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.

“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…

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.)

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

Jay

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?

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

Jay

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

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

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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)”

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.

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.

Mark,

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

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

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.

Good try. Totally off base.

Jay

Jay,

Please, enlighten me.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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…

Parker,

How does our own government bring us freedom?

In his eyes, the war was not illegal.

Are you claiming to know what he was thinking?

Jay

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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 . . .

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Jay,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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).

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.

Um, that is not a complimentary label, Kelly.

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.

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

Jay

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?

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?

Alicia,

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

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

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.

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

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.”

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?

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

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?

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

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

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 !!!!