Posted on 07/25/2007 10:44:02 PM PDT by captjanaway
WASHINGTON – Former Sen. Fred Thompson, a Republican presidential candidate in waiting, candidly answered a question at a campaign stop in Texas yesterday regarding his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, sometimes referred to as a "shadow government" organization of elites with a global agenda.
In an exchange caught on YouTube that later deteriorated into a police encounter, an activist asked Thompson about his membership in the group, linking it with plans for a "North American Union."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Only AFTER she was grabbed by the security people. Up to that point she was silent. Go look again. That was her phone that took the video. She did not make a peep until she was man-handled.
An nobody kept her from speaking. We all heard her speak—all the way through the pitiful whine at the end. Perhaps she should work on her delivery a bit and also formulate her questions and statements more effectively before she opens her pie hole.
...and then the woman was expelled. She didn't utter a sound after Fred answered her question. Was someone was afraid she'd ask another legitimate question?
I am very concerned over this incident. I am no longer sure I will vote for Fred.
My refusal to support Thompson has nothing to do with my support for or against any other candidate.
If I discovered that Duncan Hunter was a CFRer surrounding himself with Bush men and tools for the OBL, was endorsed by GPB, and would give illegal aliens “aspirations of citizenship”, he wouldn’t get my support or vote either.
anyone can say anything.
How do we know the woman wasn’t faking it to make it sound worse than it was? Heck I have been peaceful at concerts and other celebrity events, and have still been pushed around by cops and bouncers when the performer was leaving the building or moving on with their business.
LOL! That goes both ways!
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
The document is seventy pages but worth reading. Some of the things that the CFR strongly recommends...
Eliminate the two borders by allowing free (as in unencumbered) access for employment among the three countries. IOW...no such thing as an illegal immigrant from Mexico.
Open roads for carriers. IOW...a trucker from Guadalajara could drive his truck unquestioned throughout the three nations.
Create a 'super fund' to address Mexican poverty. IOW...a 'Great Society' for Mexico paid for by US.
Off-border processing for cargo. IOW...an 'inland port' like the one designed for KC/MO.
Create a travel pass for foreigners whose credentials would be checked only at the first point of entry. IOW...A low-paid, uneducated, corruptable Mexican Customs agent in Guadalaraja would be our only line of defense.
Create a working SPP by 2010.
There's more but these alone should give you chills and should quiet those who think that any reference to the CFR planning a NAU is nothing but conspiracy nut-job talk.
Now if you want serious. The CFR is an organization. So is Yale. So is Wal mart. They do indeed have some very powerful members, and by virtue of that have significant influence. But in the final analysis, all proposals for any changes in our nations laws and sovereignty have to come in front of the voters and their representatives.
I know this is tough, but just relax, I am going to hit you with something. There are members of the CFR that do not support the entire agenda if any of it at all. IT IS BIPARTSIAN. It is a gathering of the minds.
Does that mean these folks don’t support certain parts of developing an open trading system, no. There are Capitalist Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives and Short Conservatives and Tall Conservatives (and fat Conservatives, a position for which I am over qualified).
Just because we may not like the sound of something does not mean it is bad and just because something is being proposed does not mean it will happen.
If Fred Thompson has a position in the NAU argument, it could be that it is just that, a position, on that may be supported by capitalist ideas. Maybe he likes a few items that can work as long as they are in line with Federalist principles.
Whether the agenda is the goal of all or just some members of CFR, it IS a CFR agenda and an agenda that is far too important to be unware of it or the progress already made. Hunter and Tancredo aren’t CFRers, and they are fully aware and prepared to discuss it, as should any candidate, CFRer or not.
Yup. But that’s what makes us great if not slightly nuts...
> I really worry about Fred and his security team after this incident.
Three things to consider to which I do not know the answer:
1. Was it Fred’s people or the venue people?
2. If it was the venue people, was she removed because she is well known to them as a person who reguarly tries to disrupt political events?
3. Were there ground rules for attendees, such as 1 question per person? Could it be that she was removed not for exercising her first amendment rights, but for being a “time hog” and denying others the chance to ask a question.
As I say, I don’t know the answer - but more context might, I say might, explain why security personnel acted this way.
I found FredT`s answer to be honest and straightforward.
Another case of much to do about very little.
Why does anyone think she is a real conservative anyway? She’s freaking out over someone who hasn’t even announced for some reason.... sounds like a plant of some sort to me.
The whole thing is too weird to be real imo. Some acting going on.
Freds answer was acceptable. He could have hit a home run by adding that “I have heard those ideas out there. I can assure you that if I am elected as your next CIC, I would do everything in my power to see nothing like that will ever occur on my watch.”
End of story, home run for FDT. Woman neutralized.
I would be asking him where is the nearest place for me to sign up for helping on your campaign.
I guess he was not expecting that question. *sigh*
Before she opens her pie hole......gotcha.
I’m on a local dial-up connection, so watching the video isn’t possible.
I’ve seen several comments questioning if the woman is conservative.
Did she say she was? If not, where did the idea that she was come from?
“There are members of the CFR that do not support the entire agenda if any of it at all.”
“Just because we may not like the sound of something does not mean it is bad and just because something is being proposed does not mean it will happen.”
“If Fred Thompson has a position in the NAU argument, it could be that it is just that, a position, on that may be supported by capitalist ideas. Maybe he likes a few items that can work as long as they are in line with Federalist principles.”
I’m afraid if you’re going to agree that the agenda exists, we’ll be passing you the tinfoil!
“But in the final analysis, all proposals for any changes in our nations laws and sovereignty have to come in front of the voters and their representatives.” I agree. But that is not what’s happening. The CFR agenda for the creation of a North American Union is a threat to the sovereignty and security of our country and should be scrapped.
Yes, I’ve seen the list of “Task Force Members”. I misspoke earlier, it is the members of the “working groups” that I am looking for that have not been published.
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.