Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘council on foreign relations’

In the 70s, this film was produced by G. Edward Griffin to announce the very issues that a movement of people are finally waking-up to today. Is this perhaps the first documentary made to expose the underlying powers of governments?

Some will automatically wish to dismiss these statements as fact, but to have any desire to seek the truth would surely allow one to have an open mind. The greatest conspiracy may be – the conspiracy to make you laugh at the idea of ‘conspiracy’. Free your mind.

Full video (Google)
Playlist (YouTube)
Download (windows media, 49 MB – 47 minutes)

Conclusion:

1) There is an has been, for some time, a conspiracy among some of the richest people in the world – a conspiracy that virtually owns the money systems of the major, non-communist nations. This monopoly is protected by the power of the respected governments, and is used to perpetuate the conspiracy’ vast wealth, by the creation of money out of nothing.

2) In the United States, this monetary fraud is perpetuated though the Federal Reserve System. Although the executive branch theoretically has some control over this system though occasional appointments, in reality, it is this system and those behind it who control the executive branch.

3) The capitalist conspiracy, in this country, surfaces to public view in the form of the semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations. It’s members exercise their control over the nation through government, tax-exempt foundations, centers of education, and the mass-communications media.

4) On the surface, the capitalist conspiracy appears to oppose communism. It spends billions of dollars on spectacular military displays of anti-communism all around the world. But never to the extent of seriously harming the enemy, and certainly not to the extent of defeating it. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the conspiracy always has nourished and aided communism, both at home and abroad. It does this, not because it is pro-communist, but because it needs the appearance of a formidable foe, and the chaos by-product of a managed conflict, to advance its own goal of totalitarian world government.

5) There is much evidence indicating that the capitalist and communist conspiracies both are directed by a single, master-conspiracy which may have continuity with the Order of the Illuminati, which was founded [240] years ago. But this historical question is not nearly as important as the immediate question of what can be done about it today.

6) As for our response, we must begin to dismantle the conspiracy’s machine of big-government. We must restore American independence. We must return our schools to local control. We must protect our police forces from federal aid, which is a certain path to a national police force controlled from Washington. We must denounce revenue sharing as a transparent device leading to control over local government. We must raise-up men for political office who not only talk about reducing government, but who will do it once elected. And that means men who are totally independent of establishment politics.

7) We must reduce the Federal Reserve System to a service function of clearing checks between banks only. Merely turning the system as it stands over to the Federal Government, as some have suggested, will not solve the problem. The same people would control it either way. The root of the evil is that money is created out of nothing, and the insiders could to that today just as easily directly through government, as they do through the Federal Reserve System. The ultimate solution is to prevent anyone, in or out of government, from manipulating the money supply. And the only way to do that, is to return our money to the gold and silver standards.

8) We must expose conspiracy to public view. If somehow, every American could be made aware of the facts contained in this presentation. If it were possible to circumvent the establishments channels of mass-communication and carry this message person-to-person to our friends and neighbors and fellow club members, the conspiracy would collapse – like a house of cards.

G. Edward Griffin – Ron Paul vs NWO Establishment

Read Full Post »

This article can be read on the CFR website, here. It can also be read on this page, in full, and explained.

Please watch the videos below, and continue to learn about this outstanding treat to American sovereignty.

Sovereignty and globalisation
Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
February 17, 2006
Project SyndicatePublic enemy

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds.

Let me translate: There are over 190 countries in the world, they “co-exist” (are in partnership) with “independent actors” such as terrorists and drug cartels, institutions (regional and global), banks and bankers. They even have an acronym for them, the “NGOs“.

The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

He says: Terrorists, drug lords, bankers, etc. have control over these many countries of the world (which isn’t entirely a bad thing). “Sovereignty… is being eroded.”

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states.

In other words, new mechanisms – not the states – are needed to govern the world.

This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

The corporations that are members of the CFR should be the representatives of the world government.

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

States will have to give-up their sovereignty and become subject to the new world order.

This is already taking place in the trade realm.

The new world order agenda has already begun.

Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Governments will prefer to give-up their sovereign rights to the order of the WTO.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.

Global climate change is being used as a “threat” to get governments to concede their sovereignty.

Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

The Kyoto Protocol was a success, now a successor is needed to get more and larger governments “adopt common standards”.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

Globalization is the end to sovereignty as we know it.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction.

Eliminating borders, globalization increases the flows of everything (including viruses, weapons, pollution, drugs…); contrary to the principals of sovereignty.

Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Sovereign states fear “forces beyond their control”.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker.

Globalisation destroys sovereignty.

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.

“Forces beyond their control” will destroy the sovereignty of states; they cannot defend themselves from globalization.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power.

The fear of terrorism can be used to overthrow government.

Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Iraq showed how a sovereign can be targeted against based only on presumptive (or false) evidence.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

If a government is accused of having intention to use a nuclear device, nothing could protect them.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The ‘war on terror‘ can use the excuse of government scruples to eliminate a state’s sovereignty.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

NATO is an example of violating a sovereign state under the excuse of genocide and mass killing.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

Sovereignties must agree to principals against terrorism, WMDs, and genocide, or they will be open to attack, and remedied, [by another government].

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

Sovereignty must be redefined for “the era of globalization”; to be better suited to an international system of world government.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.

The main challenges to Order are between global forces and states, not between states.

Read Full Post »

NOTE: This list may not be complete. If you notice something missing, please help (comment below) and I will verify this and add it to the list.The links provided are the references, so you can verify these facts yourself.

Also note, Clinton, McCain, and all the other candidates (excepting Ron Paul) have ties with the CFR as well. (the CFR has been choosing our candidates).

Barack Obama may not an official member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Nevertheless, he and his presidential campaign are incontrovertibly affiliated with and supported by numerous (corporate) CFR members.

His wife, Michelle Obama, is a member of a branch of the CFR in Chicago.

The Obama campaign has taken major contributions from corporate CFR members such as:

JP Morgan Chase & Co – $282,387
Goldman Sachs – $474,428
Lehman Brothers – $274,147
UBS (ag) – $298,180
Citigroup – $247,436
Google – $192,808
Time Warner – $190,091

Individuals:

Obama’s foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzeziński, is a member of the CFR (as well as the Chief Executive Officer on the Trilateral Commission of the Bilderberg group)!

So what’s the problem?

The CFR is a very powerful organization with one goal: to overcome the problem with borders. Under the guise of free-trade, as good as it might sound, it is not just trade – it is to allow trade, uninhibited. Not just the trade, but the exchange of everything. This would ultimately destroy sovereignty, national identity, and our Bill of Rights. The Constitution was designed to restrict the power of government. It is getting in the way of the interests of a small group of elite people who wish to control the world, in order to sustain their immense power and wealth over the nation.

Obama complies, Clinton is a member, McCain is a Manchurian candidate. Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution.

WATCH FULL: The Capitalist Conspiracy, by G. Edward Griffith

The Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor a Reserve. Owned by a corrupt group of International Bankers, it is a privately owned monopoly, largely responsible for creating America’s National Debt. It is also a parasitic and unnecessary entity that literally creates American currency out of nothing and then collects interest on the backs of taxpayers for doing so.
_______________________________________

Part 1: Corrupt Federal Reserve – Robbing Americans Since 1913
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPU8w7…
_______________________________________

Part 2: CFR – The Secret Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQZ56h…
_______________________________________

Part 3: CFR Propaganda – The Media’s Main Stranglehold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrGNNZ…
_______________________________________

LINKS and REFERENCES:

1. Illegal IRS: The Unmasked deceptions of the Internal Revenue Service which is privately owned and actually operates out of “Puerto Rico”, with “agents” who represent them in the US (31 Questions and Answers with legal references):
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answe…

2. Recommended Documentary: “America: From Freedom to Fascism

3. The Shrinking Value of the Dollar:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A000151…

4. Many homeless Middle Class are living in their cars; from a New York Times article story on the “mobile homeless”:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/…

5. “…that plush North American lifestyle to which we’ve all grown accustomed has been bought on credit, and the bill is rapidly nearing its due date.”
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/wor…

6. “Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has predicted a global economic crash”
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/artic…

7. “As the US current-account deficit rose over the past half-decade, international economists have lined up to predict doom” – J. Bradford DeLong, Professor of Economics & former Assistant US Treasury Secretary.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/comm…

8. “The reason we cannot accomplish this seemingly simple task of balancing currency with production is that our government does not exercise its sovereign prerogative of controlling the money supply” –Business Week: by Mark Weisbrot
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines…

9. Creating the ‘North American Union’:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/…
_______________________________________
WHO OWNS THE FEDERAL RESERVE?

The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and the Rockefeller families.
_______________________________________

Read Full Post »

Is Barack Obama a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? Rumor has it that he is, but it’s not official. However, he does get huge support from other members of the CFR. See here for a list of his top contributors. His wife is a member. And he promotes the agenda of CFR (NAFTA, NAU, free-trade).

Please see my comment below.

What is the CFR?

Barack Obama, along side Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and other faces featured by the mainstream media (which the CFR controls) are all members of or affiliated with the CFR and its anti-sovereignty agenda.

It is to no surprise that there is little said about the CFR, the NAU, and these similar organizations and secret agendas. If more people knew, and the word of this really got out, Americans who support the sovereignty, the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and protecting our borders would quickly rethink their support of any of these CFR candidates.

The only candidate still in the race, who is not a member of the CFR, does not support a global agenda, wants to return our values to the constitution and protect our borders and sovereignty… is Ron Paul. No wonder the corporate, CFR-controlled mass media are trying to silence him and keep these truths away from the public.

Read Full Post »

This is part of a longer article about the North American Union. Click the link below to read the full article. Every American needs to know the truth about the NAU and the CFR. And it appears to be, supporters for Obama and Clinton have no idea.

The North American Union – You Could Be Voting Your Rights Away

Council on Foreign Relations

Since its inception in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has attracted men and women of power and influence. Its stated intentions are to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. The ultimate, declared aim of the CFR is to create a one-world government, and to make the U.S. a part of it. The stated intentions of the CFR are clearly treasonous to the U.S. Constitution.

The influence of the CFR is wide. Not only does it have members in the U.S. government, but its influence has also spread to other vital areas of American life. Members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, the New York Times, and The Washington Post, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of Time, Newsweek, Fortune, Business Week, and numerous other publications are CFR members.

The organization’s members also dominate the political world. U.S. presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have been CFR members with the exception of Ronald Reagan. The organization’s members also dominate
the academic world, top corporations, unions and military. They are on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Guiliani are all either members of the CFR or have close ties with it. Mike Huckabee is reportedly not a member, but following his interaction with the group in September, he has become a favored candidate in the eyes of the media. Republican Ron Paul is the only remaining significant candidate who does not have ties with the CFR. He has has voiced opposition to the NAU for several years.

Read Full Post »


The North American Union – You Could Be Voting Your Rights Away

NaturalNews.com
by Barbara L. Minton

One issue that is conspicuously absent from the rhetoric of the presidential candidates is the North American Union (NAU).NAFTA - NAU The questions of immigration and border security are frequently raised and the candidates claim to realize the need for a clear immigration policy and effort to secure the borders of the United States. Yet when you begin to understand the purposes of the North American Union and the agenda of its proponents, you will understand why this will never happen. And you may also begin to see that you are being manipulated by the major candidates.

The NAU, a goal of the Council on Foreign Relations [in which Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and most other candidates are members], follows a plan laid out by Robert Pastor. It is currently promoted by the Bush administration to expand the size and scope of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Its goal is to effectively create a North American trading block by erasing the borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada resulting in free, unimpeded movement of people and goods across those borders. It is also a political union that would integrate the governments of the three countries. And clearly it is an economic union with the intention of equalizing the wages and standard of living of all but the ruling elitists.

Sounds a lot like the European Union, doesn’t it? There are even plans for a common currency called the amero. But there is one glaring difference. The people of the United States have never been asked if they want to become integrated with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, economic systems, standards of living, and acceptance of the role of government.

The European Union followed years of open debate at all levels, intense coverage of the ramifications and implications in major media, and a vote of the people.

Also called for is the replacing of all three branches of the US government with a North American version effectively ending U.S. representative government.

The creation of this agreement was never submitted to Congress for discussion or decision.

In October 2006, Congressman Paul formally denounced the formation of the SPP and the plans for the North American Union and the SPP as “an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments”. Paul says that the real issue raised by the SPP is nation sovereignty. “Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.” In this speech Paul predicts that the NAU will become a sleeper issue for the 2008 election, stating that “any movement toward a NAU diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.”

Please read the rest of this very important article.

Read Full Post »

The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation between America, Europe and Japan. It was founded in July 1973, at the initiative of David Rockefeller; who was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time and the Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The organization has come under much scrutiny and criticism by political activists and academics working in the social and political sciences. The Commission has found its way into a number of conspiracy theories, especially when it became known that President Jimmy Carter appointed 26 former Commission members to senior positions in his Administration. Later it was revealed that Carter himself was a former Trilateral member. In the 1980 election, it was revealed that Carter and his two major opponents, John B. Anderson and George H. W. Bush, were also members, and the Commission became a campaign issue. Ronald Reagan supporters noted that he was not a Trilateral member, but after he was chosen as Republican nominee he chose Bush as his running mate; as president, he appointed a few Trilateral members to Cabinet positions and held a reception for the Commission in the White House in 1984. The John Birch Society, which takes a conspiracy-oriented view, believes that the Trilateral Commission is dedicated to a one-world government. In 1980, Holly Sklar released a book titled:

Trilateralism: the Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management

There are two levels of political process which need to be considered in any analysis of U.S. election campaigns. The first, which gets greater attention in the news media and academic writings, is best labeled the party politics level. This is the familiar world of political bosses and their machines, party elites, advertising agencies merchandising a candidate to the voters, and the often carnival-like atmosphere of grass roots campaigning. The second level, much less reported-at least partly because it takes place behind the scenes-is actually more important than the first. It is best called the ruling class level of U.S. politics. This term refers to the ways in which an upper class can control the political process. This level includes the world of large-scale fund raising from wealthy upper class individuals, the networks of influential people developed by exclusive private clubs and policy-planning groups, and the media’s merchandising of favored candidates through manipulation of the definition of news… read the rest!

Members:

Some others who are or have been members:

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »