 1965

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the government of the United States.. They will rule the future."- Barry Goldwater

And I can throw a ton of similar quotes from prominent politicians CLEARLY showing that the CFR and the TC control US policies and interests.. I have a really big stash put away with such quotes as Goldwater there.. The TC and the CFR both have a direct tie with the federal reserve. There is absolutely no disputing that, it is a concrete fact. For crying out loud, the Rockefellers were one of the creators of the Federal reserve.

.

InLoveWithRon

01-24-2008, 05:34 PM

"For a long time I had felt Franklin D Roosevelt had developed many thoughts and ideas for this country, the United States. But he didn't.. Most of his thoughts were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the Council of Foreign Relations- One World Money Group.

The United Nations 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..

The One-World government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank." - Curtis Dall

Curtis Dall- son-in-law of Franklin D Roosevelt... word for word quote from his book "FDR: My exploited Father in Law".

You guys want me to get more? Like Quotes from ex mayors of cities like New York? And ex president quotes?? Heads of FBI quotes?? I have plenty, just ask..

If anyone here wants to challenge me regarding the CFR, I will make them look rather foolish..

I haven't even come remotely close to scratching the surface yet..

Anyone who makes the claim that the CFR is harmless because they are not a US government funded agency is extremely foolish and naive.. The federal reserve is not part of the US government either. The federal reserve is "privately owned"... And look at the damage and amazing money laundering scheme they have ruined us with since 1913.. The fed reserve and the CFR are run by the same people.. Its the same fucking thing.

InLoveWithRon

01-24-2008, 05:52 PM

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls it's slimy length over the city, state and nation. Like the octopus in 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"

- Direct quote from John Hylan- former mayor of New York

want more documented quotes like that from prominent men ?? I've got LOTS !!!!!!!!

Signzit

01-24-2008, 06:56 PM

Curtis Dall- son-in-law of Franklin D Roosevelt... word for word quote from his book "FDR: My exploited Father in Law".

You guys want me to get more? Like Quotes from ex mayors of cities like New York? And ex president quotes?? Heads of FBI quotes?? I have plenty, just ask..

If anyone here wants to challenge me regarding the CFR, I will make them look rather foolish..

I haven't even come remotely close to scratching the surface yet..

Anyone who makes the claim that the CFR is harmless because they are not a US government funded agency is extremely foolish and naive.. The federal reserve is not part of the US government either. The federal reserve is "privately owned"... And look at the damage and amazing money laundering scheme they have ruined us with since 1913.. The fed reserve and the CFR are run by the same people.. Its the same fucking thing.

Thank You!

InLoveWithRon

01-25-2008, 03:44 PM

This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime- Us Congressman McFadden's speech

Speech by Us Congressman McFadden.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html

gilliganscorner

01-26-2008, 04:58 AM

This is one I use as a motif on my blog:

Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.

– US Bankers Magazine, Aug 25, 1924

You can see more quotes on my blog (http://gilliganscorner.wordpress.com/i-want-the-earth-plus-5/written/).

gilliganscorner

01-26-2008, 05:02 AM

Okay, everyone in the know knows that the Trilateral Commission and the CFR work hand in hand.. Rockefeller was the founder of the CFR, and Rockefeller is the present chairman of the trilateral commission. The United Nations was built on Rockefellers land.. Rockefeller put up his own land to build and support the UN in New York.

Here is a quote by Barry Goldwater in 1965

And I can throw a ton of similar quotes from prominent politicians CLEARLY showing that the CFR and the TC control US policies and interests.. I have a really big stash put away with such quotes as Goldwater there.. The TC and the CFR both have a direct tie with the federal reserve. There is absolutely no disputing that, it is a concrete fact. For crying out loud, the Rockefellers were one of the creators of the Federal reserve.

.

One thing I ask (and I am going to start doing it myself). If you are kind enough to post quotes, can you cite their sources (i.e. where and when who said what - and where I can look it up>). Some people blow off these quotes because they say, "Yeah right. If you say something seven times on the Internet, it becomes true."

Keep up the good work!

InLoveWithRon

01-26-2008, 03:57 PM

Benjamin Disraeli, First British Prime Minister:

'The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.'
--1844

'The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans.' --1876

Woodrow Wilson, U.S. President:
'Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.' --1913

'I have unwillingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world...no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.'

Henry Ford, Industry Giant:
'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.'

'The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debts.'

John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York (1918-1925):
'The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which is 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. --1922

Joseph Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador, Father of JFK and RFK:
'Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure.' --1936

Curtis Dall, FDR's Son-in-Law:
'For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But he didn't.
Most of his thoughts were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the Council of Foreign Relations-One World Money Group.
The United Nations 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.
The One-World government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve bank.'
-quote from his book FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. President:
'The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.'
--1933

James Warburg, Rothschild Banking Agent:
'We shall have world government whether or not you like it...by conquest or consent.' --1950

Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court Justice:
'The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.' --1952

William Fulbright, U.S. Senator:
'The case for government by elites is irrefutable. ' --1963

Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator:
'The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.
...they will rule the future.' --1964

Carroll Quigley, GU Professor:
'The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.' --1966 from Tragedy and Hope

David Rockefeller, Trilateral Commission Founder:
'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 auto determination practiced in past centuries.' --1991

Henry Kissinger, Big-Time Mother****er:
'Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful!
This would especially be true if they were told that they were a outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence.
It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil.
The one thing 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 a World Government.' --1991

Strobe Talbott, Fmr. U.S. Deputy Sec. of State:
'In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all.' --1992

* * * Council on Foreign Relations is the policy center of the oligarchy, a shadow government, the committee that oversees governance of the United States for the international money power. * * *
CFR memberships of the Candidates

Democrat CFR Candidates:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

Republican CFR Candidates:
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee (just affiliated)

The mainstream media's self-proclaimed 'top tier' candidates are united in their CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in plain view.

* * * Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel are not members of CFR. These 3 are the only ones that work for the people, instead of being controlled by the secret societies that are working toward a one world government that will take away our rights and turn our country into a North American Union. * * *

YOUTUBE VIDEO:
Lou Dobbs: North American Union Orwellian Brave New World
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=H65f3q_ Lm9U

Although many politicians hold membership, It must be noted that the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization. The CFR's membership is a union of politicians, bankers, and scholars, with several large businesses holding additional corporate memberships.

Corporate members include:

Halliburton of Dubai
US Federal Reserve boardmembers
British Petroleum
Dutch Royal Shell - owned by the Rothschilds
Exxon Mobile = owned by the Rockefellers
General Electric (NBC)
Chevron
Lockheed Martin
Merck Pharmaceuticals
News Corp (FOX)
Bloomberg
IBM
Time Warner
The Associated Press= owned by Rothshild
Reuters News- owned by Rothschild
JP Morgan/ Chase Manhattan & several other major financial institutions

http://www.thought- criminal. org/2007/ 08/15/cfr- stacks-the- deck-with- both-democrat- and-republican- presidential- candidates

George Washington said in 1798 “It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References-- Sources-

The Life of Napolean - Sir Walter Scott - 1827

Coningsby - Benjamin Disraeli - 1844

The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Martin Malia - 1848

Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry - Albert Pike - 1872

The Rothschilds, Financial Rulers Of Nations - John Reeves - 1887

The Jews and Modern Capitalism - Werner Sombart - 1911

Great Britain, The Jews, and Palestine - Samuel Landman - 1936

Pawns In The Game - William Guy Carr - 1937

Inside The Gestapo - Hansjurgen Koehler - 1940

Barriers Down - Kent Cooper - 1942

The Mind Of Adolf Hitler - Walter Langer - 1943

The Empire Of The City - E. C. Knuth - 1946

The Jewish State - Theodor Herzl - 1946

The Curious History of the Six-Pointed Star - G. Scholem - 1949

Secrets Of The Federal Reserve - Eustace Mullins - 1952

Tales Of The British Aristocracy - L. G. Pine - 1957

Red Fog Over America - William Guy Carr - 1958

A Jewish Defector Warns America (Spoken Word Recording) - Benjamin H. Freedman - 1961

The Rothschilds - Frederic Morton - 1962

The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations (Spoken Word Recording) - Myron Fagan - 1967

Ben-Gurion: The Armed Prophet - Michael Bar-Zohar - 1967

The Hidden Tyranny - Benjamin Freedman - 1971

None Dare Call It Conspiracy - Gary Allen - 1972

The Gulag Archipelago, Vol. 2, Parts 3 and 4 - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - First English translation published 1975.

Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler - Anthony C. Sutton - 1976

The Rosenthal Document - Walter White, Jr. - 1978

Two Rothschilds And The Land Of Israel - Simon Schama - 1978

The Six Pointed Star - Dr O. J. Graham - 1984

The Last Days In America - Bob Fraley - 1984

Who Owns The TV Networks - Eustace Mullins - 1985

The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy - Seymour M. Hersh - 1991

A History of the Jews in America - Howard M. Sachar - 1992

Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S. Israeli Relationship - Paul Findley - 1993

Descent Into Slavery - Des Griffin - 1994

Bloodlines Of The Illuminati - Fritz Springmeier - 1995

Jewish History, Jewish Religion - Israel Shahak - 1994

Satan Speaks - Anton Szandor LaVey - 1998

The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK - Robert Gaylon Ross - 2001

Never Again? The Threat Of The New Anti-Semitism - Abraham H. Foxman - 2004

The Elite Don’t Dare Let Us Tell The People - Robert Gaylon Ross - 2004

Codex Magica - Texe Marrs - 2005

fmontez

01-26-2008, 04:03 PM

It means what it says: "We, the CFR-Authors are not representing
actual US-policies in this document - just stating our opinions."

The CFR is just a think tank... opinions are just that, the ideas of someone.

There are many people that think a North American Union is a great idea. Many people think a World Union is a great idea. They have the right to think those thoughts, and they have the right to try and implent that type of change.

We have the right to think it is a horrible idea, and the right to try and stop them (within the constraints of the law.) They are just better at advocating than we are... they speak quietly and carry a huge stick (economic and political power) we speak loudly and carry a broken twig (mainly because some of us are so obnoxious the common man/woman thinks we are nuts.)

InLoveWithRon

01-26-2008, 04:36 PM

fmontez, you are a fool if you think the CFR and secret society's in collusion with the government is good for the people.. And you are an even bigger fool if you think they are all in it for anyone else besides themselves.

jmarinara

01-26-2008, 04:42 PM

The CFR isn't a Government Organization.

It's up to you if you connect them to your Government. But
being realistic, the CFR isn't a government organization.

No matter how many ties you see. Officially they are NOT
connected or funded by the Government. Provide evidence
to the contrary if you think the CFR is a Government-funded
conspiracy.

Uhhhhh, who ever said they were government funded?

I love this argument when it comes to putting down the anti-CFR crowd (of which I am a member).

Let me get this straight. Men like Dick Cheney and Fred Thompson. Men like Collin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all meet on their own time, at their own expense and discuss what they think ought to happen in the world. Then they run for office/are appointed to office in a position of power to actually do some of those things they wish would have happened in the world. And some people actually think that what they said ought to happen either has no bearing on what they are doing, or if they are fit to hold their office.

If I was a staunch abortion lover who thought it should be legal, would you believe me if I said I was going to appoint conservative judges with the potential to outlaw abortion? What if I believed in gun control, would you think I was going to protect the second amendment? Of course not.

So why in the world would you think that when men talk about wanting a North American Union that they suddenly abandon the idea when they gained the power to implement their desire? It's ridiculous.

The CFR is relevant because people from the CFR seem to always be put in positions of power. What the CFR says means something because its stupid to think that they wouldn't enact their desires when they have the power.

Good grief.

warmer

01-26-2008, 05:38 PM

Founders of the CFR were basicly the same people who are said to be the founters of Fed bank:

The Americans who subsequently returned from the conference became drawn to a discreet club of New York financiers and international lawyers who had organized previously in June 1918 and was headed by Elihu Root, J. P. Morgan's lawyer;[13] this select group called itself the Council on Foreign Relations.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

lucius

01-26-2008, 08:07 PM

Time-line by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt in her 'The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America' p. 12-13. You can download the whole book in pdf (6.75M) from here: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

"1921

THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1921 THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF Col.
Edwin Mandell House, confidant extraordinaire to President Woodrow Wilson and about
whom Wilson said, “Mr. House is my second personality… His thoughts and mine are one.”
House was the initiator of the effort to establish this American branch of the English Royal
Institute of International Affairs. Prior to 1921, House’s group, “the Inquiry,” called the CFR
the “Institute of International Affairs.” In 1912 House had authored Philip Dru: Administrator
which promoted “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx” about which book Wilson’s Secretary
of the Interior Franklin Lane wrote to a personal friend: “All that book has said should be,
comes about. The President comes to Philip Dru in the end.”

Walter Lippmann, member of the Fabian Society and Intercollegiate Socialist Society, was
a founding member of the CFR. Whitney Shepardson was a director of the CFR from 1921 until
1966. Shepardson had been an assistant to Col. House in the 1918 peace conference following
World War I and served as secretary of the League of Nations committee. Shepardson later
became a director of the Carnegie Corporation British and Colonies fund. Other early CFR
members included: Charles E. (Chip) Bohlen, first secretary to the American embassy in
Moscow during World War II and President Franklin Roosevelt’s interpreter for his meeting
with Josef Stalin at the Teheran conference; Frank Aydelotte, a trustee of the Carnegie
Foundation, president of Swarthmore College, American secretary to the (Cecil) Rhodes
Trustees (of the Rhodes Scholarship Fund), and director of the Institute for Advanced Study
at Princeton; Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who initiated George Bush into “Skull and
Bones” and whose special consultant Bernadotte Schmitt had also been a special advisor
to Alger Hiss when he had served as secretary-general of the United Nations Conference
on International Organization in San Francisco in 1945; and William Paley, founder of the
Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) whose chief advisor was Edward Bernays, Sigmund
Freud’s nephew who wrote Propaganda, in which Bernays reveals:

"Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country…. It remains a fact in
almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our
social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by this relatively small number
of persons…. As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible
government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented
and developed by which opinion may be regimented."13

The late Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the CFR as “a
front for J.P Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table
Group.” Quigley further commented:

"The board of the CFR have carried ever since the marks of their origin…. There grew up
in the 20th century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated
deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy…. The American
branch of this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American
newspapers (New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor,
Washington Post, and the late lamented Boston Evening Transcript)."2

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., penned a tome entitled A Thousand Days in 1965 in which he
wrote that

"the New York financial and legal community was the heart of the American establishment….
Its front organizations [were] the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the
Council on Foreign Relations."

1922

ON DECEMBER 15, 1922 THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ENDORSED WORLD GOVERNMENT."

warmer

01-29-2008, 03:12 PM

"The downward spiral started in the early 1900s, before I was born. The CFR started at about that same time."

CFR is by nature the bankers round table - or - the Federal Reserve round table - if you like

Fed was founded in 1913 , CFR was founded in 1920 - actually it was named CFR in 1920 , before that year CFR was the round table of the biggest bankers in the country - Morgan, Warburg, Rockerfellers etc.

David Rockerfeller serves today - year 2008 - as the honorary chairman of the CFR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

InLoveWithRon

02-01-2008, 02:11 AM

billydough

02-08-2008, 11:07 PM

a book by James Perloff written while Reagan was in office is a good one to start with. it is less of an opinion piece and more of a well supported timeline of the CFR.