October 4th, 2007

Council on Foreign Relations

Although the formal membership in the [Council on Foreign Relations] is composed of close to 1500 of the most elite names in the worlds of government, labor, business, finance, communications, the foundations, and the academy — and despite the fact that it has staffed almost every key position of every administration since those of FDR — it is doubtful that one American in a thousand so much as recognizes the Council’s name, or that one in ten thousand can relate anything at all about its structure or purpose. (Gary Allen, via Quoty)

What is the Council on Foreign Relations? What influence does its members have on public policy? What is its origin? What is its purpose? What effect has it had on our country?

These are questions that very few Americans have an answer to. The organization receives little (if any) attention from mainstream media, and thus goes undetected as its members carry out their agenda (quite successfully I might add). Mr. Allen, author of None Dare Call It Conspiracy discussed the Council’s role and effect on American policy:

The policies promoted by the C.F.R. in the fields of defense and international relations become, with a regularity which defies the laws of chance, the official policies of the United States Government. As Liberal columnist Joseph Kraft, himself a member of the C.F.R., noted of the Council in the Harper’s article:

“It has been the seat of some basic government decisions, has set the context for many more, and has repeatedly served as a recruiting ground for ranking officials.” (Gary Allen, via Quoty)

How has the Council been involved in key government decisions? As cited above, members of the CFR have filled key positions in every presidential administration for the past fifty years. The list of members is quite extensive and features many prominent individuals. Notable as well are the presidential candidates who are members as well:

  • Hillary Clinton
  • Rudy Giuliani
  • Barack Obama
  • Fred Thompson
  • Chris Dodd
  • Mitt Romney
  • John Edwards
  • Joe Biden
  • John McCain
  • Bill Richardson

The notable exception: Ron Paul.

Given that so many power-wielding individuals are members of this organization, it is important that Americans understand what its objectives are: the end of sovereignty and so-called “isolationism”, and the promotion and implementation of a one-world government. A 1944 publication by the CFR serves as one of countless examples demonstrating the Council’s desire to abolish American sovereignty:

The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization. Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further popular education. (American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments (New York: CFR, 1944), p. 4)

Lest the reader be inclined to believe that the CFR’s goals have “softened” or changed in recent decades, the following quotes by the current President of the CFR are offered to show that they are still on course:

…states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary. (Richard N. Haass, “Sovereignty and Globalisation”, February 17, 2006)

Some have been even more blunt in stating their desires:

We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent. (CFR member James Warburg, via Quoty)

There are numerous facts documenting the pervasive influence on policy—both foreign and domestic—by this organization. Those who spurn this simple truth, deciding to live in the relative comfort and apathy that the Matrix provides them, will one day wonder how we arrived at world government without any mention in the media or public outcry.

It’s imperative that we each take the red pill and refuse to remain in ignorance. We must shun any political elitist claiming membership in this organization, for all those subscribed are in opposition to the Constitution and American republicanism. We must reject any secretive, globalist agenda that circumvents public representation and the will of “We the People”.

Rest assured, any CFR member elected to be our President will stack his/her cabinet with other CFR members who will think and act likewise, slowly sidestepping the Constitution and eroding our national sovereignty.

Do you wish to prevent such an occurrence? Then vote for Ron Paul, the only champion of the Constitution vying for the presidential office.

132 Responses to “Council on Foreign Relations”

  1. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 2:54 pm #

    I actually wouldn’t mind being a member of the CFR. What a great way to influence the world in a positive direction. Imagine if you DIDN’T have such an organization that grabbed the brightest minds and put them together to solve the world’s worst problems…

    I think it’s funny that you single out Ron Paul in such a way as to make him the SOLE candidate not a member of CFR. You’re again being disingenuous to your readers, Connor.

  2. Connor
    October 4, 2007 at 3:01 pm #

    I actually wouldn’t mind being a member of the CFR.

    Yet another example of a person who “goes along to get along”. What happens when the organization you desire to join, that wields considerable influence, is in opposition to your ideals? Do you still join in hopes of “influenc[ing] the world in a positive direction”?

    Imagine if you DIDN’T have such an organization that grabbed the brightest minds and put them together to solve the world’s worst problems…

    Brightest minds? Hmmm… Yeah, doubt that one. Remember, they count Dubya amongst their ranks. These people aren’t necessarily the “brightest minds” by any means; they simply are the country’s elite in many spheres of society: government, media, education, banking, etc.

    I think it’s funny that you single out Ron Paul in such a way as to make him the SOLE candidate not a member of CFR. You’re again being disingenuous to your readers, Connor.

    Re-read that section of the post without your inherent desire to attack and rebut everything I say, Dan. In no way did I state the Ron Paul was the sole candidate who isn’t a member of CFR. I simply said he’s a notable exception. Why? Because rest assured, any of the other “second-tier” candidates who aren’t members would probably jump at the chance (in an aim at political expediency) to join the club. Ron Paul is the only one who has stated he wouldn’t, and actively fights against everything the CFR stands for. That’s why he’s a notable exception, not the only exception.

  3. Parker (brother #3)
    October 4, 2007 at 3:23 pm #

    “I actually wouldn’t mind being a member of the CFR.”

    The thing is, you aren’t, and probably won’t be. Which means we have other people in there that probably aren’t working for our “best interest”. Which to me, seems unconstitutional, and therefore, ILLEGAL!! And not to mention going totally against what our forefathers wanted…

  4. David
    October 4, 2007 at 3:44 pm #

    This sounds secret combination-ish. I checked out your list of presidential candidates in the CFR – is there a newer list you can point me to because Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and Joe Biden were not on the list you linked to – although there were advisors to John Edwards and Joe Biden and Bill Clinton is there so Hillary is basically an honorary member. That leaves Mitt, Rudy, and Barack unexplained.

    (Note this is not about support – it’s about getting the facts. I’ll be more than happy if you can back up your original claims.)

  5. Jay
    October 4, 2007 at 3:56 pm #

    It does still make me wonder why we have a general authority who is a member of the CFR.

    Jay

  6. Connor
    October 4, 2007 at 4:08 pm #

    Here are the CFR Bios provided under their “leadership and staff” section:

    I could not find bios for the following:

  7. Connor
    October 4, 2007 at 4:10 pm #

    It does still make me wonder why we have a general authority who is a member of the CFR.

    Dunno. Does every member of the CFR believe in one world government? Perhaps not. Is every General Authority politically intelligent and cognizant of the implications of their affiliations? Perhaps not. I don’t know. But, not knowing the facts behind his decision, I’m inclined to believe that he simply doesn’t understand what the CFR is really all about.

  8. David
    October 4, 2007 at 4:45 pm #

    Thanks for those links. Call me slow, but I am not sure that those bios indicate membership. They look like information on the authors of papers being gathered and distributed by CFR. The one thing that makes me accept the possibility that they are all members is that each of them has at least one article listed that appears to have been written for the CFR. So I’m not sold yet, but I would not call you a liar either.

    Did I miss something in the post or the comments – what general authority is a member of the CFR?

  9. Jay
    October 4, 2007 at 5:02 pm #

    Elder Staheli of the seventy is a member of the CFR.

    Jay

  10. David
    October 4, 2007 at 5:07 pm #

    Where did you learn that (I already searched for his bio)?

  11. Jay
    October 4, 2007 at 5:14 pm #

    Just did a search on the Internet and noticed his name. If you do a google search for “donald staheli” and “council on foreign relations” you will find some links, one to an Ensign article where it describes him as a new general authority and gives his background, including being a chairman on the CFR.

    I don’t necessarily believe everything I read on the Internet, so if this is bogus, I’d like to know.

    Jay

  12. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 6:06 pm #

    Connor,

    What happens when the organization you desire to join, that wields considerable influence, is in opposition to your ideals?

    Well that would only be true if that organization were to actually BE in opposition to my ideals. And I don’t see the CFR as being in opposition to my ideals.

    Parker,

    And not to mention going totally against what our forefathers wanted…

    Really, and where did our Forefathers say that we couldn’t create councils that meet in secret to discuss the welfare of our nation and the world around us. If I recall correctly our very own Forefathers did meet secretly as they hashed out our Constitution. Huh, so why exactly is it wrong today?

    Connor,

    Dunno. Does every member of the CFR believe in one world government? Perhaps not. Is every General Authority politically intelligent and cognizant of the implications of their affiliations? Perhaps not. I don’t know. But, not knowing the facts behind his decision, I’m inclined to believe that he simply doesn’t understand what the CFR is really all about.

    Or mayhap YOU are in the wrong about the CFR, and it really is a benign organization where General Authorities of the church can easily join. After all, if it really is a secret combination, why would the prophet allow this general authority to continue being a general authority?

    Here is Staheli’s bio from the church’s website, where indeed it states that he is a member of the council on foreign relations.

    Mayhap y’all ought to rethink your ways on the CFR and drop the silliness from the days of Skowsen and Benson.

  13. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 6:09 pm #

    And Connor,

    I would be wary of calling a man like Elder Staheli ignorant in the ways of the world. As the start of his bio states:

    Having directed businesses in 57 countries on 6 continents, Elder Donald L. Staheli has broad international experience. “I hope the international experiences many of us are having will help us better understand and serve people in various cultures of our rapidly growing worldwide Church,” he says.

    He is well educated, well traveled and well versed in the ways of the world and in the ways of the gospel:

    He received a B.S. at Utah State University and an M.S. and a Ph.D. at the University of Illinois and then served for two years as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force.

    His professional life began with Swift and Company in 1958 in Chicago. In 1969 he joined Allied Mills, Inc., where he held senior management positions, including president and CEO.

    In 1977 he moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, to accept a position as executive vice president and director with Continental Grain Co., a large, private multinational agribusiness and financial services firm headquartered in New York City. In 1984 he became president and chief operating officer and in 1988 was named CEO, eventually becoming chairman of the board. He has served on several corporate boards.

    He is currently chairman of the U.S.-China Business Council and a director of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and the U.S.-China Society. He served as chairman of an international business leaders advisory council for the mayor of Shanghai. He is a member of the council on foreign relations and is chairman of the Points of Light Foundation, a national organization that encourages volunteer activities.

    At the time of his call to the Second Quorum of the Seventy, he was president of the Yorktown New York Stake. He has previously served as a high councilor and as a counselor in two stake presidencies and a bishopric.

    Mayhap the CFR ain’t a secret combination. Could that possibility even go through your guys’ heads? Maybe indeed Skowsen and Benson were wrong! Gasp!

  14. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 6:17 pm #

    Oh, and my wife has met him and swears that he is a good man.

  15. Kelly Winterton
    October 4, 2007 at 6:18 pm #

    The mere fact that you can’t find good, recent or conclusive membership lists for the CFR is enough for me to classify it as a less-than-forthright organization. This is just more proof of those who claim the CFR is a “secret combination.” While it professes to NOT be secret, and even publishes articles and such, what further goes on behind their “by invitation only” membership and behind closed doors meetings just can’t be as wholesome as many think. Otherwise, we would know a lot more about them, and the media wouldn’t be so tight-lipped about them and why so many appointed officials and cabinet members are CFR.

    Further proof of the questionable nature of the CFR is the fact that Ron Paul openly says he is NOT a member. Why else would he make such a claim, if not to let the world know that the CFR is not a desireable attribute for a leader and defender of the Constitution?

    Months ago I tried to research about Staheli and his CFR connection. My research turned up nothing, except for a couple of mentions on the internet about his grain company. I considered strongly writing a personal letter to Elder Staheli himself to ask him one simple question to get his personal opinion: “What benefit does your membership in the CFR have upon building up the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth?” But, I searched in vain for any kind of address or contact method for him. If Staheli himself could comment, we could be in a far better position to judge. But my frustration at lack of information just made it all the more bothersome!

    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402-p0/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html

  16. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 6:24 pm #

    Kelly,

    If Staheli himself could comment, we could be in a far better position to judge. But my frustration at lack of information just made it all the more bothersome!

    I would be very wary of smearing a man like Elder Staheli. Your comment seems to imply that he is a secretive man, befitting a dastardly secret combination like the CFR.

    It’s funny, see, someone comes on here and says bad things about Benson and Skowsen and y’all cry foul for speaking ill of the GAs, but y’all can easily question the morality and even the testimony a man like Elder Staheli has in the gospel simply because he belongs to an organization you do not agree with.

  17. Connor
    October 4, 2007 at 6:37 pm #

    And I don’t see the CFR as being in opposition to my ideals.

    Oh good, we have a globalist in our midsts. If you’re all for the CFR, then we have little political ground in common upon which to find agreement. But given your comments on this blog, that’s not a new revelation…

    Huh, so why exactly is it wrong today?

    Secret meetings are just fine, and protected by the right to free assembly. However, shaping policy of our government behind closed doors, when done by those who do not represent the people, would be detested and opposed by the Founders.

    Or mayhap YOU are in the wrong about the CFR, and it really is a benign organization where General Authorities of the church can easily join.

    As I commented above, I fully believe that there are many in the ranks of the CFR that see it as nothing more than a benign organization serving to network with other politicians in an attempt to build a better career.

    Mayhap y’all ought to rethink your ways on the CFR…

    Re-think my ways? Would you care to respond to the content of this post, instead of nitpicking comments, where it is demonstrated that the intent of the CFR is to subvert sovereignty (through conquest or consent) and push for a one-world government? Then again, you claim to find nothing wrong with the CFR, so perhaps this question is irrelevant.

    I would be wary of calling a man like Elder Staheli ignorant in the ways of the world.

    Did I ever make such a claim? No. Once again you’re twisting my words.

    Oh, and my wife has met him and swears that he is a good man.

    I’m sure there are plenty of politicians who are “good [people]”. Does that make them fit for office or equate to understanding and obeying the Constitution?

    It’s funny, see, someone comes on here and says bad things about Benson and Skowsen and y’all cry foul for speaking ill of the GAs, but y’all can easily question the morality and even the testimony a man like Elder Staheli has in the gospel simply because he belongs to an organization you do not agree with.

    You’re comparing apples and oranges in an attempt to advance your position. Nobody has staunchly defended Cleon Skousen on this blog and he was never a General Authority. The defense comes when you are in disagreement with or opposition to things that have been said over the pulpit, or in an official Church publication, to the membership at large.

    Having a political affiliation, with no declared position on an understanding of its purpose nor agreement therewith, cannot be equated. That’s like saying that we have to eat the same cereal, join the same gyms, and drive the same cars as our Church leaders. Nice try, but your comparison stinketh.

  18. Connor
    October 4, 2007 at 6:49 pm #

    Dan,

    Oh, and as a “stickler for spelling“, and one who has repeatedly called out others for their errors ([1], [2], [3]), I’d like to inform you that you have misspelled W. Cleon Skousen’s name several times ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Thought you’d like to know.

  19. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 6:56 pm #

    Connor,

    However, shaping policy of our government behind closed doors, when done by those who do not represent the people, would be detested and opposed by the Founders.

    Are you sure? Should you go back and reread your history about when Thomas Jefferson met in secret with the French to plot out the direction America would take during John Adams’ presidency? I guess we also shouldn’t talk about the Masonry that many of the Founding Fathers participated in, and its influence on their direction with the creation of our government, eh? Please, Connor, you are showing that you don’t know that much about those who created our nation. They did belong to secret organizations that influenced the direction of our nation, right from the start. So don’t go telling us today that it is something they would frown upon.

    Did I ever make such a claim? No. Once again you’re twisting my words.

    Actually you did.

    Is every General Authority politically intelligent and cognizant of the implications of their affiliations? Perhaps not. I don’t know. But, not knowing the facts behind his decision, I’m inclined to believe that he simply doesn’t understand what the CFR is really all about.

  20. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 6:58 pm #

    Um, Connor, proper names don’t count. I wouldn’t hold you accountable if you misspelled Ahmadinejad, for example. Nice try though. :)

  21. Connor
    October 4, 2007 at 7:03 pm #

    They did belong to secret organizations that influenced the direction of our nation, right from the start.

    Such as? And please do provide documentation regarding the influence their organizational affiliations had on public policy.

    Actually you did.

    Please… so stating that a man might not fully understand the history and purpose of an organization with which he is affiliated is to be equated with “calling a man like Elder Staheli ignorant in the ways of the world”? You’re making generalizations.

    Um, Connor, proper names don’t count. I wouldn’t hold you accountable if you misspelled Ahmadinejad, for example. Nice try though. :)

    Right, like when I misspelled Saddam’s name?

  22. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 7:16 pm #

    You know Connor, for one who is so adverse to secret combinations, your lack of knowledge about the Masons and the Founding Fathers is rather astounding.

  23. Parker (brother #3)
    October 4, 2007 at 7:17 pm #

    Dan,

    “If I recall correctly our very own Forefathers did meet secretly as they hashed out our Constitution. Huh, so why exactly is it wrong today?”

    They did that for freedom, the CFR is for anything BUT that…
    “We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent. (CFR member James Warburg, via Quoty)”

  24. Dan
    October 4, 2007 at 7:18 pm #

    as for Elder Staheli,

    Please… so stating that a man might not fully understand the history and purpose of an organization with which he is affiliated is to be equated with “calling a man like Elder Staheli ignorant in the ways of the world”? You’re making generalizations.

    Indeed, because the organization he belongs to is right up his alley, in the international arena. To say that someone as well read in the world as Elder Staheli would not know the real goings on of an organization he belongs to is to insult the man.

  25. Connor
    October 4, 2007 at 7:31 pm #

    You know Connor, for one who is so adverse to secret combinations, your lack of knowledge about the Masons and the Founding Fathers is rather astounding.

    I have plenty of knowledge about the Freemasons and the number of Founders that were members. But you’ve yet to show any documentation of how that membership had any effect on public policy. And besides, the masonry practiced here in the USA 250 years ago was far different from today’s, and was free of European Illuminati influence that plagued its ranks in later years.

    So please don’t claim that simply because I’ve not mentioned a subject I have an “astounding” lack of knowledge. State your claim instead of simply going on the offensive.

    To say that someone as well read in the world as Elder Staheli would not know the real goings on of an organization he belongs to is to insult the man.

    You’re making assumptions. I’m trying to find contact information to get a statement from Elder Staheli, simply to satiate my curiosity. But please don’t claim to know his intentions, motivations, knowledge, or anything else without any statements or references.

  26. Mark N
    October 5, 2007 at 1:31 am #

    Imagine if the CFR was composed only of people who were members of the LDS Church: their entire paradigm of the universe would be very different (I dare say) than it is given the current membership lineup. Evidently, it’s composed of at least some people who believe that might makes right, and that the United States is somehow uniquely bestowed with the wisdom that allows it to direct the lives of millions of people around the globe.

    I’m not sure that such a viewpoint lines up all that well with what the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to do, and what our purpose here on Earth is.

    People who are working off of the wrong map can’t help but to get us lost in the woods, every time.

  27. Dan
    October 5, 2007 at 2:26 am #

    Mark,

    I hate to say this to you, but President Hinckley’s “War and Peace” talk fully supported CFR-member run war in Iraq.

  28. Jay
    October 5, 2007 at 3:07 am #

    Let’s not mix up facts with opinions. What you should say is that, “In my opinion, President Hinckley’s “War and Peace” talk fully supported CFR-member run war in Iraq.”

    In my opinion, nothing can be further from the truth.

    Jay

  29. Dan
    October 5, 2007 at 3:48 am #

    Jay,

    George Bush and Dick Cheney are CFR members, right? George Bush and Dick Cheney are the ultimate supporters of the war, right? President Hinckley’s War and Peace talk was in SUPPORT of that war. He hedged his language far more than a Bush supporter would, but read closely and you’ll find his own opinion regarding the matter was in support of the CFR run war.

    For reference, here is his talk.

    He begins with this:

    And so I venture to say something about the war and the gospel we teach. I spoke of this somewhat in our October conference of 2001. When I came to this pulpit at that time, the war against terrorism had just begun. The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of that conflict. Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion.

    He sees Iraq as an outgrowth of the war in Afghanistan (even though it really isn’t). He hoped it would have been over quick (was not going to happen). He then brings up the war in heaven:

    The book of Revelation speaks briefly of what must have been a terrible conflict for the minds and loyalties of God’s children…which tells of Satan’s plan to destroy the agency of man.

    I always wondered why he brought up the war in heaven when talking about a war that supposedly deals with a “fight against evil.” Could President Hinckley think this war in Iraq is another extension of our war in heaven? He then goes on to bring up the “darker side” of conflicts and says:

    I think our Father in Heaven must have wept as He has looked down upon His children through the centuries as they have squandered their divine birthright in ruthlessly destroying one another.

    Indeed, President Hinckley. But he doesn’t bring this up to denounce our warfare. Instead he brings this up to highlight the troubles with dictators. Because immediately after he says:

    In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle.

    But he doesn’t say this, again, to denounce warfare. Because he next highlights a letter from a Marine’s mom whose son is heading to war who says:

    “he came home on leave and asked me to go for a walk. . . . He had his arm around me and he told me about going to war. He . . . said, ‘Mom, I have to go so you and the family can be free, free to worship as you please. . . . And if it costs me my life . . . then giving my life is worth it.’ ” He is now there again and has written to his family recently, saying, “I am proud to be here serving my nation and our way of life. . . . I feel a lot safer knowing our Heavenly Father is with me.”

    It sure sounds like President Hinckley is moved by this man going off to fight dictators in support of “our freedoms.” We then come to where President Hinckley places far too much faith in George Bush and Dick Cheney. When he asks where does the church stand in all this he states:

    But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally

    This is where President Hinckley gets off track, as he assumes that 1) this principle is true and 2) the government won’t use it for nefarious purposes. He then states:

    In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.

    And now we get to what he personally believes. We may all dissent, and so on, but he sees a greater importance than speaking out against this war. It “governs [his] personal feelings and dictates [his] personal loyalties.”

    And this is where we get into the justification of this war as being similar to that of Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty (even though Captain Moroni never ever guided the Nephites to “free” people in captivity—Captain Moroni defended his nation from an aggressive attack by the Lamanites. Captain Moroni never took the battle into Lamanite lands to “free” Lamanites from the oppressive rule by those above them). He adds:

    The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).
    And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.
    “And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren” (Alma 46:12–13).
    It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.

    That’s a fairly expansive and stretched interpretation of Captain Moroni’s Title of Liberty, in my opinion. I mean the Title of Liberty states: “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children“. Note the key word: “our.” Not “theirs” nor “everyone’s”. But hey, that’s probably just a personal interpretation. In any case, President Hinckley continues, and this is where he goes too far:

    This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy.

    Really? We’re “committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy?” When were the Nephites “committed to the defense of liberty” among the Lamanites? I know of no instance at all in the Book of Mormon where the Nephites took war to the Lamanites simply in “defense of liberty where it was in jeopardy.” In fact, I know of no instance ever in the history of the world, President Hinckley. Why suddenly begin with THIS war? Where were you to speak out when our government instigated coups in numerous parts of the world to undermine democratically elected governments, like the one in Iran in the 1950s, or Chile in the 1970s? If we truly are “committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy,” surely we should be fighting against our own government, President Hinckley. But he doesn’t do that, does he? In fact, President Hinckley has had close relations with the Bush administration.

    And it gets worse, President Hinckley then states:

    It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

    Really? I wonder if he wishes to take these words back.

    The rest of his talk is a prayer that we would all be well in these times of trouble.

    I’m sorry Jay, but President Hinckley’s own words are quite clearly in favor of this conflict, at least as was sold to him by the bamboozling Bush administration. President Hinckley, being a strong conservative, agreed with their rationale, as faulty as it was. I really wonder what he thinks these days of this talk, if he realizes that he truly was bamboozled by the Bush administration.

    Or does the Lord indeed fully back this kind of warfare. But he wouldn’t. “By their fruits, ye shall know them,” the Lord has said in the past. The fruits of the war in Iraq have all been very poisonous to us all. They cannot come from God, according to the scriptures.

  30. Jay
    October 5, 2007 at 6:15 am #

    Good try. Totally off base.

    Jay

  31. Dan
    October 5, 2007 at 8:04 am #

    Jay,

    Please, enlighten me. :)

  32. Jay
    October 5, 2007 at 9:20 am #

    You haven’t added anything new to the long worn-out debate over President Hinckley’s “War and Peace” talk. A man hears what he wants to hear . . . .

    As with any talk given in general conference, we are to regard it as scripture, and as our walk and talk for the next six months. I have read, pondered and prayed about his talk, many times, and my understanding of it is quite different than yours. Does that mean that one of us is listening to, or inspired by an evil spirit? I dunno . . . all I know is that I totally disagree with your interpretation of his talk.

    I don’t believe that President Hinckely would support something that is illegal, nor would he expect me to. Therefor, I reject your notion that he is/was supportive of this war, in total.

    More importantly to me is the other counsel that President Hinckley gives about treating others kindly. I have read your many posts on this blog and you are simply not a very nice person. You insult, call names (like your recent calling of someone a dope), and are incredibly sarcastic. Being nice is of much more value than being right. “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”

    Honestly, I’m really not interested in what you know or claim to know until I see you treating others with a little bit of kindness.

    Jay

  33. Dan
    October 5, 2007 at 9:52 am #

    Jay,

    I don’t believe that President Hinckely would support something that is illegal, nor would he expect me to. Therefor, I reject your notion that he is/was supportive of this war, in total.

    You are assuming here that President Hinckley shares your view that the war in Iraq was illegal. I highly doubt he believes it was illegal. If he did, he certainly would have framed his position far differently.

  34. Jay
    October 5, 2007 at 10:21 am #

    That is your opinion. I don’t think that it would be politically wise (for the Church) for him to take any other position than what he did, using caution and remaining very vague. But regardless, the war is and was totally illegal and I will continue to support the laws of the land.

    Jay

  35. Parker (brother #3)
    October 5, 2007 at 10:24 am #

    so dan you never really came back to what I said…
    is that because you can’t think of anything to say?

  36. Dan
    October 5, 2007 at 10:46 am #

    Parker,

    You said that the CFR is for anything BUT freedom. I’m sorry, Parker, but you have been misinformed.

    Jay,

    I don’t think that it would be politically wise (for the Church) for him to take any other position than what he did, using caution and remaining very vague.

    It didn’t sound vague to me then, and it has not to me today. In fact, the more I read his talk, the more I see that he indeed endorsed the war.

    He said:

    It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.

    And he said:

    Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy.

    And he said:

    But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally

    How can you NOT look at his words and come to the conclusion that he supported the war in 2003?

  37. Jay
    October 5, 2007 at 11:12 am #

    That would be my question to you . . . how can you look at those words and come to the conclusion that he is in support of an illegal war?

    You can spin his words to mean anything you want. It doesn’t bother me.

    Jay

  38. Dan
    October 5, 2007 at 11:17 am #

    Jay,

    how can you look at those words and come to the conclusion that he is in support of an illegal war?

    Very simple. In his eyes, the war was not illegal.

  39. Parker (brother #3)
    October 5, 2007 at 11:24 am #

    How does a one world government bring about freedom? Seems to me like it would limit it… please explain as to why I am Mr. Misinformed…

  40. Dan
    October 5, 2007 at 11:26 am #

    Parker,

    How does our own government bring us freedom?

  41. Jay
    October 5, 2007 at 11:28 am #

    In his eyes, the war was not illegal.

    Are you claiming to know what he was thinking?

    Jay

  42. Connor
    October 5, 2007 at 11:28 am #

    Dan,

    Please answer Parker’s question instead of offering one of your own. As you are one who agrees with the CFR, I’m actually interested to know if/why you believe world government would secure personal liberty.

  43. Dan
    October 5, 2007 at 11:55 am #

    Connor,

    The reason I answer back with a question of my own is because the implication of a ‘world government’ is that it somehow takes away your freedom. Well, what if that ‘world government’ was designed much like our own. What really is the difference between a system of government at a more regional level such as the United States, and that at a larger scale? So my question is fairly simple, how does our own government bring us freedom? If our own government can bring us freedom, why can’t a government on a larger scale do the same? or better yet, why would a government on a larger scale somehow REDUCE our freedom?

    Moreover, a world body like that of the UN is designed much like a representative body, wherein we the people (of each particular nation) have the final say on who we wish to represent us at the governing body, or even the president. Sometimes though I think many people like you, Connor, think that our federal government is too much, and that really we only should be governed at the local and state level. I can see the reasoning behind that, but alas, that direction is filled with danger and violence. Note that since the federal government flexed its muscles in the Civil War, the states have not gone to war with each other anymore.

    I’m personally not an advocate of a world government. There are too many dangers in that creation. But I am an advocate of international norms and regulations that have teeth behind them. Unfortunately for such a creation, there has to be some kind of ruling body that enforces the rules. I personally like how the UN has functioned to this point. It hasn’t been pretty, and there have been many instances where the UN has failed (such as stopping the United States from invading Iraq), but for the most part, the UN has done a spectacular job at slowing the march to war that so many nations have desired these past 60 years.

    Perhaps we humans really are so immature that the best option is no option and we should just let each other at each others’ throats.

  44. Russell Page
    October 5, 2007 at 3:24 pm #

    Connor obviously supports Ron Paul. Connor is not in my opinion trying to lead anyone to believe that he is trying to be objective about that, so to single out Ron Paul as a candidate who is not a part of the CFR is completely understandable.

    What I don’t understand is the lame and manipulative attacks about him being disingenuous as though he is somehow supposed to not show some sort of bias toward Ron Paul for the sake of his readers.

  45. Jay
    October 5, 2007 at 3:48 pm #

    Maybe I am misunderstanding you, Russel, but it seems to me that Connor is being very objective. The fact that he has a bias towards Ron Paul is based, at least partially, on the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate among all the democrats and republicans who doesn’t have contempt for the Constitution. There’s nothing disingenuous about that.

    Jay

  46. Carissa
    October 5, 2007 at 8:31 pm #

    where did our Forefathers say that we couldn’t create councils that meet in secret to discuss the welfare of our nation and the world around us. If I recall correctly our very own Forefathers did meet secretly as they hashed out our Constitution. Huh, so why exactly is it wrong today?

    Wow. That is quite a statement. The Convention debates were done secretly rather than publicly so the delegates could make compromises, change their positions, and progressively move toward some kind of consensus without the awkwardness or embarrassment of close public scrutiny. After they “hashed things out” their ideas were laid out for public scrutiny during the process of ratification.

    This doesn’t exactly correlate to how the CFR seems to work. First of all, the CFR was created by a group of scholars and corporate elites, not elected representatives. They don’t simply “discuss the welfare of our nation and the world” and then openly lay out their “suggestions” or “ideas” for public and congressional scrutiny and approval.

    Joseph Kraft, a journalist and former member of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, said the Council “comes close to being an organ of what C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite – a group of men, similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes.

    America’s foreign and domestic policies should not be shaped from behind the scenes. They should be discussed openly and voted upon by our representatives. If this is not the case, what good is our republican form of government?

  47. Dan
    October 6, 2007 at 2:10 pm #

    Carissa,

    Do the Apostles and First Presidency release their notes from their private meetings regarding the direction they take the church and, well, the world?

  48. Connor
    October 6, 2007 at 2:13 pm #

    Do the Apostles and First Presidency release their notes from their private meetings regarding the direction they take the church and, well, the world?

    Church leadership is entirely different from that of a (true) representative government. We are not represented by our Church leaders, the Lord is. They do not speak on our behalf, they speak on the Lord’s behalf.

    And so, the GAs are not required nor urged to release notes from their meetings, since the Church is a voluntary organization of individuals who can leave at any time, and have no say in its direction or policies.

    One is top down, the other is (or, well, should be) bottom up.

  49. Dan
    October 6, 2007 at 3:20 pm #

    But Connor,

    Don’t we want to set up a theology at some point?

    In any case, it doesn’t matter, because it isn’t against the Constitution to have groups meet, even in secret, to discuss the strategies and directions this country should take. It also isn’t against scripture. And it even isn’t a good indication that that particular organization is a “secret combination” in the vein of those we have been warned about.

    And as far as the CFR is concerned, let me tell you one really good reason to have it, and other similar organizations out there for political thinkers.

    The masses will not elect brilliant men to represent them. Are you going to leave it in the hands of stupid men to run your country?

    Now, I understand that both Cheney and Bush are members of CFR. I’m not holding up CFR as a perfect institution. However, its purpose is not nefarious. It is not the secret combination you seek.

  50. Connor
    October 6, 2007 at 3:41 pm #

    Don’t we want to set up a theology at some point?

    I sure don’t. I want to believe and followed revealed truths, not some man-made doctrine that was “set up”.

    In any case, it doesn’t matter, because it isn’t against the Constitution to have groups meet, even in secret, to discuss the strategies and directions this country should take.

    Very true. But it’s hardly republican and Constitutional to have such policies be implemented, often without Congress’ consent, almost without fail.

    And it even isn’t a good indication that that particular organization is a “secret combination” in the vein of those we have been warned about.

    Hmmm.. may I remind you of the following scripture:

    And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the apoor and the meek, and the humble followers of God. (Hel. 6:39)

    When 16 out of 17 policy makers in this picture are members of CFR, shouldn’t one raise an eyebrow and question who (and what ideology) has obtained “sole management” of the government”?

    The masses will not elect brilliant men to represent them.

    Yeah… that George Washington was a real ignoramus.

    Are you going to leave it in the hands of stupid men to run your country?

    You have no faith in the American voter. Were you to remove the impediments created by the modern two party system, Diebold, and special interest groups, I’m sure you’d see plenty of brilliant men being supported rather than those with proper connections whom the media loves to anoint.

    Are you going to live your country in the hands of men who dislike the Constitution and seek to have political elitists control its laws? As for me and my house, we’ll support honest and wise men.

    It is not the secret combination you seek.

    What makes you think there is just one?

  51. Sam Hennis
    October 6, 2007 at 5:12 pm #

    Dan says,

    The masses will not elect brilliant men to represent them. Are you going to leave it in the hands of stupid men to run your country?

    Thomas Jefferson said:

    I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.

  52. Sam Hennis
    October 6, 2007 at 5:15 pm #

    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.

    Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

  53. Dan
    October 6, 2007 at 8:25 pm #

    Connor,

    Yeah… that George Washington was a real ignoramus.

    I guess I shouldn’t remind you and Sam Hennis that George Washington was NOT elected by the masses, but by white landowners.

    Besides, wasn’t the point of a representative republic so that the choices a nation takes are NOT left in the hands of the masses? But rather in the hands of a governing elite?

  54. Carissa
    October 6, 2007 at 8:32 pm #

    Ya, an elected governing “elite” that is openly accountable to the people.

  55. Connor
    October 6, 2007 at 9:13 pm #

    …George Washington was NOT elected by the masses, but by white landowners.

    Which constituted, at the time, the body of voters able to elect him to office.

    Besides, wasn’t the point of a representative republic so that the choices a nation takes are NOT left in the hands of the masses?

    Isn’t the point of representation to reflect the will of the majority?

    The fundamental principle of our Constitution enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail. (George Washington, 1794 State of the Union address)

  56. Dan
    October 6, 2007 at 9:20 pm #

    Connor, Connor,

    If the “will of the majority shall prevail” then these past seven years would have been run by Al Gore. Please. George Washington never envisioned that the electoral college would actually give Americans a president they did not specifically choose.

    Carissa,

    Ya, an elected governing “elite” that is openly accountable to the people.

    There does end up being someone held accountable by the people – the elected officials who end up endorsing and promoting a policy coming from CFR or any other outside body. I thought this was fairly clear. That is, if the people actually wish to punish those elected officials. The think tank that provides a policy or strategy gets “punished” by losing influence and acceptability. But since they are not beholden to the taxpayer, they cannot be held accountable by the taxpayer. Those elected officials who end up endorsing whatever policy from the think tank, they ARE accountable to the people, and they SHOULD hold responsibility for endorsing and promoting whatever strategy or policy they choose.

    To this point, I see nothing wrong.

  57. Connor
    October 6, 2007 at 10:41 pm #

    Dan, Dan (thought I’d continue your double name quasi-condescending introduction..)

    If the “will of the majority shall prevail” then these past seven years would have been run by Al Gore.

    If we were a democracy, yes. Remember, we are a Constitutional republic. That means our system is stacked with representation instead of a democratic mob rule policy allowing for the “tyranny of the majority” the Founders often feared.

    There does end up being someone held accountable by the people – the elected officials who end up endorsing and promoting a policy coming from CFR or any other outside body.

    And what happens when 9/10 of the presidential candidates are members of or support CFR, and the candidates who opposite it are sidelined by the media conglomerates that are corporate members themselves? Sorry, but as I argued in this post, very few Americans know anything at all about the CFR and hence are incapable of holding the public officials accountable for the workings of a secret group of men.

  58. Dan
    October 7, 2007 at 8:22 am #

    So then you DON’T agree with George Washington that the will of the majority shall prevail? Or was he wrong?

    And what happens when 9/10 of the presidential candidates are members of or support CFR, and the candidates who opposite it are sidelined by the media conglomerates that are corporate members themselves

    Connor, think tanks operate in a market. They make money off their results. If nearly all of the candidates feel their strategies are the best, then that’s what the market calls for. Just like in the computer market, 90 some odd percent want Microsoft. That’s capitalism at work. I would think you would love this.

    …or are you saying that there just happen to be some areas that should not be private? ;)

    Sorry, but as I argued in this post, very few Americans know anything at all about the CFR and hence are incapable of holding the public officials accountable for the workings of a secret group of men.

    You might want to rethink this sentence. It doesn’t matter of the vast majority of Americans do not know what the CFR is about. The vast majority of Americans can see the results of the policies adopted by elected officials and hold those elected officials accountable. Or they may choose to accept those strategies as the course America should take.

  59. Josh Williams
    October 7, 2007 at 11:26 am #

    I want to comment on the quote by Richard Haass.

    In reality, corporations, especially global ones absolutely require strong national sovereignty, rule of law, and legal/regulatory oversight, from the states and countries that they operate in.

    Any corporation that seeks to undermine or circumvent, rather than benefit and uphold, the countries that it operates in, is going to end up shooting itself in the stomach. History hasn’t been kind to business interests that have attempted to supersede national governments. Browbeating foreign nations to allow businesses to do as they please inside their countries, amounts to economic conquest. To imply that you, the international corporation, are equal or superior to entire national governments is stunningly arrogant.

    Furthermore, national sovereignty, and insulationism are hardly the same thing. For a country to cede it’s national interests, in favor of the interests of global corporations is absurd.

    While I think that a having an international body to govern and regulate international business, is a good idea in theory, such a body needs to be composed of democratically elected officials, not global business leaders-by association only. Furthermore, it needs to be subservient to it’s member nations, not above and beyond them ; it’s goal would be merely to provide a safety net against unsound global business practices, not to meddle in national policy.

    Haass seems to imply, not that there needs to be new rules and treaties regulating global business, but that he, the CFR, and the US government need to be the ones to do it. I don’t know why he assumes that he has anything other than American interests, and his own in mind.

    ……………..

    I don’t know very much about the CFR itself, so I don’t think I can comment much on the issue…. But if Allen is correct, that such a closed door, chummy organization has been allowed to influence and determine American foreign policy for decades, then that is probably a trend that needs to be corrected.

  60. Michael L. McKee
    October 8, 2007 at 5:23 am #

    Dan

    Your methods of trying to dominate and control a conversation are always obvious to anyone who understands the inner workings of a troubled mind. Those who seek constant attention and approval tend to utilize a bullying tactic to compensate for their fear of rejection. In the case of most anything Connor has to say, you immediately want to dispel any notion a reader of his words may have that his topic is worthy of consideration. The adversary is masterful at this kind of deceptive interference, and you seem to follow his lead quite adeptly. Of course, it is not my intention to cast any undue aspersions in your direction, however I do believe you should occasionally attempt to veil your intentions with a little less authoritative exuberance. You see Dan, it is quite possible that the vast amount of intelligence you possess is actually only useless information which you have unwittingly been led to believe should be of great value to the masses of intellectually deficient readers who would like to participate in the conversation. While I myself seldom take the time to fully appreciate your constant interjections of opinionated conversational musings, I would like to say that you are, if nothing else, persistent in your attempts to sway the less enlightened away from the possibility of finding anything useful in the words of anyone other than yourself. In other words, you are boring.

    While I am in such a mean-spirited mood, I should like to also attempt to explain your obvious disdain for anything ever said by W. Cleon Skousen and President Ezra Taft Benson. You, young man, will never be able to step outside of the shadows of these men. Perhaps you will one day realize that their greatest attribute was intellectual humility, not worldly arrogance.

  61. Dan
    October 8, 2007 at 8:33 am #

    Note the personal insults in Mr. McKee’s comments. Instead of talking about the subject, he makes me the subject, basically calling me Satan’s minion.

    If you disagree with me, Mr. McKee, then let it be known what you disagree on and stop being insulting.

  62. Jay
    October 8, 2007 at 11:14 am #

    I disagree with both of you being insulting. Yes, that was insulting, Dan, and probably not appropriate, but you are also insulting in your comments to people, which is also inappropriate. It’s not becoming of Christians or of Latter-day Saints. I think we should all use a measure of kindness in our disagreements.

    Jay

  63. Michael L. McKee
    October 9, 2007 at 5:44 am #

    Jay

    You are absolutely correct in your assertions concerning my comments. They were not appropriate. I appreciate your corrective efforts, and while I cannot speak for others, I do wish to offer my apologies to you and others who participate in a manner which is not commensurate with invoking untoward commentary. I shall, in the future, attempt to refrain from utilizing such caustic remarks.

  64. Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 7:19 am #

    Funny how Mr. McKee doesn’t apologize to the person he insulted.

  65. Connor
    October 9, 2007 at 10:16 am #

    Funny how Mr. McKee doesn’t apologize to the person he insulted.

    Pot, meet kettle. Have you ever once apologized for any of your comments I’ve called out as being condescending, overly sarcastic, or flat out rude? While I find some accuracy and truth in Michael’s original comment, the delivery might have been better. But don’t demand an apology when you aren’t willing to offer one yourself.

    Can’t we all just get along? :)

  66. Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 11:13 am #

    Connor,

    What was truthful and accurate in Michael’s comment? Was it this?

    to anyone who understands the inner workings of a troubled mind.

    Or this?

    The adversary is masterful at this kind of deceptive interference, and you seem to follow his lead quite adeptly.

    Or this?

    You see Dan, it is quite possible that the vast amount of intelligence you possess is actually only useless information

    Or this?

    In other words, you are boring.

    Please, if I’m anything it certainly is NOT boring.

  67. Connor
    October 9, 2007 at 11:18 am #

    No, it was this:

    Your methods of trying to dominate and control a conversation are always obvious…

    and this:

    In the case of most anything Connor has to say, you immediately want to dispel any notion a reader of his words may have that his topic is worthy of consideration.

    and this:

    …you are, if nothing else, persistent in your attempts to sway the less enlightened away from the possibility of finding anything useful in the words of anyone other than yourself.

    …which is why I said some accuracy and truth was contained in his comment.

    And no, you’re not boring.

    I think we can all learn to play nicer. No arrogance, no smug condescension, but how about some equal respect, humility, and a desire to be edified and rejoice together?

  68. Jay
    October 9, 2007 at 11:33 am #

    Michael expressed his frustration about the way you act and treat people and his feelings were understandable. I only pointed out that it wasn’t done in a kind way. He offered to change and I think that was good of him to do so. You, on the other hand are routinely rude to people and seem to have no qualms about it, and pointed out that Michael didn’t apologize to you. Are you suggesting that he do something that you are not mature enough to do, yourself?

    Jay

  69. Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 2:45 pm #

    I’ll apologize to you all once Michael apologizes to me. That sounds pretty fair to me.

  70. Connor
    October 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm #

    That sounds pretty fair to me.

    That sounds a bit childish to me…

  71. Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 2:53 pm #

    calling someone Satan’s minion is also childish, Connor.

  72. Connor
    October 9, 2007 at 3:01 pm #

    calling someone Satan’s minion is also childish, Connor.

    Dan, you very well know that I would agree with that statement. I don’t stand by those statements Michael made, as I noted earlier. I’m simply asking you, as I have previously in different words, to be the bigger man and apologize—without qualification. Why demand that Michael do so first, when others have made such demands of you on previous posts before this even happened? Are you really that unwilling to commit to be less condescending when addressing others, that you are mandating that another do so first? Such a proposition shows a lack of sincerity, and any apology you would offer after Michael’s would surely be hollow and insincere, since it was not offered freely and directly.

  73. Jay
    October 9, 2007 at 3:36 pm #

    Personally, I’d rather not hear an apology unless it is heartfelt and without strings. Connor stated it well. And I really don’t care whether the two want to email each other and take care of it off line. In fact, that would probably be my preference. But my preference would be to focus on issues and not on the people who express their opinions. Once it gets personal, which politics so often does, it loses my interest.

    Did anyone listen to the press conference after general conference? I was impressed with President Eyring’s description of the brethren and how they could so fiercely disagree on things, but yet remain unified. I know that’s a lot to expect here, especially with such volatile topics, but it never hurts to try to learn from the brethren. We can agree to disagree without being rude to each other, can’t we?

    Jay

  74. Connor
    October 9, 2007 at 3:42 pm #

    Thanks Jay, excellent points I agree with. Let’s all try to keep it civil. :)

    Kum-ba-yah… okay, just kidding.

  75. Kelly Winterton
    October 9, 2007 at 4:12 pm #

    Oh, by the way, wasn’t the thread about CFR? We sure strayed a long ways. What I learned though, was that there are different opinions about the CFR. Most say it is probably bad, but one person thinks it is good.

  76. Jay
    October 9, 2007 at 4:27 pm #

    Connor, I was thinking more along the lines of teaching the whole world to sing, growing apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle doves and stuff like that . . .

    :P

    Yes, Kelly, we did get a little off track. It would appear that most of us have serious concerns about the CFR, however, Dan would be the one exception.

    One of the things that I’ve also wondered about. Many years ago, Ezra Taft Benson was speaking in general conference and said that every member should read “None Dare Call It Conspiracy.” Now, this was general conference, where we are suposed to regard the talks as scripture. Having heard that, I promptly got a copy of the book and read it. I was intrigued and of course, determined that the CFR was an evil organization. For those who have read the book, the CFR is one of the main subjects of the book.

    Anyway, and I’ve only seen this happen two or three times that I can think of, when the published version of his talk came out, there was no mention of the book. None! What else can I think but that the first presidency edited the talk? Beyond that, one can only venture where there was a disagreement or problem.

    President Benson delivered his “The Proper Role of Government” speech many times during his apostleship, even shortly before his death. There was never any direction from the first presidency for him to not give that talk. At least none that I ever heard of. It is one of my favorite political discourses of all time.

    While there is no mention of the CFR in that speech, I don’t know how anyone could listen to it and not have a problem with the CFR or the United Nations. That is, anyway, if you accept his discussion of the proper role of government. I know that Dan doesn’t appear to agree with much of what Elder Benson taught, but as for me, I believe he was an inspired, godly man and thank heaven for his life and defense of our Constitution.

    Jay

  77. Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm #

    Jay,

    But my preference would be to focus on issues and not on the people who express their opinions. Once it gets personal, which politics so often does, it loses my interest.

    You realize you say this AFTER making it personal, by bringing up how condescending I may be, and all. Why did YOU not stick to the subject at hand? That’s what I was doing the whole time. I never made it personal.

  78. Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 5:46 pm #

    Jay,

    I know that Dan doesn’t appear to agree with much of what Elder Benson taught, but as for me, I believe he was an inspired, godly man and thank heaven for his life and defense of our Constitution.

    Hold on a sec, you seem to assume here that I somehow DON’T think President Benson was inspired as a prophet. He was. Politically I will disagree with him to my dying breath.

  79. Jay
    October 9, 2007 at 6:00 pm #

    I didn’t make any such assumptions. We’re talking about politics, Dan. Besides, as a prophet, he often spoke on politics. So I have to wonder if you only agreed with his prophetic counsel as long as it didn’t include politics.

    Jay

  80. Kelly Winterton
    October 9, 2007 at 7:29 pm #

    Mitt Romney claims he is NOT a member of the CFR.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjALSwmmheo

  81. Dan
    October 10, 2007 at 2:51 am #

    Jay,

    No, not all. Just the things that dealt with Cleon Skousen.

  82. Chris
    October 10, 2007 at 8:29 am #

    You know, you specifically state that Mitt Romney is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but yet the link you provided to a list of members does not include him.
    The north American union is real, and is happening. The CFR is real too; but please get your facts straight. When you contradict yourself in your own blog you look like an idiot.

  83. Connor
    October 10, 2007 at 8:36 am #

    Chris,

    Before you call somebody an idiot, please read the comments where your question is addressed. Quick to judge, are we?

  84. Kelly Winterton
    October 10, 2007 at 4:23 pm #

    I have read some internet sources that say Mitt is a CFR member. But, current membership lists are not easily obtainable, as far as I know. Romney himself claims he is NOT a member, but I don’t know the exact date he made that claim. Perhaps he is a member, but lied, or perhaps he really isn’t a member.

    But what is apparently NOT disputable, is the fact that the CFR posts his bio, and Mitt has written an article for publication on CFR’s site. This means that if he is not a member, he is at least very involved and cozy with the CFR.

    Also not in dispute is the fact that Mitt openly tells people he isn’t CFR, as if he wants to cover up any affiliation he has with the CFR. Apparently CFR membership is not something to be proud of if you are a presidential candidate.

    It seems Mitt wants to play both sides at one time – – “No, I am not a member,” and then at the same time “Yes, I know foreign policy because the CFR publishes the articles I write for them.” (kinda like – yes I drink alcohol, but I’m not an alcoholic) (or, yes, I smoked marijuana, but I didn’t inhale)

    Apparently it is very adventageous to have affiliations with CFR if you are a candidate, because historically most of the cabinets have been staffed by CFR members.

  85. Chris
    October 11, 2007 at 6:43 am #

    If you really look at the CFR website, they have bios of ALL presidential candidates.. including Ron Paul, but you’re not going to convince me that Ron Paul has anything to do with the CFR.
    Trust me, I’m on the same side as you. The point I was making is that you’re contradicting yourself by saying that Romney is a CFR member, and the list you have a link to doesn’t name him as a member.

  86. Dan
    October 11, 2007 at 7:20 am #

    It doesn’t matter if Romney is a CFR member or not. A General Authority of the Church, a member of the Quorum of the Seventy is a member of CFR. That right there tells me it is not a secret combination, if we were to leave it solely to members of the church being members of this dastardly organization.

  87. Connor
    October 11, 2007 at 8:03 am #

    Chris,

    If you really look at the CFR website, they have bios of ALL presidential candidates.. including Ron Paul

    Link?

    The links I provided above are to the “leadership and staff” section, not simply the “2008 candidates” section.

    Dan,

    That right there tells me it is not a secret combination, if we were to leave it solely to members of the church being members of this dastardly organization.

    I have emailed Elder Staheli to clarify and am awaiting response. You may wish to think all is well in CFR-land simply because of one GA’s membership, but I’ll wait on judgment for that one.

  88. Dan
    October 11, 2007 at 9:01 am #

    I’m curious, what did you ask him to clarify? If CFR was a secret combination? If he, as a GA was in cahoots with devil worshipers? ;)

  89. RAS1142
    October 20, 2007 at 1:54 am #

    LOOK IT HAS TAKING THE CFR, TC GLOBALISTS DECADES TO GET THIS FAR, THE DECK IS STACKED, THE FIX IS IN, THINK WHY ARE OUR BORDERS OPEN, WHO WANTS THEM OPEN, THE GLOBALISTS THAT WHO GREED, WHO ARE THE GLOBALIISTS, ALL ARE MEMBERS OF CFR OR TC . IF CONGRESS IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND WE WANT THE BORDERS SECURED, WHY ARE THEY NOT, ENOUGH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE CFR MEMBERS THAT WHY. THIS JUST ONE EXAMPLE, OF THE CONTROL THE CFR HAS ON OUR GOVERNMENT. SO IF ALL THE TOP TIER CANDIDATES FROM BOTH PARTY’S ARE MEMBERS OF CFR, AND ONE BECOMES PRESIDENT, WILL THE PEOPLE HAVE VOICE IN GOVERNMENT I THINK NOT. THATS WHY RON PAUL IS THE BEST CHOICE HE WILL SEE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE HEARD IN CCONGRESS, AND GIVE US BACK OUR COUNTRY, WE ARE THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. NOT THE GOVERNMENT. IF NOT YOU WILL HAVE TO GO TO NIGHT SCHOOL, WAIT FORGET THAT GO TO DAY SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU WOULD;NT HAVE A JOB ANYWAY AND LEARN SPANISH.
    TAKE CARE RAS

  90. Jay
    October 20, 2007 at 2:55 pm #

    RAS,

    Next time use lower case when you post, please. All upper case is bad etiquette, implies that you’re yelling at us, and it’s no fun to read.

    Jay

  91. Kelly Winterton
    October 29, 2007 at 9:40 pm #

    Try this link for proof that presidential candidates DO NOT want their association with the CFR to be made public.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg

    You can find Cheney admitting he purposely covered up the fact that he’s CFR while he was campaigning. It is toward the end of the clip, at about one minute and 35 seconds into it.

  92. Dan
    October 29, 2007 at 10:11 pm #

    Um, Kelly, there’s a good reason why Cheney didn’t mention his membership with the CFR in his election bid in Wyoming. Because Wyoming is full of conspiracy theorists who think CFR is the bane of all evil. Cheney was, as he always does, merely pandering to his voters, tickling all their right spots, and staying silent at the appropriate things. Nothing nefarious.

    (I can’t believe I’m defending Dick Cheney! Ugh, gotta go brush my teeth again).

  93. Kelly Winterton
    October 29, 2007 at 10:24 pm #

    Dan, I’m sure you’re glad that you are not one of those conspiracy theorists.

    I am proud to be one of those conspiracy theorists.

  94. Dan
    October 30, 2007 at 3:53 am #

    Um, that is not a complimentary label, Kelly.

  95. Alicia
    November 1, 2007 at 1:50 pm #

    I’m a conspiracy theorist too. It’s pretty much commanded that you be one in the book of Ether.

    From Ether 8:22-25:
    “. . . suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain… …Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation… …For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; . . .” Read all the parts I left out for yourself – there’s nothing that say’s “except for the CFR, who are free to secretly work to overthrow the Constitution in order for the ‘greater good’ of bringing all countries under it’s dominion.”

    Being a conspiracy theorist is a complimentary label to me. It means I’m following the words of the Prophets.

    (BTW, Dan, I don’t understand how you can say you follow the prophets, but belittle and pick them apart. Are they men of God or aren’t they?

    Dan said:

    Hold on a sec, you seem to assume here that I somehow DON’T think President Benson was inspired as a prophet. He was. Politically I will disagree with him to my dying breath.

    I shouldn’t have even asked this, since I’m really not looking forward to you’re going ON and On and ON……….. disagreeing with the prophet to your dying breath.

  96. Jay
    November 1, 2007 at 2:05 pm #

    I’m also pleased to be counted among the conspiracy theorists!

    Jay

  97. Dan
    November 1, 2007 at 2:32 pm #

    I guess I shouldn’t mention that, following your logic, a General Authority of the Church is a member of this secret combination. That Gordon B. Hinckley, the prophet of the church, has close ties to George W. Bush, a member of this secret combination. That the Brethren approved Dick Cheney, a member of this secret combination to speak to The Lord’s University. I guess I shouldn’t bring up the fact that Gordon B. Hinckley, our prophet, approved of the war in Iraq, which was run by members of this secret combination. If we follow your logic, it would seem that our prophet was working against the freedom of all men, and instead working to subjugate all men under a Satanic secret combination.

    Do you REALLY want to follow that logic down that path?

    Of course, you will do all that you can to spin President Hinckley’s support of the war in Iraq as somehow that he was against that war. But his words tell a different story.

    Let me quote for you something George Orwell once wrote in 1984:

    Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

    President Hinckley can’t POSSIBLY support the war in Iraq, because that would lead in a heretical direction, under your logic. If indeed the CFR were a secret combination, then President Hinckley should have strongly denounced the war in Iraq. After all, it was organized and run by CFR members, not to protect America, but for their own gains in power and money and influence. But President Hinckley did not strongly denounce the war. So, should we keep going in the heretical direction, or can we remove the protective stupidity you have in your logic?

  98. Connor
    November 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm #

    That Gordon B. Hinckley, the prophet of the church, has close ties to George W. Bush, a member of this secret combination.

    George W. Bush is not a member of CFR.

    I guess I shouldn’t bring up the fact that Gordon B. Hinckley, our prophet, approved of the war in Iraq…

    No, you shouldn’t, because he didn’t. No need to rebut this here – forthcoming post on his War and Peace talk coming soon.

    If we follow your logic, it would seem that our prophet was working against the freedom of all men, and instead working to subjugate all men under a Satanic secret combination.

    Now there’s an extreme interpretation. You amuse me sometimes.

  99. Alicia
    November 1, 2007 at 4:21 pm #

    Dan,
    Just wondering what you would have done in the days of Moroni, Teancum, and Lehi; what would you have done in the days of the Kingmen? What about during the last days of the Nephites; what would you have done if you were Mormon?

  100. Dan
    November 1, 2007 at 5:16 pm #

    Alicia,

    Those were completely different times than today. To insinuate that I would not fight for the freedom of my religion is wrong.

  101. Jay
    November 1, 2007 at 5:28 pm #

    Dan said, “I guess I shouldn’t bring up the fact that Gordon B. Hinckley, our prophet, approved of the war in Iraq, which was run by members of this secret combination.”

    And Paul Simon said, “when a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

    Jay

  102. Sam Hennis
    November 1, 2007 at 5:46 pm #

    I don’t believe in “conspiracy theories,” but I do believe in conspiracy fact. The Book of Mormon covers quite a bit of men lusting for power seeking to get control of the government. If we liken it unto our day, we should be concerned about wicked men in power within our own government.

  103. Jay
    November 1, 2007 at 5:56 pm #

    Well, there are certain people here who don’t particularly like the things that President Benson said, like, perhaps, this talk that he gave in general conference, shortly before he passed on. In the talk, “I Testify,” he said:

    I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 84:49-53; 1:14-16.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18-25.)

    Sounds pretty clear to me. And coming from the President of the Church during a general conference, I think it was worth listening to. But you know, there are those among us who will disagree with everything he said politically, to the grave . . .

    Jay

  104. Dan
    November 1, 2007 at 7:52 pm #

    But you know, there are those among us who will disagree with everything he said politically, to the grave . . .

    Yep.

    You know, it’s funny, here you quote from President Benson who spoke quite strongly and clearly on his subject, and then you want me to believe that President Hinckley’s talk was clearly against the war in Iraq. But his words are clearly in FAVOR of that war. He says so himself. He says that sometimes we are justified in our actions. He says that the war in Iraq was an extension of the war in Afghanistan (when it clearly isn’t). He says that Captain Moroni’s example justifies our actions today, when they really don’t.

    Show me where President Hinckley denounced the war in Iraq in his War and Peace talk. Please. Let me see the words clearly. Let me see the same kind of language that you show from President Benson who denounces “secret combinations.”

  105. Alicia
    November 1, 2007 at 9:46 pm #

    Those were completely different times than today. To insinuate that I would not fight for the freedom of my religion is wrong.

    Dan, do you not believe the Book of Mormon was written for OUR day? They were fighting for more than freedom of religion. Regardless of who started the war, Mormon and Moroni still fought – even knowing they wouldn’t win, they fought. Were they wrong? I don’t like the war, and I don’t believe it was started because of 9/11; I’m also sure President Hinckley knows the full picture of what’s going on here. . .

    Also, I wasn’t insinuating that you wouldn’t fight, I was just asking WHAT would you do if you had been them?

  106. Connor
    November 1, 2007 at 9:59 pm #

    …you want me to believe that President Hinckley’s talk was clearly against the war in Iraq. But his words are clearly in FAVOR of that war.

    Wow, this gets tiring. Do you not understand that others interpret this talk quite differently? Nobody is saying his talk was against the war in Iraq, but it most certainly was not a prophetic approval of it, regardless of what you desire to believe.

  107. Jay
    November 1, 2007 at 10:34 pm #

    Dan says, “But his words are clearly in FAVOR of that war. He says so himself. He says that sometimes we are justified in our actions. He says that the war in Iraq was an extension of the war in Afghanistan (when it clearly isn’t). He says that Captain Moroni’s example justifies our actions today, when they really don’t.”

    Paul SImon says, “when a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

    Your ad nauseum interpretation of the “War and Peace” talk is getting boring.

    Jay

  108. Dan
    November 2, 2007 at 3:50 am #

    Jay,

    again you get personal, when you chided me for getting personal. Either answer my question or don’t. But don’t get cute with Mr. Simon. Besides which, a prophet keeps repeating the same answer to the same question, doesn’t he? Is he getting boring to you too?

  109. Jay
    November 2, 2007 at 6:09 am #

    I’m only pointing out that we’re tired of hearing over and over your spin on his talk. I have no problem with what he said but nowhere did he say that he agreed with the war. That’s your interpretation of his talk. The fact that you keep trying to convince us to accept your interpretation of his talk is what I find boring.

    In answer to your question, I never said he denounced the war. I never said he supported it, either. I have kept my feelings about his talk to myself, other than to say that I don’t think he would support doing something illegal such a going to war without a declaration by congress. But that was not a comment on his talk. It was just a general statement.

    Jay

  110. Dan
    November 2, 2007 at 7:07 am #

    alrighty. We’ll put this on hold until Connor decides to try his spin at interpreting President Hinckley’s talk.

  111. Larry
    November 2, 2007 at 9:28 pm #

    Ron Paul is Not the Only Approach to Ending the CFR and the TC’s Dominance and Total Control of the White House. With Soooo Many CFR and TC Members in the Running every 4 years for President …… It is Imperitive that ALL TRUE Patriot United States Citizens …. begin to Register and VOTE for INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES. Anything Less will just Gurantee More CFR Members Attaining the White House Indefinately !!!!

  112. Connor
    April 21, 2008 at 9:58 pm #

    Update: See this comment for clarification on membership of previous and current presidential candidates, and their membership status within the CFR.

    Summary: while the presidential candidates mentioned above were linked under the “leadership and staff” section (thus implying membership within the organization), the CFR has reorganized the content of the website to now include these persons under the “Candidates 2008″ section, thus breaking the connection and leaving no evidence of the membership of these several individuals.

  113. Monte
    July 15, 2008 at 3:50 pm #

    First: Continued conversations with a certain commenter on this blog only lends credibility to his points. Ignore him and he will go away, or at least be marginalized to a less vaunted position here.

    Second: I see no conflict of interest or nefarious intentions on the part of the church in allowing a General Authority to be a member of the CFR. Quite the contrary. I think it wise to have an “inside man” to inform church leadership of the inner workings of the organization so that our leaders will have their pulse on the heartbeat of what I believe to be a part of the conspiracy. As one good friend of mine told me in relating his experience as a Bishop said, “I find that the better the information I can get regarding the people in my congregation and the issues they are facing, the better the inspiration.”

    Third: Whomever made the point that the CFR is but one small faction whose ends have a conspiratorial intent, is quite correct in my humble opinion. The CIA, IMF, and other such organizations are conspiring to accomplish things which are contrary to the Constitution and the protection of our personal freedoms. Other smaller conspiracies might include the AMA, FDA, the Mortgage Brokers Association, and many other groups whose intentions are to get as much of our cash as possible and who could care less about us, our families, our personal liberties, wealth, property or any other thing we the people hold dear. And within each of those organizations are many good, well-intentioned individuals who may or may not know of the bad intentions inherent in the organization, but retain their membership because they believe in their heart that much good can still be accomplished by belonging.

    Fourth: I am no conspiracy theorist. I agree with the individual who said that it was not a complimentary label. In fact, whenever someone wants to discredit another individual and marginalize what they have to say, they merely attach a derogatory label to that person so they can be immediately dismissed by the masses. This is how the label “conspiracy theorist” is used. Instead I am a conspiracy realist. I have done my homework, and formed a system of beliefs through which I continue to filter new understanding. I do not accept all “theories” put to me through books, discussions, or other methods of communication as fact, but through continued research and putting the pieces of the puzzle together to help me see the bigger picture better, I develop a factual position (much as a police detective would before presenting his case in court) which gives credence to some ideas and discredits other ideas as they relate to the conspiracy picture as a whole.

  114. Monte
    July 15, 2008 at 3:51 pm #

    I just looked at the date on the post just previous to mine and realized that I was really quite late to the party! Well, at least I vented my spleen.

  115. Carissa
    October 20, 2008 at 5:09 pm #

    What was THIS all about?

    “we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy”

    “We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us”

    “There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision'”

    What decisions is the president going to have to make that will be unpopular due to this generated crisis? What does Joe Biden know?

  116. Kelly W.
    October 21, 2008 at 8:29 am #

    Carissa,

    This is amazing – thanks. I have copied the article for my files.

    This is just further evidence that the Powers That Be have things planned out far in advance.

    For example, take the PATRIOT Act. This bill is over 800 pages long, and we don’t even know the author of it for sure. How could such a lengthy bill be written by an unknown author inbetween 9/11 and the day it was voted upon and passed? (about 4 weeks time) It has been shown that the PATRIOT Act was written years before and was sitting in some secret file somewhere just waiting for a time when it could be ram-rodded through.

    Same with the current Economic Bailout bill. Reporters were asking the White House Press Secretary, Tony Fratto, if pushing through an economic bailout bill so quickly wasn’t too rash. He spilled the beans by saying the bill was written a couple years ago, and they are only putting finishing touches on the details. So this economic bailout bill was also penned far in advance and sitting in some secret file somewhere.

    Now you point out evidence that Biden is aware of some manufactured crisis to happen in the future. He seems to have some inside knowledge of what is sitting in these secret files somewhere, the same way Rumsfeld was able to predict the Pentagon was about to be hit, even before it was hit, or the same way Guilliani said he was told the two towers were just about to fall, or the same way the BBC’s Jane Standley went on TV and reported the collapse of WTC building #7 a full 20 minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed!

    That is why I have put Biden’s prophecy into my files. Thanks again Carissa.

  117. Jeff T.
    October 21, 2008 at 10:08 am #

    seriously? Conspiracy theorists… all of you… ;)

    Actually, this is spooky. nothing in politics happens by accident.

  118. Kelly W.
    October 21, 2008 at 10:33 am #

    I am proud to be a conspiracy theorist. As you say, nothing in politics happens by accident. They happen, and they don’t give any explanation, therefore, we must use our best logic and facts to construct a theory, because they won’t give us the facts.

  119. Jeff T.
    October 21, 2008 at 12:34 pm #

    Sounds scientific enough…

  120. Kelly W.
    October 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm #

    This is probably the wrong page to be writing this, but since you bring up scientific evidence in relation to conspiracy theories, there is some terrific research on the WTC dust by Steven Jones. He has documented millions of iron-rich microspheres and unexploded thermite chips in the dust.

    Connor has a page on Steven Jones somewhere on his blog.

  121. Kelly W.
    October 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm #

    @ Carissa,

    It seems Colin Powell is in on the upcoming secret crisis, too. His now famous Meet The Press interview wherein he endorsed Obama and denounced Republicans’ predjudicial slandering of Muslims, he told us that there is going to be a crisis on the 21st or 22nd of January of which we don’t know the details yet. Here is the link:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10655

  122. Kelly W.
    October 26, 2008 at 5:17 pm #

    I just found an in-depth article on the recent comments by Biden, Powell and Albright concerning the “generated crisis” they predicted to happen right after Obama takes office. Here’s the URL:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10689

  123. Kelly W.
    October 26, 2008 at 5:37 pm #

    Some internet pundits are predicting this “generated crisis” to be a full and total collapse of the US$, and an introduction of a new American currency.

    Guess we’ll have to wait and see, but it sounds credible, doesn’t it?

  124. John Wallace
    November 24, 2008 at 9:27 am #

    THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND TACK’S TACKLE SHOP

    This is a rather long article about the Council on Foreign Relations and how I believe that it is a “front organization” for international bankers. If you would rather download the artcle to read at a later date, here is a link to it:

    http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/JohnWallace-Article-CouncilOnForeignRelations.pdf

    or

    http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/JohnWallace-Article-CouncilOnForeignRelations.doc

    When I was growing up in the Inwood section of upper Manhattan, I remember when I was about 12 or 13 years old I had my first contact with discovering what a “front” was for another business. It was called Tack’s Tackle Shop. When it first opened, it looked like just another business. The guy in the store, Tack, was selling fishing rods, live bait and an array of fishing equipment. It didn’t take long before the kids in the neighborhood figured out that perhaps there was something else going on. The live bait in the window wasn’t alive anymore and local hoods and gangster type people seemed to be going in and out, particularly in the evenings and none of them looked like fishermen. It wasn’t long before the place was raided by the NYCPD and my friends and I all watched from across the street on Sherman Avenue as “Tack” came out in handcuffs along with a bunch of other men. We were later told that Tack’s Tackle Shop had actually been a front for an illegal gambling operation.

    A “front group” can be any entity that is set up to appear to be a legitimate independent organization, like Tack’s Tackle Shop, when it is actually controlled from behind the scenes by another organization or group of individuals. These front groups are often legitimate businesses, social or political organizations, professional groups, advocacy groups, research organizations, etc. Organized crime has used legitimate front organizations for many decades to launder their income from various illegal activities. Pharmaceutical companies have used front organizations to advocate for the drugs they manufacture. International terrorist organizations have their front groups here in the United States and as the evidence clearly shows, so do the international bankers.

    After researching the formation and activities of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) it appears that it may be a very sophisticated version of “Tack’s Tackle Shop.” The CFR was specifically set up to carry out the goals and objectives of international bankers so that the public positions taken by the CFR would appear to be independent positions that could not be directly connected to the international bankers who personally control and fund the CFR.

    The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was founded in 1921 by a very select group of international bankers, Wall Street lawyers and wealthy “old money” families sometimes called the Establishment or the Elites. Among the CFR’s founders were JP Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, “Colonel” Edward House (Marxist. globalist and close advisor to President Wilson), Paul Warburg (international banker), Otto Kahn and Jacob Schiff (both international investment bankers). The CFR’s stated purpose at that time was to improve the understanding of US foreign policy and international affairs through the exchange of ideas. The select membership has been gradually expanded over the years, now totaling around 3,800 and includes various professionals, corporate CEO’s, college presidents, media owners and reporters, high-ranking government officials and even high ranking US military officers.

    These same international bankers that started the CFR were instrumental in getting President Woodrow Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act into existence in 1913 that basically gave these international bankers the power to print money and control our entire economy. To show you the mind set of this core group, one of the founding CFR members, Edward House, authored a book in 1912 entitled “Philip Dru: Administrator” in which he laid out a fictionalized plan for the conquest of America. In the book, he told of a conspiracy by which a group of wealthy businessmen would gain control of both the Democratic and Republican parties and use them as instruments for the creation of a socialist world government.

    After signing the Federal Reserve Act into law, President Woodrow Wilson later admitted, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country….(America is) no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” He was, of course, talking about the international bankers and the creation of the first great nationwide “front organization” called the Federal Reserve that was designed to directly benefit the international bankers at the expense of the American taxpayers.

    The late Carroll Quigley (mentor and advisor to President Clinton) who was a long term member of the CFR, wrote in his book “Tragedy & Hope”: “The CFR is the American Branch of a society….which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established.”

    Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the CFR for 16 years, sounded the alarm about the real intent of the CFR and pointed out that there was two separate cliques within the CFR:

    1. The first and most powerful clique wants to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States.

    2. The second clique of international members is comprised of Wall Street international bankers and their key agents who want to receive a world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of global government.

    Congressman John Rarick, a recipient of the Bronze Star and Purple Heart in World War II and a Democrat from Louisiana who once argued with his party over its increasing liberalism, said, “The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication-media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government, and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right-to-know machinery, the news media, usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.”

    By using the CFR as a front organization to push their globalist agenda for America and the world, the “Establishment Elites and International Bankers” have managed to gain significant influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of our government. They can not only advocate their new world order ideas from within the government by using their CFR members in high government positions, but they can also use individual CFR members and research groups financed by their non-profit foundations to bring pressure from another direction. The international bankers use this process to implement the step by step decisions that will gradually convert the US from a sovereign nation to a subservient position in the new world order run by appointed bureaucrats selected by the international bankers. The CFR is being used much in the same manner as “Tack’s Tackle Shop” was used by an organized criminal group. The international bankers behind the CFR want to give the public the outward appearance of legitimacy in order that they can slowly accomplish their illegal objectives to usurp the US Constitution and the sovereignty of this country.

    Many of the most influential international bankers, Wall Street CEOs, politicians, academics and media owners and TV personalities are members of the CFR. They join the CFR for the same reasons that other people join similar business organizations: to make political or business contacts, to enjoy the prestige of being in the organization or to simply use their connections to make more money. The CFR in turn, uses the broad influence of these people and their organizations to slowly infiltrate their globalist ‘New World Order’ plans into American life. CFR members and their ghost writers author scholarly articles that are designed to specifically affect public opinion and future government decision making. These authors and researchers are oftentimes funded directly by one or more of the international bankers’ non-profit foundations. The CFR’s well paid academics expound on the wisdom of a united world and the CFR media members disseminate the message.

    In the 1940’s, President Roosevelt began bringing CFR members into the State Department and they have dominated it ever since. CFR members were instrumental in the creation of the United Nations. The American delegation to the San Francisco meeting that drafted the charter of the United Nations in 1949 included CFR members Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, John Mc Cloy and the Secretary-General of the conference, Alger Hiss, who was later arrested as a spy for Russia. In all, the CFR sent at least forty-seven of its members in the United States delegation, effectively controlling the outcome.

    These same CFR members were also instrumental in using our country’s new membership in the United Nations to create the concepts of “limited wars” and “police actions” that were designed to circumvent the US Constitution and permit an administration to send our troops to war without a formal Declaration of War. It should also be pointed out that these two concepts benefit the international bankers and large corporations most because they allow these entities to make huge profits by providing financing and/or equipment and products to the enemies of our country during the conflict. It definitely did not benefit the US military men and women who were wounded or died in these conflicts. If a Declaration of War was declared, these same bankers and corporation CEO’s would be charged with treason for aiding the enemy during a time of war.

    James Warburg, a CFR member and son of CFR founder Paul Warburg testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, defiantly telling the Senators that: “We shall have world government, whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”

    On November 25, 1959, the Council on Foreign Relations published “Study No. 7”, which openly declared its true purpose to bring about a New World Order through the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and through international economic interdependence:

    · “…building a New International Order [which] must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, [and] for social and economic change…an international order [code for world government]…including states labeling themselves as ‘Socialist.’ ”

    The plan for the New World Order and the ultimate control of America by the international bankers, was clearly outlined once again in the April 1974 issue of “Foreign Affairs” the Council of Foreign Relations’ own publication, when CFR member and former Secretary of State Richard N. Gardner, wrote an article entitled “The Hard Road to World Order” in which he stated:

    · “In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault…” one way to garner public support for new international treaties would be to propagandize world wide predicaments. If people are scared of terrorism, financial chaos or global warming, they will be willing to cede their national sovereignty, freedom and liberties for global authority.”

    Since the FDR administration, all transition teams and administrations have been full of CFR members. It didn’t matter whether they were liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. The Nixon administration had over 115 CFR members all in key Executive branch positions, most of who continued into the Ford years. Ronald Reagan wasn’t a CFR member, but his Vice President George HW Bush was a CFR member, and so were 28 members of his transition team alone. The Clinton administration had over 150 CFR members in key executive positions. George W. Bush is not a CFR member either, but his father and uncle are, his Vice President Dick Cheney is, and his administration is swarming with CFR members. The incoming Obama administration’s transition team is packed with CFR members and he is already looking to staff many of its administration’s key executive branch positions with CFR members.

    Did you vote for change in the 2008 Election? If you did, here’s a partial list of Mr. Obama’s transition team:

    Susan E. Rice – (CFR) former State Department Asst Secretary for African Affairs; Anthony Lake (CFR) – Bill Clinton’s first national Security advisor; Zbigniew Brzezinski – (CFR) and Trilateral Commission – Brzezinski is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding and training to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan; Richard Clarke (CFR) – Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush; Robert W. Kagan (CFR) argues that interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken with the approval of our democratic allies; Dennis B. Ross (CFR) and Trilateral Commission – Served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton; Lawrence J. Korb (CFR) – Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and to “spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East”; Bruce Reidel (CFR) – Former CIA analyst who wishes to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe. Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir; Stephen E. Flynn (CFR) – Has been attributed with the idea for Obama’s much vaunted “Civilian Security Force”. Flynn has written: “The United States should roughly replicate the Federal Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System (FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan Anti-Terrorism Committees”; and Madeline Albright (CFR) and Brookings – Currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors and was Former Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton.

    Here’s the list of possible cabinet positions in the new administration: James B. Steinberg – CFR and the Trilateral Commission; Chuck Hagel (R) – (CFR); Robert M Gates – (CFR), Hillary Clinton – Husband Bill is a CFR member; Bill Richardson (CFR); Sen John Kerry (D) (CFR); Susan Rice (CFR); Robert Rubin (CFR); Lawrence Summers (CFR); Timothy Geithner (CFR); Paul A. Volcker (CFR); David L. Boren (CFR); Thomas H. Kean (CFR); Gary Hart (CFR), and Jane Harman (CFR) – Defense Department Special Counsel (1979).

    At time of writing of this article, President-elect Barack Obama’s has apparently selected Arizona Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of Homeland Security; Timothy Geithner, the current New York Federal Reserve head, as the Secretary of the Treasury; and Texas Democratic Gov. William Richardson as the Secretary of Commerce. Guess what? They are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations. So much for change!

    What do Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Jim Lehrer, Marvin Kalb, Diane Sawyer, Andrea Mitchell and Tom Brokaw have in common? Answer: They are all members of the CFR.

    What does the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street journal, LA Times, Boston Globe, Baltomor Sun, Chicage Sun-Times, Houston Post, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Arkansas Gazette, DesMoine Register and Tribune, Louisville Courier, the AP, UPI, Reuters, the Gannett Co, Walt Disney, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox Networks, Clear Channel have in common: Answer: They are all members of the CFR.

    Freedom of the press has always been vital to the preservation of our American Republic. Ever since the early years of our country, it was the American “free press” that stood tall between us and the crooked international bankers, industrialists and corrupt government officials. While some of the major newspapers in the big cities were controlled by establishment types like William Randolph Hearst, who definitely influenced the content, most of the newspaper owners and reporters were independent and honorable people who chose to keep their integrity by pursuing the truth. Most local newspapers, radio stations, and later on TV stations, were owned locally.

    As they grow larger and eliminate their competition, major media corporations and international bankers are choosing what you will see on the nightly news while trying to trick you into believing it is unbiased reporting. The very news stories that you are fed by the mainstream media are manipulated to mirror the public relations campaigns of corporations, international bankers and even their favorite presidential candidates. If this is not the case then why, during the course of the 2008 election, was there no mention of the issues that were important to Americans: the threat by big government to our freedoms, liberties and sovereignty; the actions of the Federal Reserve and the issuance of fiat money; the drugging of 6 million of our nation’s youth; or amnesty for illegal aliens. Popular candidates like Ron Paul were either ignored by the media, excluded from most of the TV debates, or asked fewer questions than their CFR candidate counterparts. Of the top twenty media corporations in the U.S, 18 are members of the CFR.

    The CFR’s strategy is to use their members in the media to promote the need for world government in order to fight international threats like global warming. Both Obama and McCain made the environment a major issue in the campaign, but avoided mentioning the immigration issue. The CFR has long identified the worldwide environmental movement as a means to advance its agenda and has even suggested a global tax on all developed nations, payable to the United Nations of course. Most of the major media companies are now controlled by individuals or organizations that are members of the CFR, including the international bankers. One of the techniques used by the CFR and its membership has been to manipulate the news in such as way as to push their internationalist views on the rest of us.

    As the big media corporations keep merging into larger and more powerful companies, they will be able to control public opinion as never before. With their friends in congress and in key government agencies, all the international bankers and their CFR members need to do is advocate bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” and regulating the internet and their control of the media will be complete.

    The average American might find the CFR’s powerful influence over America’s government very difficult to understand or believe, but never forget that the CFR was founded by international bankers for the express purpose of bringing about socialism and world government. It is the deliberate plan of these international bankers, who hide in the shadows and pull the strings of their marionettes, to gradually increase their influence and domination over America’s domestic and foreign affairs. CFR members have been in control of our government since the 1940’s. If CFR members are supposed to be the nation’s best and brightest in running the federal government and overseeing foreign affairs, why is the country in such a mess under their eighty year watch? The answer is: That’s the plan.

    The international bankers behind the Federal Reserve and the CFR are deliberately trying to usurp the US Constitution and gradually destroy our freedoms, liberties and sovereignty in the process. They are using the Federal Reserve System to bankrupt the country so we will be at their mercy. The deeper in debt our country goes, the richer and more powerful these international bankers become. If action is not taken to take back control of our nation’s currency from the criminals in the private international banking cartel and if the CFR’s influence over the highest levels of our federal government isn’t soon broken, America will be reduced to a third world nation controlled by a socialistic world government where our freedoms and liberties would have disappeared and our national sovereignty is but a fond memory.

    Many Americans believe that we may have reached a point where it no longer matters which party or candidate wins the election, because both candidates are already beholden to special interest groups and the winner will staff the high level executive positions with CFR members.

    The activities of the international bankers behind the Council on Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve should be thoroughly investigated by an independent prosecutor. If criminal activities are uncovered, then those involved should be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as an ongoing criminal conspiracy. The American people must not give up their liberties for the false sense of security offered by the international bankers and their CFR puppets. The grip of these international criminals must be broken and the threats against our liberties, freedoms and our nation’s sovereignty must be eliminated. It can only be accomplished by a demand for action by a determined and educated American citizenry, as well as by an honest and thorough federal criminal investigation.

    I close this article with a quote from David Rockefeller, the former Chairman and the current Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relation and ask you to consider the implications of what he has said:

    “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

    – David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991 Baden, Germany

    By:

    JOHN W. WALLACE

    New York Campaign for Liberty

    http://www.NYCampaignForLiberty.com

  125. Rusty
    January 4, 2009 at 1:43 am #

    The views articulated by Dan (as seen by those espoused on October 4th, 2007) are unfortunately sterling examples of the collective naivety of the American people. And it is precisely this general ignorance of our national history, along the widely held view that the Constitution is nothing but a 200-year-old document that, having become obsolete, is no longer adequate for addressing the issues of today, and no longer the supreme law of the land intended to govern the rulers we elect, that has enabled the incremental loss of our national independence and misuse and theft of our county’s wealth we have experienced over the decades.

    As a middle-aged man who has attempted on numerous occasions to impart some general wisdom upon some of the youth of today, as well as those of my own generation, I know only too well of the shared ignorance plaguing the American people.

    Today, Americans view the concerns of our nation based upon political affiliation–just as our elected officials desire them to do. What one believes is based almost solely on whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, never taking the time to step back and examine the issues honestly and analytically.

    Indeed, if they had, they would discover much to their chagrin, that nearly every problem facing our country today is a direct result of having violated the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. This is true whether the issue is deteriorating wages, inflation, the escalating cost of health care, job loss, the rising cost of education, the inability to provide for an adequate retirement, or the myriad of taxes heaped upon the masses.

    Instead, after “sacrificing” an hour or two of personal time to vote, Americans then blindly and nonchalantly place their absolute trust and faith in those they have elected (as if by being elected to office one somehow is bequeathed with the gift of divine intelligence), and never once bother to discover how these officials have voted on issues, while at the same time accepting the political rhetoric handed them as being gospel truth.

    Foolishly, the American people will accept the lies, half-truths, and ignorance fed them by their elected “leaders” over the caring advice of their nation’s founders and original statesmen, equating such “wisdom” as being outdated, while never once asking themselves what president or member of Congress within the last 200 years has ever united 13 separate colonies, built a new government, or drafted a Constitution to regulate that government, while adhering to principles that history has proved to be responsible for transforming that infant country into the freest, richest, and greatest nation mankind has ever witnessed.

    That, unfortunately, is the sad commentary befitting most Americans today.

    Due to the fact that the American people at large are fully ignorant of the concerted effort by government, business, establishments of higher learning, political and social think tanks, and the media to bring about the downfall and emasculation of America, I am currently in the process of producing a literary work that documents this movement in such a fashion that it will be all but impossible to dismiss out of hand, in the hope that it will pave the way for a mass awakening before America is finally toppled and its citizens ruled by an ungodly group of socialist philosopher-kings.

  126. Teancum
    November 15, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    Connor,

    Did you ever get some kind of response back from Elder Staheli regarding his involvement in the CFR? Would be interesting to know what his opinion is about the organization.

  127. Connor
    November 15, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    His secretary responded to my email and essentially said that Elder Staheli valued it as a networking organization, and little more.

  128. Brint Baggaley
    May 20, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    I just found this blog the other day, so I’m really late to this, but this is a great piece and really interesting comments. I was amazed that it took until John Wallace’s comments to include the description of Carroll Quigley from Tragedy & Hope. For those interested in knowing the truth about the CFR, I have reviewed Quigley’s book, with information from many others as well as my own research which shows how the whole scheme moves into the United Nations and the Elitist environmental movement.

    Dan, the one world government that is being formed is a huge threat to our liberties. This, too is shown. Anyone interested is welcome to comment on the site and add light or argue, so long as it is respectful.

    http://www.stateofmankind.com/tragedy-and-hope-review/

  129. Robert Marshall
    May 21, 2011 at 10:32 pm #

    i also looke dat the list of Council on Foreign Relations. It seems that they have every base covered. It is The Trilateral Commission and The Bilderberg Group that concerns me most. most of us know these organizations agendas. They haven’t kept it a secret.I just hope one day all the traitors in our government and outside the govrnment pay for their crimes. i can’t prove 9/11 was an inside job. Personally i don’t believe a old man in a cave could have pulled this off. too many events that don’t add up. Each of us have to decide for ourselves. For the families of the deceased and the brave heros who are having lung problems with no help from ther government i might add the truth needs to be found out. If anyone who is truly interested ina sensible discussion about 9/11 is interested i can be e-mailed at kirbyola42@aol.com. i would be interested in anyone veiw.

  130. Kelly W.
    May 22, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    “If anyone who is truly interested ina sensible discussion about 9/11 is interested i can be e-mailed at”….

    Hi Robert, I have interest in sensible discussions on that topic. Just wanted to interject that scientific proof of thermitic materials in the WTC dust is now documented. Many theories are being spoken about, so they can’t all be true, but the evidence of thermitic material in the dust HAS proven the “official” U.S. government’s theory to be totally false. Given the proven fact that the government’s story is false, leads to the conclusion that there is an on-going cover-up. So, it doesn’t matter what the “truth” is, it matters that we have been sold a proven lie, and that is what makes me mad.

    It seems the Assassination of OBL by Navy Seals is yet another fabrication.

  131. Sarah Haws Taylor
    April 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    If the CFR is a good approach, then why don’t they just come out with it and give us the new world right now? Why do they have to do it in secret and gradually lead us there? Is it because of the Constitution and people’s love for it? hmmmm

  132. TRON
    April 30, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    I find it strange that people can believe that Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, and Shirley Temple are in a conspiracy together to take over the world. Yet these same people don’t believe there is a need for anti-trust laws to prevent Exxon, General Electric or Walmart from taking over a city, state or country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.