CFR documents on the North American Union

[jmdrake]

For all of the those out there who try to lay the "tinfoil hat" charge on those of us who believe there is a concerted effort to set up an North American Union, please read:

http://www.cfr.org/search.html?q=no...ystylesheet=cfr&oe=&getfields=authors.pubtype

Note that in these documents the plan is called the North American Union! Oh and Fred Thompson and Dick Cheney are both admitted members of the CFR.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

Good stuff...

 

[Oliver]

For all of the those out there who try to lay the "tinfoil hat" charge on those of us who believe there is a concerted effort to set up an North American Union, please read:

http://www.cfr.org/search.html?q=no...ystylesheet=cfr&oe=&getfields=authors.pubtype

Note that in these documents the plan is called the North American Union! Oh and Fred Thompson and Dick Cheney are both admitted members of the CFR.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Quoting the CFR-Document:

THE COUNCIL TAKES NO INSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON POLICY ISSUES AND HAS NO AFFILIATION WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. ALL STATEMENTS OF FACT AND EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION CONTAINED IN ITS PUBLICATIONS ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR OR AUTHORS.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Quoting the CFR-Document:

Ok? What are you intending that to mean?

 

[Oliver]

Ok? What are you intending that to mean?

It means what it says: "We, the CFR-Authors are not representing
actual US-policies in this document - just stating our opinions."

 

[Oliver]

The CFR isn't a Government Organization.

It's up to you if you connect them to your Government. But
being realistic, the CFR isn't a government organization.

No matter how many ties you see. Officially they are NOT
connected or funded by the Government. Provide evidence
to the contrary if you think the CFR is a Government-funded
conspiracy.

 

[murrayrothbard]

The CFR isn't a Government Organization.

It's up to you if you connect them to your Government. But
being realistic, the CFR isn't a government organization.

No matter how many ties you see. Officially they are NOT
connected or funded by the Government. Provide evidence
to the contrary if you think the CFR is a Government-funded
conspiracy.

I'm confused. Did someone say the CFR was a government agency??

 

[Oliver]

I'm confused. Did someone say the CFR was a government agency??

No, some people claim that the CFR is evidence for a
"New World Order Conspiracy to take over the world
by transforming it into NAFTA-Highways, sending out
FEMA-killing squads, putting 90% of US-citizens into
FEMA-Camps, overthrowing the rest of the world to
build a Global Government and then blowing up the
whole place so the Elite can enjoy the rest of their
life on a distant planet thanks to the Jesus-Area51
Ufo's."

[/sarcasm]


Or in other Words: The CFR documents are worthless
and prove nothing but paranoia.

 

[murrayrothbard]

No, some people claim that the CFR is evidence for a
"New World Order Conspiracy to take over the world
by transforming it into NAFTA-Highways, sending out
FEMA-killing squads, putting 90% of US-citizens into
FEMA-Camps, overthrowing the rest of the world to
build a Global Government and then blowing up the
whole place so the Elite can enjoy the rest of their
live on a distant planet thanks to the Jesus-Area51
Ufo's."

[/sarcasm]


Or in other Words: The CFR documents is worthless
and proves nothing but paranoia.

LOL. True true. However, you don't see a trend towards supra-national governing bodies?

 

[pcosmar]

The CFR isn't a Government Organization.

It's up to you if you connect them to your Government. But
being realistic, the CFR isn't a government organization.

No matter how many ties you see. Officially they are NOT
connected or funded by the Government. Provide evidence
to the contrary if you think the CFR is a Government-funded
conspiracy.

Though Every President and the leaders of both parties are CFR members.

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton

"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

 

[forsmant]

Many congressmen and women are members of the CFR. Many within the Bush and Clinton Administrations are members of the CFR. Providing those members share the beliefs of the CFR, that gives them the power to create policy. They don't have to be an agency of the government. There are many pushing this ideology and few in DC who think differently.

 

[0zzy]

No, some people claim that the CFR is evidence for a
"New World Order Conspiracy to take over the world
by transforming it into NAFTA-Highways, sending out
FEMA-killing squads, putting 90% of US-citizens into
FEMA-Camps, overthrowing the rest of the world to
build a Global Government and then blowing up the
whole place so the Elite can enjoy the rest of their
life on a distant planet thanks to the Jesus-Area51
Ufo's."

[/sarcasm]


Or in other Words: The CFR documents are worthless
and prove nothing but paranoia.

So a think-tank group has an idea,
people with power apart of that think-tank group share ideas, obviously,
and it's paranoia to think there might be a plan?

 

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Oliver just because those losers on that other board use that argument doesn't mean it is a good one.

What do you expect the CFR to say. We are a bunch of old white dudes and megalomaniacs. We will devalue your dollar, increase the amount of hours you work, export your jobs so our companies make more money and then come to your house and shoot your dog?

I imagine they say that on every document but I don't have time to research right now. They say in that document that they want this by 2010. What more exactly do you want them to say?

Nothing is upfront and exactly what it really is on the surface. There is a bill called the Patriot Act, it is not by Patriots, for Patriots, or envisioned by Patriots. Why is it called that? Its fluff and window dressing.

 

[pcosmar]

No, some people claim that the CFR is evidence for a
"New World Order Conspiracy to take over the world
by transforming it into NAFTA-Highways, sending out
FEMA-killing squads, putting 90% of US-citizens into
FEMA-Camps, overthrowing the rest of the world to
build a Global Government and then blowing up the
whole place so the Elite can enjoy the rest of their
life on a distant planet thanks to the Jesus-Area51
Ufo's."

[/sarcasm]


Or in other Words: The CFR documents are worthless
and prove nothing but paranoia.

Or in their own words.

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Quote by: David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather
Source:Sept. 23, 1994

"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."

Quote by: David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather
Date:June 1991 Baden, Germany
Source:Bilderberger Meeting, Baden, Germany

 

[Oliver]

LOL. True true. However, you don't see a trend towards supra-national governing bodies?

I see this trend - and it doesn't surprise me at all since this
is the most natural thing in the world - at least for humans.

History:

- First there were Families as the smallest social units.

- Then Families built societies in form of small villages
(Family Unions) to unite their efforts.

- Then those villages grow and transformed into cities.

- Then those cities interacted with each other and they
formed Kingdoms.

-Then those Kingdoms united into Countries.

- Then those countries traded with each others.

- Then some countries united and transformed into unions.

- Then ...

It's no conspiracy at all. It's called social progression.
That's probably one of the most natural human things
in the world - besides begetting stupid children.

Anyway: As long I don't see any official US-Document
providing indisputable evidence for a NAU, I simply
take the think tanks for what they are:

Philosophy.

 

[pcosmar]

I prefer Our Constitution. I prefer National Sovereignty.

 

[murrayrothbard]

I see this trend - and it doesn't surprise me at all since this
is the most natural thing in the world - at least for humans.

History:

- First there were Families as the smallest social units.

- Then Families built societies in form of small villages
(Family Unions) to unite their efforts.

- Then those villages grow and transformed into cities.

- Then those cities interacted with each other and they
formed Kingdoms.

-Then those Kingdoms united into Countries.

- Then those countries traded with each others.

- Then some countries united and transformed into unions.

- Then ...

It's no conspiracy at all. It's called social progression.
That's probably one of the most natural human things
in the world - besides begetting stupid children.

Anyway: As long I don't see any official US-Document
providing indisputable evidence for a NAU, I simply
take the think tanks for what they are:

Philosophy.

except the vast majority of these moves towards centralization have been the result of conquest. It's not really a "natural" system at all, which is why these unions are always unstable.

 

[Oliver]

except the vast majority of these moves towards centralization have been the result of conquest. It's not really a "natural" system at all, which is why these unions are always unstable.

When was the last time your Neighbors Family robbed you or a
Wolf ate you? Historically that was a good argument - and it's still
a good one concerning problems we're able to solve nowadays in
a much more effective way thanks to Unions.

It is completely natural for the human nature - thanks to the
human intellect - or in other words: The human Brains capabilities
concerning what we call: learning.

- First there was no Union whatsoever besides the Family/couple.
(Which historically was the smallest natural Union of Individuals)

- Then Families built Family-Unions (Clans/Villages). This way they
shared their work like hunting, farming - and they were more
dominant against all natural enemies. And they learned from each
others, got new Ideas, had time to experiment with their Ideas
which led to science.

- Unfortunately, there were other Clans - and they weren't friendly.
So the Clans transformed into Clan-Unions (Monarchies/Kingdoms)
to protect themselves.

- Then many of those Monarchies disappeared for many reasons,
including kicking the Monarchs ass - and Countries replaced those
Monarchies.

- Then some countries had the stupid Idea that uniting their
efforts would be good for the economy, much easier concerning
international trade and would make war between the member-
states much more unlikely. So they built the EU.

This is a rough compilation of the History of Unions.
It certainly is no Conspiracy once you understand the pattern
and how one thing led to another.

So is globalization Good or Bad? We don't know - history
will decide. All I say is that this isn't in any way a "Global Elite
will enslave us into FEMA-camps Conspiracy" - something some
people actually believe in.

I really wonder why those Anti-Globalists people love the Internet
so much - it's the biggest Globalization tool the world has ever seen.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this very message from Germany
in a virtual global Union called the "Ron Paul Forum", hosted on the
other side of the planet.

 

[gilliganscorner]

My two cents.

People in political power join the CFR because it is the "in" thing to do. Remember, with the recent exception of Ron Paul, I don't think that any of these politicians are exceptionally bright.

They have advance agents, handlers, policy makers, campaign staff, speechwriters, image consultants, media relations people, and host of other people they source to manufacture, maintain, and project an image of themselves that they can sell to the public - yet that image may be completely different from who they are. However, I think these types of folks want power and prestige, just like some people buy hot sports cars and get a thrill out of seeing the envious looks of their neighbors. I dislike this type of ilk. Power should be given to the people that least want it. Note that I did not say that power should be given to those who are incompetent to entrust it with.

The CFR is yet another extension of that. It is an elite country club where they go to to rub elbows together and be taught what to think, what's right, and what's wrong by the policymakers in that group. The bone of contention here is who and what is influencing the CFR facilitators and why are they doing it? They might even think what they are doing is altruistic and good for the planet - who knows? I am not likely going to be a CFR member as I disagree with their ideology.

This is part of the reason I like RP. He seems straight up, honest, and does not cultivate this sense of plasticity that other candidates have. He is not groomed for the camera. He is well educated - I have been reading his speeches to Congress for the last 5 years. In short, he seems to be the real deal, hence my curiosity and support for him.

Anyway, thought I would throw that up there.

However, Oliver, I found a statement you made a bit curious:

I really wonder why those Anti-Globalists people love the Internet
so much - it's the biggest Globalization tool the world has ever seen.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this very message from Germany
in a virtual global Union called the "Ron Paul Forum", hosted on the
other side of the planet.

Anti-Globalists and most folks love the Internet as it allows everyone to have a voice and speak to each other, mostly unregulated - yet. In other words, ideas can be projected, organized, and allow folks to communicate to each other without the barriers of entry traditional media has. Where would the Ron Paul campaign be without the Internet? Do you think Old Media would have carried hi message to so many people? So yes, the Internet is a Global tool, but not in the context of Globalization. Thanks!

 

[Oliver]

... but not in the context of Globalization. Thanks!

You're deadly wrong.

The Internet removes national hurdles. Both of us talking about
it in an Internet Forum with people from ten or more other countries
is the best evidence for that. So people are getting closer to each other,
learn about each others Ideas, share their knowledge and so on.

That's a huge step towards Globalization and building Unions - not
the other way around.

Why? Because the Internet drastically pushes the Ideology of a
Global Community. There is no "those evil Arabs or Germans" - in the
Internet there is only "You, Me, Wong, Rob, Fatma, Francesca
and all the other people."

And this trend will finally eliminate the Ideology of nationalism.

From historical point of view, America itself is the best evidence
for that. They came from all over the world to the new continent
and somehow managed to come along and call themselves
AMERICANS, no matter where they came from.

And Americans feel the same way. Paul doesn't say he's German
because his Grandpa came from there. He honestly says, feels
and thinks that he's an American. Which is his definition of
where he feels he belongs to.

The Internet is the same thing. Once people don't feel that they
are part of a Nation anymore but rather part of a global community,
and this change is already happening, then there is no reason to
have sovereign nations or nationalistic Ideologies anymore.

It's just a matter of how people think about the world they live in.

And the Internet is changing that rapidly what people think about
other Nations - thanks to exchange of Ideas and Goods. No matter
if you like it or not:

It's speeding up Globalization.

Welcome to the New Age.

And as a side note: Ron is supporting "trade, talk to each other, be
friends with people and nations" - and he supports the Internet
without limitations. To me this sounds pro-globalism - with the limitation
that he opposes other Governments influence and efforts.

To me, all of this is related.

Anyway: Being skeptical, I see no way to stop Globalism. Just like it's
impossible to go back to anarchy or moving Americans back to the
countries they came from.

So why care or being worried about that anyway?
No conspiracy here. Just evolution.