Posted on 11/10/2001 12:41:58 AM PST by Verax
"Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties Peruse a 1979 essay by U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater on elitist sentiments from Council on Foreign Relations members. Includes CFR listings. http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/illuminati/cfr_2.html"
Here's a list of some of the members past and present according to the above:
(How many of these people do you know?)
(What position of Government do they hold today?)
DAVID ROCKEFELLER
Chairman of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
(A private organization formed in 1921) to be THEIR PRESIDENT! Groomed and Trained by BRZEZINSKI!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Bank HENRY KISSINGER - CFR - T Advisor
W.B. DALE - CFR International Monetary Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBS
William Burden - CFR
Roswell Gilpatric - CFR
James Houghton - CFR
William Paley - CFR
Henry Schache - CFR
Frank Stanton - CFR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NBC
T. Bradshaw - CFR
H. Schlosser - CFR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABC
J.T. Conner - CFR
G. Jenkins - CFR
R. Macioce - CFR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA - MISC. REPORTERS
Elie Abel - CFR
David Brinkley - CFR
William Buckley - CFR
John Chancellor - CFR
Marquis Childs - CFR
C. Collingswood - CFR
Charliane Gault - CFR
R.C. Hottelet - CFR
Norman Isaacs - CFR Jim Lehrer - CFR
Irving Levine - CFR
Robert McNeil - CFR
Bill Moyers - CFR
Michael O'Neill - CFR
Harry Reasoner - CFR
Victor Reisel - CFR
John Scall - CFR|
Daniel Schorr - CFR
Barbara Walters - CFR
Theodore White - CFR
Why have these reporters failed to tell the American public the truth about the C.F.R. many years ago?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME Inc./TIME MAGAZINE
Hedley Donovan - CFR - T
Alexander Heard - CFR
James Linen - CFR
Sol Linowitz - CFR - T
Marshal Loeb - CFR
Rawleigh Warner - CFR
Thomas Watson - CFR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK TIMES
Harding Bancroft - CFR
Amory Bradford - CFR
Orvil E. Dryfoos - CFR
Max Frankel - CFR
Richard Gelb - CFR
J.L. Greenfield - CFR
David Halberstram - CFR
Walter Lippmann - CFR
L.E. Markel - CFR
H.L. Matthews - CFR
John Oakes - CFR
Adolph Ochs - CFR
James Reston - CFR
A.M. Rosenthal - CFR
Jack Rosenthal - CFR
Harrison Salisbury - CFR
William Scranton - CFR
A. Hays Sulzberger - CFR
A. Ochs Sulzberger - CFR
C.L. Sulzberger - CFR
Symour Topping - CFR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWSWEEK/WASH. POST
Frederick Beebe - CFR
Robert Christopher - CFR
A. de Borchgrave - CFR
M. de B. Katzenbach - CFR
Osborne Elliot - CFR
Philip Geyelin - CFR
Kathrine Graham - CFR
Philip Graham - CFR
Joseph Kraft - CFR
Kermit Lausner - CFR
Murry Marder - CFR
Eugene Meyer - CFR
Arjay Miller - T
Malcolm Muir - CFR
M. Parker - CFR
G.F. Will - CFR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. SENATE (Past & present members
* = Panama Canal Give-away Team
* Howard Baker (Tenn.) - CFR
* Birch Bayh (Ind.) - CFR
* Lloyd Bentsen (Tex.) - CFR
William Brock (Tenn.) - CFR
* Edward Brooke (Mass.) - CFR
* Clifford Case (N.J.) - CFR
* Frank Church (Idaho) - CFR
* Dick Clark (Iowa) - CFR,
William S. Cohen (Maine) - T
* Alan Cranston (Calif.) - T
John Cooper (Ken.) - CFR
* John Culver (Iowa) - CFR
* John Danforth (Mo.) - T
* John Glenn (Ohio) - T
Hubert Humphrey (Minn.) - CFR
* Jacob Javits (N.Y.) - CFR
Gale McGee (Wyo.) - CFR
* George McGovern (S.D.) - CFR
* Charles Mathias (Md.) - CFR
Walter Mondale (Minn.) - CFR
* Daniel Moynihan (N.Y.) - CFR
* Edmund Muskie (Maine) - CFR
* Claiborne Pell (R.I.) - CFR
* Abraham Ribicoff (Conn.) - CFR
* Paul Sarbanes (Md.) - CFR
* Adlai Stevenson (Mo.) - CFR
Stuart Symington (Mo.) - CFR
Robert Taft, Jr. (Ohio) - T
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS
John Anderson (Ill.) - CFR - T
* Les Aspin (Wisc.) - CFR
* J.B. Bingham (N.Y.) - CFR
* John Brademas (Ind.) - CFR - T
* Barber Conable, Jr. (N.Y.) - T
* William R. Cotter (Conn.) - CFR
* Dante Faxcell (Fla.) - CFR
* Thomas Foley (Wash.) - T
Donald Fraser - CFR - T
* Stephen Solarz (N.Y.) - CFR
William Brock, Chrmn., Republican National Committee - CFR
Pretty impressive list of powerful people. Do you think they only have a "advisory" or a more direct influence on our foreign policy? BTW, there are 22 search "finds" on CFR.
The CFR in 1998 in it's Foriegn Affairs Magazine in 1998 tells how an attack taking down the world trade center (by nuclear,etc) would transform America:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM
by Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today's terrorists, be they international cults like Aum Shinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety of motives than ever before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, germ dispensers, poison gas weapons, and even computer viruses. Also new is the world's dependence on a nearly invisible and fragile network for distributing energy and information. Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response to the attacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.
American military superiority on the conventional battlefield pushes its adversaries toward unconventional alternatives. The United States has already destroyed one facility in Sudan in its attempt to target chemical weapons. Russia, storehouse of tens of thousands of weapons and material to make tens of thousands more, may be descending into turmoil. Meanwhile, the combination of new technology and lethal force has made biological weapons at least as deadly as chemical and nuclear alternatives. Technology is more accessible, and society is more vulnerable. Elaborate international networks have developed among organized criminals, drug traffickers, arms dealers, and money launderers, creating an infrastructure for catastrophic terrorism around the world.
The bombings in East Africa killed hundreds. A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.
The danger of weapons of mass destruction being used against America and its allies is greater now than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. It is a national security problem that deserves the kind of attention the Defense Department devotes to threats of military nuclear attack or regional aggression. The first obstacle to imagination is resignation. The prospects may seem so dreadful that some officials despair of doing anything useful. Some are fatalistic, as if contemplating the possibility of a supernova. Many thinkers reacted the same way at the dawn of the nuclear age, expecting doom to strike at any hour and disavowing any further interest in deterrence as a hopeless venture. But as with nuclear deterrence, the good news is that more can be done.1
ORGANIZING FOR SUCCESS
The threat of catastrophic terrorism spans the globe, defying ready classification as solely foreign or domestic. As the 1993 World Trade Center incident demonstrated, a terrorist group can include U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, operating and moving materials in and out of American territory over long periods of time. The greatest danger may arise if the threat falls into one of the crevasses in the government's overlapping jurisdictions, such as the divide between "foreign" and "domestic" terrorism or "law enforcement" versus "national security."
The law enforcement/national security divide is especially significant, carved deeply into the topography of American government. The national security paradigm fosters aggressive, active intelligence gathering. It anticipates the threat before it arises and plans preventive action against suspected targets. In contrast, the law enforcement paradigm fosters reactions to information provided voluntarily, uses ex post facto arrests and trials governed by rules of evidence, and protects the rights of citizens.
President Bill Clinton appointed a national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counterterrorism in May 1998 to "bring the full force of all our resources to bear swiftly and effectively." There is no harm in the designation of a White House aide, but one should not place faith in czars. Real power still resides in the executive departments that have people, equipment, money, and the capacity to get things done.
Because most of the government functions addressing the danger of catastrophic terrorism apply to other purposes as well, the people making decisions about these capabilities against terrorists should be the same people who consider the other missions and can reconcile competing demands. The U.S. government must create unglamorous but effective systems for accountable decision-making that combine civil, military, and intelligence expertise throughout the chain of command; integrate planning and operational activity; build up institutional capacities; and highlight defensive needs before an incident happens. This strategy has four elements: intelligence and warning; prevention and deterrence; crisis and consequence management; and coordinated acquisition of equipment and technology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also from the Council on Foriegn Relations
Beyond Border Control, Stephen E. Flynn
(November/December 2000)
Argues that the global economy has opened national borders to goods and people, legal and illegal; terrorists and their weapons enjoy easier passage than ever before. Corporations and governments must work together, developing new technologies and techniques to help border control keep pace with booming commerce
And almost phophetic, too, huh?
Why don't you make a post of that? With the right Bolding and Highlighting we could use their article for "KooK" practice ;-)
"developing new technologies and techniques to help border control keep pace with booming commerce!"
George F. Kennan's article outlining the idea of containment of Soviet communism was published in the CFR journal, Foreign Affairs. Was that also part of the Communist conspiracy? Nixon attacked containment in 1952 when running as Eisenhower's running mate, but Eisenhower continued the policy and it finally worked under Reagan.
Well, that's what I've been thinking to myself as I've read through all the posts. It may not be the CFR that the world is united under, but I know as a Christian and Bible believer myself, there will be a one-world government in the future. Nothing can be done to prevent it, that does not mean I condone inaction. Merely saying it will happen. Human intervention may only delay it for a season. Perhaps the delay has already occurred. I cannot believe that GW would want any part of a one-world government, but Gore would have given away anything if he could be president or stay president.
Go to the CFR website and see the insane policies they propose and see all the terror they predicted would occur and how they push all the globalist policies that they often admit cause terrorism to escalate. But they accept this terror as a necessary evil in achieving globalization (world interdependency and World Government).
Had we enforced all our immigration and deportation laws, the September 11th attacks would not have occured!
LOL!!!!!
Ok name me someone on the CFR who advocates deporting illegal?
Just one please...
Tell me of one just one, it shouldn't be hard since they are "people with diverging opinions" LOL!
I allowed two people to discuss an off subject matter in my Northcut threads merely because it was a way of bumping it BTTT. I know this kept some people from joining in but at least they read the article.
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.