Americans Have a Right to Know About the Council on Foreign Relations

The New American ^ | September, 1994 | John F. McManus

[Verax]

Americans Have a Right to Know
About the Council on Foreign Relations
by John F. McManus

---

There exists in our nation today a privately run organization with only 3,000 members, several hundred of whom are U.S. government officials. But even though this organization possesses enormous influence over the actions of our national government, most Americans have never heard of it.

This same organization's members dominate our nation's mass media, multinational corporations, the banking industry, colleges and universities, even the military. Yet its domination is unknown to the average citizen.

The members of this small but extremely influential group are responsible for a parade of foreign policy disasters in China, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, and Africa. The group itself has always sought to lead the United States into a one-world socialistic system led by its members and their like-minded associates in other nations.

Shouldn't you know about this organization and what its members are planning for the 1990s?

This pamphlet will introduce you to the Council on Foreign Relations, the little-known New York City-based organization that is both the seat of the liberal Establishment and the main force pushing the United States into the new world order.

CFR Wants One-World Socialism

It was a disappointed but determined group of diplomats from the United States and England who gathered at the Majestic Hotel in Paris on June 17, 1919. Their disappointment stemmed from the U.S. Senate's rejection of America's proposed entry into world government via the League of Nations. But they remained determined to scrap the sovereignty of each of their nations, and all nations.

The leader of the U.S. contingent at this 1919 conference was President Woodrow Wilson's top advisor, Edward Mandell House. In his 1912 book, Philip Dru: Administrator, House laid out a plan for radically altering the American system via what he termed a "Conspiracy." The book supplied his ultimate goal: "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

The Paris gathering led to the formation of the British Royal Institute for International Affairs and the American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). With Rockefeller and Carnegie money backing it, the CFR quickly attracted influential Americans who used their influence to labor for the one-world socialist goal. In 1939, the organization accepted a formal invitation to establish a relationship with the U.S. State Department. That relationship soon grew into CFR domination of the foreign policy of our nation. Practically every Secretary of State for the past 50 years—serving both Democratic and Republican Administrations— has held CFR membership.

Explicitly Stated Goal

As early as 1922, the CFR’s prestigious journal, Foreign Affairs, brazenly called for "world government" at the expense of our nation's independence. Repeatedly airing this subversive goal over subsequent years, Foreign Affairs published its most explicit call for the termination of U.S. sovereignty in Richard N. Gardner's 1974 article entitled "The Hard Road to World Order."

Admitting that "instant world government" was unfortunately unattainable, the Columbia University professor and former State Department official proceeded to champion "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." He also pointed to numerous international groups and causes, each of which he claimed "can produce some remarkable concessions of sovereignty that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis."

At the time this article appeared, hundreds of CFR members were holding high government posts. Those who were required to swear an oath to support the Constitution of the United States should have immediately resigned from the CFR. None did. Nor were any asked to do so by superiors in government. Instead, the erosion of national independence and the undermining of the Constitution continued.

CFR members like Gardner have historically helped similarly determined world-government advocates achieve power in other nations. It didn't matter to them whether foreign leaders were professed socialists, communists, or whatever, as long as they shared Edward Mandell House's goal of "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." Marxism was the goal, and that has always meant economic control of the people and world government.

Over the years, therefore, CFR members have carried out the Marxist goals of their organization's founder when they helped one communist thug after another take control of once-free nations. Now that communism is no longer the favored route to socialist world government, CFR members have thrown the weight of their considerable influence behind socialists and "former" communists in Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. But they deserve condemnation for the deaths of hundreds of millions killed by communist rulers, and for the horror of life under communist dictatorships still endured by more than a billion human beings.

Past Treachery

CFR members Owen Lattimore and Dean Acheson engineered the betrayal of Chiang Kai-shek's government and the domination of the Chinese people by the bloodiest murderers the world has ever known.

CFR members Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk arranged for the no-win undeclared war in Korea, the removal from command of General MacArthur who sought victory, and the establishment of Communist Red China as the primary military power in Asia.

CFR members John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, filling top posts in the Administration of CFR member Dwight Eisenhower, betrayed the Hungarian Freedom Fighters in 1956 and knowingly aided communist Fidel Castro in his successful seizure of Cuba in 1958-59.

CFR members McGeorge Bundy, Adlai Stevenson, and John J. McCloy saw to it that the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion was a miserable failure, a huge boost for Castro, and a stunning embarrassment for the United States.

CFR members Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, and Henry Cabot Lodge pushed the United States into Vietnam and drew up the rules of engagement for our forces that made victory completely unattainable. CFR members Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger continued those policies, presided over America's total defeat in 1973, and allowed South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to be delivered to communist rulers.

CFR stalwarts Henry Kissinger, Ellsworth Bunker, and Sol Linowitz arranged (with Senate approval) in 1978 to give away the U.S. canal in Panama to a Marxist dictatorship and to sweeten the incredible deal with a gift of $400 million to take it.

CFR leaders Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, and Warren Christopher undermined strong U.S. allies in Nicaragua and Iran during the 1970s and helped anti-American and Marxist leaders to power.

CFR members George Shultz, William J. Casey, and Malcolm Baldrige, during the 1980s, continued the policy of supplying U.S. aid which kept communists in power in Poland, Romania, China, and the Soviet Union. These same individuals did all they could to assist and dignify the Marxists in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and South Africa. Wherever communist regimes failed, they sent more U.S. aid to the socialists and one-worlders who came to power.

CFR leaders in the Administration of CFR veteran George Bush continued to undermine the government of South Africa until it fell into the hands of Marxist Nelson Mandela.

CFR veteran George Bush deliberately avoided the U.S. Congress and went to the United Nations for authorization to unleash American military forces against Iraq in 1991. He pointedly stated that his goal was a "new world order ... a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." The UN's founders, however, included 43 current or future members of the CFR. A leader of the U.S. delegation and the secretary general of the UN's founding conference in 1945 was future CFR member and secret communist Alger Hiss.

CFR member Bill Clinton has followed the Marxist game plan called for by Edward Mandell House by crusading for socialized medicine, an end to private ownership of firearms, and economic unions preceding world government through NAFTA and GATT. President Clinton has also embarked on a deliberate program, most notably via his April 1994 Presidential Decision Directive 25, which urges turning over control of U.S. military forces to the United Nations.

Destroying Checks and Balances

Americans have always been assured that tyranny cannot be established in our nation because of our Constitution's brilliant system of checks and balances. In a round-robin way, each of the three branches of government has the power to check and limit the activities of the other two. This feature of the Constitution did not materialize by chance. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, whether of one, a few, or many, or whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." But through its members, the CFR is amassing exactly the kind of tyrannical power Madison feared.

The Executive Branch is led by CFR member Bill Clinton. His top appointees include CFR members Warren Christopher, W. Anthony Lake, Bruce Babbitt, Henry Cisneros, Lloyd Bentsen, Donna Shalala, R. James Woolsey, Madeleine Albright, Alice Rivlin, Strobe Talbott, and a host of others.

The Legislative Branch's Senate has been led by CFR members George Mitchell (the Majority Leader until he retired), Patrick Moynihan, John D. Rockefeller IV, John Chafee, Hards Wofford, Christopher Dodd, Larry Pressler, Bob Graham, William Cohen, Claiborne Pell, and others. The three most important officers of the House of Representatives are CFR members: Speaker Thomas Foley, Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, and Minority leader Newt Gingrich. In addition, there are more than a dozen other members of the CFR serving in the House.

The Judicial Branch consists of the Supreme Court and all federal district and appeals courts. Of the nine justices of the nation's highest court, three are CFR members: Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer.

Checks and balances? The CFR doesn't worry about them at all. But every American should carefully consider James Madison's warning.

Grip on the Mass Media

Why are Americans unaware of the enormous clout possessed by the CFR? How can it be that an organization formed to undo the American dream and lead this nation into a one-world Marxist nightmare can achieve such a controlling influence without the people knowing about it? Why hasn't the supposedly tough and courageous mass media informed the people about this subversive takeover?

The answer, very simply, is that the CFR dominates the mass media, which only rarely reports anything about the organization. The names of hundreds of media executives and journalists can be found on the CFR membership roster. On October 30, 1993, Washington Post columnist Richard Harwood detailed the CFR's domination of his own profession in his column entitled "Ruling Class Journalists." While never condemning what he was reporting and likely steering ambitious individuals toward the Council, Harwood characterized CFR members as "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." He wrote:

In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc., Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washington Post, Karen Elliott House of the Wall Street Journal, and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine, who is now President Clinton's [Deputy Secretary of State]. The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor and various writers as well as Katharine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership. The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with the executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly news magazines, network television executives and celebrities— Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer, for example—and various columnists, among them Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland.

Americans who wish to be well-informed must seek better sources and sounder perspective such as can be found In The New American magazine. Relying on popular newspapers, magazines, and radio/television networks is asking to be programmed by the Establishment.

Secret Modus Operandi

The Council repeatedly denies that it sets policy for our nation. Yet, while discussing our nation's changing foreign policy, CFR Chairman Peter G. Peterson stated in the organization's 1989 Annual Report that "the Board of Directors and the staff of the Council have decided that this institution should play a leadership role in defining these new foreign policy agenda."

Our question is simply: How can an organization define an agenda for the nation without taking a stand or advocating a policy? The answer is that it can't. Any claim from the CFR that it is merely a debating forum open to all ideas is absurd. Even Richard Harwood knows this. In his Washington Post article mentioned previously, he wrote that the CFR journalists he listed "do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy; they help make it."

The actual content of meetings held at the group's headquarters and elsewhere remains a closely guarded secret. According to CFR bylaws, it is an "express condition of membership" that members refrain from disclosing in any way what goes on at Council meetings. Any action contravening this rule "may be regarded by the Board of Directors in Its sole discretion as ground for termination or suspension of membership."

Yet, cabinet officials, members of Congress, high-ranking military officers, and other government officials repeatedly participate at CFR functions. Such "confidential" gatherings under the aegis of a private organization (especially one founded by an individual whose goal was "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx") are totally inconsistent with proper conduct in a free country.

No CFR member is ever directly instructed to hold any particular view. Instead, government officials and media personalities supply important respectability for favored positions, and render varying degrees of disdain or contempt for the opposite view. Ambitious politicians, journalists, corporate executives, professors, and others dutifully follow the lead set for them—frequently without ever knowing whose attitude they are parroting. In this way, an agenda is indeed set and policies are established.

As a rule, slight variations on most topics are tolerated, even welcomed. But advocacy of any position outside carefully drawn limits earns scorn and ridicule. For example, discussion about increasing or decreasing U.S. funding for either the United Nations or a variety of foreign aid projects is tolerated, even welcomed. But anyone who calls for U.S. withdrawal from the world body, or who recommends that all foreign aid be terminated, jeopardizes his or her reputation with the nation's most prestigious power brokers.

Those who read CFR publications and study the editorial stance of CFR-controlled media organs know exactly which are the favored attitudes. The CFR and several like-minded groups can be expected to support the following: more pacts, treaties, and agreements that compromise U.S. sovereignty; continued praise for and reliance on the United Nations; piecemeal transfer of U.S. military forces to UN supervision and command; more and newer forms of foreign aid; undermining and isolation of any national leader who does not favor socialism and world government under a "new world order"; and submission to the radical demands of environmental extremists, population planners, and human rights crusaders who will never be satisfied until the United States no longer exists as a free and independent nation.

Some who follow the lead of the Establishment are undoubtedly committed to the world government and socialism advocated by Marx and the CFR's founders. But most who toe this line are self-promoters who are interested only in re-election, advancement, and recognition. They care little or nothing about the Constitution, their fellow citizens, and freedom in general.

The Shadows of Power

A thoroughly revealing history of the Council on Foreign Relations and its responsibility for America's decline is available in researcher James Perloff's superb book, The Shadows of Power. Unlike others who have sought to warn the American people about the pervasive power of the CFR, Mr. Perloff studied the organization’s publications from its inception in 1921. The evidence he supplies to support his condemnation is taken from the CFR itself. His important book concludes that the CFR is a major participant in an ongoing conspiratorial drive to use the U.S. government and the wealth of the American people to create power over mankind for a few diabolically driven individuals.

Mr. Perloff is careful to point out that only some of the CFR's members are completely committed to the sinister goals he exposes. He believes, as does the John Birch Society, that many CFR members, and many others who follow the group's lead, would readily switch their allegiance should widespread awareness be created about this powerful organization’s history and designs.

You can help to terminate CFR domination of our nation's affairs by reading and distributing The Shadows of Power. You can also participate in a nationwide effort to preserve freedom for the American people and independence for our nation by participating in the programs of the John Birch Society. Unless many more Americans become better informed and begin to take an active role in shaping our nation's affairs, the freedoms we have all taken for granted will disappear and the darkness of brutal totalitarianism will descend upon us. None of us wants an all-powerful tyrannical government dictating to each of us how we may live, what we may say, and whom we must serve. But all of that is surely on the horizon unless proper action is taken soon.

The John Birch Society

Founded in December 1958 by a group led by Robert Welch, the John Birch Society is named for Captain John Birch, the remarkable missionary-turned-soldier who served with exemplary valor during World War II and was brutally murdered by Chinese communists in 1945.

The Society has always sought to create awareness about the marvelous system of government given us by America’s founders and about the forces seeking to destroy it. Never a "political" organization backing candidates, the organization believes that an educated electorate is the key to victory. Its overall goals appear in the motto, "Less government, more responsibility, and—with God's help—a better world." Membership is open to men and women of good character and noble ideals from all races, ethnic backgrounds, and religions. You are cordially invited to investigate our work.

[poet]

I would be interested in your comments relative to the following which I pulled from the' neti n a general search

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

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

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

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

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

W.B. DALE - CFR International Monetary Fund

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[t-shirt]

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

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

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

CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM

by Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow

From Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998

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

IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT

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

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

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

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

ORGANIZING FOR SUCCESS

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

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

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

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

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

Also from the Council on Foriegn Relations

Beyond Border Control, Stephen E. Flynn

(November/December 2000)

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

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

[rdavis84]

Good Find on that CFR article. Why, they're more paranoid than the JBS members !!!! :-)

And almost phophetic, too, huh?

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

[rdavis84]

Kinda like their asinine view on Open Borders--------

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

 

[Victoria Delsoul]

Bump!

[Economist_MA]

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

Now that we have established that their members are pretty powerful people, we may also notice that the members encompass a pretty broad political spectrum. The common denominator seems to be that they are against isolationism. Other than that I have a hard time spotting too many similarities.

[Verginius Rufus]

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

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

[Economist_MA]

What's so asinine about it? Most (true) conservatives like free trade and booming commerce, and would like to keep our borders under control so illegals and criminals can be kept out. Or probably I missed the sarcasm.

[Economist_MA]

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

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

By your logic, anybody warning against the dangers of Nazi Germany would have been a hidden supporter of Hitler. I am sure that can't be what you mean.

[nicmarlo]

Since I am a bible believer I know there will be a one world government and religion.

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

[t-shirt]

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

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

[M. Thatcher]

BOO!

[B4Ranch]

The subject is too frightening for most people to even comnsider thinking about, so the I don't care attitude is easiest for them.

[Economist_MA]

I disagree with your assessment of the goals of the CFR, simply because their goals aren't remotely as neatly defined as you make them up. The CFR is a pretty mixed bunch of people with diverging opinions on many issues. Just read a few issues of Foreign Affairs, you'll see many different opinions and vantage points, and many articles which simply contain excellent analyis of the issues. Just like the one you were kind enough to post above.

[t-shirt]

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

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

[t-shirt]

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

LOL!!!!!

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

Just one please...

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

[B4Ranch]

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

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

[poet]

Okay, if you say so. we'll just leave it at that. Thanks for your comments. FReegards

[Economist_MA]

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

This is your view, and I respectfully disagree, mainly on operational grounds. Unless you want to turn the US into a locked-up isolationist police state there will always be a way for terrorists to infiltrate if they really want to. It's part of the price of freedom. You may be willing to pay the price necessary for total security, I am not, and I think we should just leave it at that. I still fail to see the connection to a CFR conspiracy, but you may be able to enlighten me.