Posted on 04/02/2006 6:47:06 AM PDT by kellynla
In his 1995 book "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy," the late Christopher Lasch argued that America's political and cultural elites had opened up a gap between themselves and ordinary Americans. "Many of them have ceased to think of themselves as Americans in any important sense, implicated in America's destiny for better or worse," he wrote. They are increasingly detached from their fellow citizens and drawn to an international culture, Lasch said, or what we would today call a transnational culture.
Consider the current immigration debate in this light. In the transnational view, patriotism, assimilation and cultural cohesion are obsolete concerns. Borders and the nation-state are on the way out. Transnational flows of populations are inevitable. Workers will move in response to markets, not old-fashioned national policies on immigration. Norms set by internationalists will gradually replace national laws and standards. The world is becoming a single place. Trying to impede this unifying process is folly.
The term "transnationals" specifically refers to those working in and around international organizations and multinational corporations. More broadly, it indicates a cosmopolitan elite with a declining allegiance to the place where they live and work, and a feeling that nationalism and patriotism are part of the past.
To some extent, their worldview cuts across Democratic-Republican and liberal-conservative lines, and reinforces the other concerns that prevent immigration control: the desire for cheap labor and Hispanic votes. Old-line one-worlders and enthusiastic supporters of the United Nations hear the siren call. So do many academics, judges and journalists who attend international conferences and tend to adopt a common consciousness and world outlook.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
It sure does.
And it's so reassuring to know Katie Couric, Warren Beatty, Madeleine Albright, AND Tony Snow are members of CFR:
http://www.geocities.com/benribqqq/cfr2005roster.html
They are just a benign organization that obviously only gets together for tea and scones and to play poker -- NOT to reorganize a New Globalist Order.
And don't forget the other "Davos Republicans," those useful idiots who will sell out their nation to be invited to the "A-list" functions.
Tony Snow is hardly the only one.
Dreammaker, you offer a link that lists the current membership of CFR. Thanks for that. It is perhaps the easiest tool to prove CFR isn't some front organization for creating a "New Globalist Order". Let's take a look at who is on the list. You list Katie Couric, Warren Beatty and Madelaine Albright. If you really think the CFR is a united front for creating a "New Globalist Order" than you must believe those three idiots share a common goal with the likes of John Bolton (current UN secretary and probably its leading critic), Donald Rumsfeld and a distinguished list of military leaders that is pages long. Now, you can either believe that all those people share a common goal of eliminating U.S. sovereignty, OR, you can accept the premise of the CFR mission statement which reads in part...
"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, national membership organization, nonpartisan research center, and publisher. Founded in 1921, CFR is dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individuals and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments."
So as you skim through the very public list of over 4000 members of CFR, what you notice is an extremely broad cross section of "policymakers", "journalists", "students", and "interested students". What you don't notice is a common goal or agenda among any of them. And that is the whole point. CFR is an independent organization with a goal of providing a better understanding of foreign policy decisions facing the United States. As a political science major at the very politically conservative Naval Academy, I relied heavily on articles published in its Foreign Affairs journal. Articles written by men like William F Buckley and Binyamin Netanyahu and Charles Krauthammer. So again, either you believe that all those folks share a secret (if that is possible considering they all belong to a very public organization) agenda, or you can accept that what they really have in common is that they are widely known, and accomplished "policymakers", "journalists", "students", or "interested students".
Travis, you use a poor analogy when you compare CFR with CAIR. CAIR makes no pretense of being anything other than an Islamic Advocacy group. It's missions statement reads in part..."CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding." They obviously have an agenda to promote a specific ideology. Their members are all dedicated to that goal. All of its leadership are Muslims. It has no independent or alternative viewpoints. It is single voice.
Contrast that with the CFR. Among CFR's leadership are men like Stephan Flynn. He is credited as one of CFR's "experts" on borders and ports. Among his credentials are being the former Commander of the Coast Guard and writing books such as "America the Vulnerable" and the soon to be published "Edge of Disaster". He is on record (in the CFR published Foreign Affairs journal no less) as excoriating the Bush administration for conducting a global war on terror while neglecting the U.S. homeland. The thrust of his argument is that the Federal government must become more open in how it protects the homeland and include private, non-federal oversight of security programs. That is hardly the agenda of a NWO globalist. And even in the document you most likely haven't read but continue to spam all over FreeRepublic, the final pages are reserved for the personal opinions and dissensions from CFR members. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the whole title of the report..."Building a North American Community Report of an Independent Task Force", indicates how shallow and disingenuous your arguments really are. If this matter is as "serious" as you claim it is, than it deserves an honest and complete exposure. You refuse to do that, and lose all credibility in the process. That is a real shame, because your opinion is very credible in so many other matters. That you are afraid to discuss this topic openly speaks volumes.
By the way, did you ever take up Tony's invitation to discuss your issues with him on the air? And if you mention his name in a FR post, it is common courtesy to ping him.
Thanks for the reply. Every bttt means that 15 more lurkers will read the article about the internationalist traitors who want to erase America's borders.
That is why I keep bumping this. The more people who actually read the CFR report (something you haven't done) you keep spamming will realize how unsupportable your claims are. They will note that you are afraid to actually discuss the topic at all, and instead resort to such deep comments as "bite me". They will note that you were afraid to actually speak to the person (Tony Snow) that you've been slamming all over FreeRepublic despite his personal invitation to you to do so. They will see you as a man of no substance in this area, and they will start to ignore the rest of your tripe. The more people that read this the better FreeRepublic will be.
And sorry, Tony, the only reason I ping you to these posts is because I mention your name in them.
Wait a minute.
Are we to believe that the likes of Katie Couric and Warren Beatty have ANYTHING to contribute the such a nebulous description the CFR?
And as to "providing a better understanding of foreign policy," WHO exactly is obligated to listen to them? And why should they have ANY influence on America's foreign policy?
Additionally, is there such a thing a "democratic voting" on ideas proposed by "leading" members?
THE one and ONLY common thread of the 4000 strong just may very well be a consensus of diluting America sovereignty "for our own good" -- elitism at its worst -- and as a front group for a New World Order.
Last time I checked Karie Couric was a journalist. A lousy one, but most are. And besides being a crappy actor, Warren Beatty has served as an adviser on several Senatorial campaigns and almost ran for President. So yes, they both fit into the nebulous description of who can belong to the CFR. But you are proving my point. Do you think either of those asshats are grand participants in a campaign to form a new world order?
"WHO exactly is obligated to listen to them?"
Absolutely no one. Not a single soul. Again, you are proving my point.
"And why should they have ANY influence on America's foreign policy?"
Who says they do?
"Additionally, is there such a thing a "democratic voting" on ideas proposed by "leading" members?"
I'm not sure what you mean here, but since the CFR doesn't issue policy statements, there really isn't anything to vote on.
"THE one and ONLY common thread of the 4000 strong just may very well be a consensus of diluting America sovereignty "for our own good""
Tell that to the dozens of military officers in the CFR that have dedicated their lives to defending our sovereignty.
Do you really believe that Tony Snow bothers with FR threads that are not launched as kiss-fests to celebrate and promote his show?
But hey, let's let 15 more lurkers read about the internationalist traitors who want to erase America's sovereign borders.
15 more bttt
(Rokke, if you want a reply from Snow, you have to post on his smooch-fest Snow show threads.)
"Building a North American Community" by Tony Snow's Council on Foreign Relations.
Why would a member of the CFR (Tony Snow) want to DEFEND America's sovereign borders, when their declared goal is the abolition of American sovereignty, with one common border around our three formerly separate nations?
While you consider Couric a "journalist" and point out Beatty has actually been involved in politics, these "asshats" unfortunately DO absolutely hold appreciable political clout within their respective spheres of influence (national broadcast news/Hollywood), don't they?
Now if no one is obligated to listen to members (BTW, other members: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Mansoor Ijaz, Wesley Clark) of CFR, then WHY get together in the first place UNLESS they too indeed influence U.S. foreign policy from within their own respective circles? Only the truly naive believe the entity of CFR doesn't.
Yes Rokke, I do note many military and even political "conservatives" holding membership in the CFR. Minds are apt to change though, aren't they?
CFR "club" apparently and obviously sees an "Old World" that necessitates changing the past status quo of American military/political power and what that role should be -- serving as sort of a "secret" underground Politburo.
It's often been said politics does make for "strange bedfellows" -- CFR certainly proves that.
Don't know, don't care. I do know that you are afraid to actually speak to the man despite his personal invitation to you. I'd ask what you were afraid of, but you've made it pretty clear you don't really have any idea what you are talking about on this issue. Your talents end at spamming.
And here's another bump so 15 more (and hopefully even more) lurkers can see you dodge another debate.
LOL...and to do some butt-kissing. Do nationally-known public figures really need to be pinged each time their names are mentioned?
And what does Tony have to do to get you to talk to him on his show? Besides ask you personally, give you his phone number and promise to put you at the head of the line. All of which he did last week.
And as I stated earlier, I ping him because that is common courtesy on FR when you mention another Freepers name in your post.
Unless you are afraid of that Freeper. Which you appear to be.
Ummmm. Yes. Which is exactly why they were invited to join CFR. I think we have very firmly established now that Couric and Beatty meet the criteria to be included in the CFR. So do Gerald Ford, William F Buckley and James Baker. Are you going somewhere useful with this information?
"Now if no one is obligated to listen to members (BTW, other members: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Mansoor Ijaz, Wesley Clark) of CFR, then WHY get together in the first place UNLESS they too indeed influence U.S. foreign policy from within their own respective circles?"
You are posting on FreeRepublic. Is anyone obligated to listen to you? Do you think you influence anyone with your posts? Does that prevent you from "getting" together with other Freepers to discuss politics and current events?
"Yes Rokke, I do note many military and even political "conservatives" holding membership in the CFR. Minds are apt to change though, aren't they?"
What?
"CFR "club" apparently and obviously sees an "Old World" that necessitates changing the past status quo of American military/political power and what that role should be -- serving as sort of a "secret" underground Politburo."
Let me get this straight. You've already provided a link that lists every member or the CFR. You might have visited their website (www.cfr.org) and noticed that everything about the organization including its financial documents, contributers, members, publications etc etc are publicly accessible. Yet you call it a "secret" underground Politburo?!?! What does that make FreeRepublic where most posters post anonymously?
"It's often been said politics does make for "strange bedfellows" -- CFR certainly proves that."
That is probably the most coherent and correct statement you've made yet. I agree completely. CFR attracts birds of all feathers, with many different backgrounds and agendas. Which all goes to prove my original point that there is no central goal of the organization other than exactly what is listed in its mission statement.
You have provided absolutely nothing to show CFR is an "anti-American" organization, so your entire premise is moot.
"Do you think that her broadcasts will not be biased against the American system?"
They clearly are. But since when does the CFR sponser the "Today Show"? And who is obligated to watch that show? Do you?
Yes, if they also happen to be Freepers. Unless you are afraid they might actually respond.
Been watching. And learning. Excellent work on this thread. Thanks.
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.