I think you've made a mistake here. The CFR's members have many various and (inevitably)conflicting views, but the CFR itself doesn't hold any policy positions. The "full membership" in
In the spring, the Task Force will release its complete report, which will assess the results of the Texas summit and reflect the views of the full membership.
referred to here is the full membership of the TASK FORCE, NOT the CFR
That I may disagree with William Weld and even think it might have been a good thing Jesse Helms blocked him from becoming Ambassador to Mexico doesn't mean I have to think of him as being unpatriotic. The fact is, he did about as good a job as anyone could expect someone to do governing a far left state like Massachusetts till Mitt Rommney came along and did it better.
Sure, the membership of the CFR tends to run to the left; so does the membership of the Brookings Institution. That's because academia tends to run to the left. The views of the former (or the latter) seem not secret at all to me. If I want to read them, I can read Foreign Affairs, whose articles I usually disagree with. If I'm curious about the views of a individual member like, say, Richard Haas, I can catch him on tv going on about the virtues of Joseph Wilson and how the Bush administration lacks nuance. None of that makes them unpatriotic to me. One of the things I like about Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager and Larry Elder among other conservative spokesmen is that they accuse people of being patriotic only when they directly express ill will to American citizens and prospects, as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and other assorted moonbats have done. Even Ann Coulter's book Treason was by and large NOT accusing the left of treason, Alger Hiss aside; her point was the more subtle one that the policies of the likes of Jimmy Carter had the same effect in practice as those of someone who wanted to weaken America-- a very similar point to the one Orwell made about pacifists.
William F. Buckley, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Bill Casey, Dick Cheney, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Francis Fukuyama have all been members of the CFR. None of them are leftists, nor do they all agree with one another all the time. Samuel P. Huntington published the "Clash of Civilizations" article in “Foreign Affairs”--- that can’t be remotely described as a left wing or even neo-con essay.
I think you've made a mistake here. The CFR's members have many various and (inevitably)conflicting views, but the CFR itself doesn't hold any policy positions.
- - - -
Do you really believe that?
Have you read in-house documents of such groups over the last 40 years? Have you not seen the inexorable march toward global government included in them from the beginning; elaborated on with the passing years and achieved increasingly with the passing years?
The CFR has an agenda. And it's not more freedom for the USA nor for the world's citizens.
Actually, I've begun to believe the reports that the elite want to make all of NORTHAM a virtual natural park and remove all evidence of man except for isolated, selected retreats and power centers for the ruling elite and their support staff to reside in.
I think that's part of their plan to reduce the global population to 500,000,000. I also think New Zealand has been designated as a safe-haven--luxury retreat reserved area for the elites.