Council on Foreign Relations is it Treasonous?

I send checks (for $.10) to the democrats every so often. For my dime I get tons of mail and several emails a week from them, for a cost far exceeding my dime. I am kept abreast of their rhetoric, and plans for the future. It certainly does not mean I agree with them.
An enemy, held close, is less dangerous.

 

Nope. I am a Foreign Affairs subscriber and I have never come across the bugbear that some folks find about the CFR.

 

If your a neo-con and you support nation building with a goal of a New World Order then you will support the CFR. If you support America First and are against the New World Order then you will be opposed to the CFR.

The CFR was founded by a man who touted Marxism and spent his entire adult life working to fasten its freedom-destroying grip on the United States; (From his lofty position as top assistant to President Woodrow Wilson, Edward Mandell House led the group that founded the CFR. In his 1912 book, PHILLIP DRU, ADMINISTRATOR, House explained that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.")

The CFR has for seven decades consistently advocated scrapping the independence of the U.S. in favor of a socialistic new world order; (The December 1922 issue of FOREIGN AFFAIRS, the CFR's quarterly journal, called for an "international system" and "world government;" in 1974, one of its articles boldly suggested "an end run around national sovereignty eroding it piece by piece;" in 1988, another article sought "internationalism" at the expense of national independence. In 1944, a CFR publication denounced "the sovereignty fetish" existing in the United States; in 1959; a Council document called for "international order" where all nations are "interdependent.")

It's the CFR that is pushing through FTAA, CAFTA, WTO, etc. If you support the CFR, then you support the destruction of our American Republic!

 

I support the CFR and I support America First and I am against the New World Order(at least until it comes time to join the United Federation of Planets )

 

Correct.

The founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew how what they bled and died for had turned out.

 

I seriously doubt that, LE.

 

If you have studied any of their writings, indcluding the U.S. Constitution, you would not doubt it. The CFR hawks care about two things, power and wealth, and if it means sacrificing our Constitutional Republic to achieve that, then that is what they will do!

 

It was primarily members of the Council on Foreign Relations who were the architects of the United Nations, do you support them as well??

Here is a great article about the CFR and what they stand for:
http://www.stoptheftaa.org/artman/publish/article_72.shtml

You can't say that you are against everything that the CFR has created and stands for, while saying that you support the CFR.

 

I guess this is just one area where you and LadyEagle, and I will have to agree to disagree, Jonathan.

 

Watching the weekly series on the History Channel, "The Last Days of World War II", and seeing how the U.N. was formed has definitely changed my attitude toward the U.N.

Yes, I support diplomacy to solve the world's ills when at all possible.

 

So you now support the CFR, the UN, are the WTO, FTAA, CAFTA, opening our borders, etc. next? I guess they will have to be, you can support something, while being against the heart of what that something is trying to accomplish.

I guess you have just about evolved into a true neo-con. I liked the old KenH better, the one that cared about the future of our Constitutional Republic more than he did the quest for "Pax Americana" of the neo-con CFR members.

I would encourage you to read Inside the United Nations by Steve Bonta. This book will help you understand the danger that the UN has posed to the United States since it's founding.

 

I support free and fair trade. But we don't want to repeat the Smoot-Hawley fiasco.

I support securing our borders. If Congressman Tancredo runs for the GOP nomination in 2008 I will support him.

 

I support Tancredo also, but you seem to want to "have your cake and eat it too". You say your support America First, you support securing our borders, etc., but you say you support the CFR. It was a proposal by the Council on Foreign Relations to eliminate U.S. borders with Canada & Mexico and create one North American security perimeter. People and products would be able to move throughout the area without limitation of current immigration and trade laws. You can either support them or be against them, but you can't do both!

 

Forget about the borders. Our corporations are busy selling America off to the highest bidder.

For example China's Lenovo buying IBM's PC business and the Chinese oil company trying to take over Unocal. Lets also not forget BP's buyout of American Oil Company (Amoco).

 

I don't paint the CFR as black and white as you do.

 

I haven't painted them, they don't hide their intentions, they created the UN, WTO, FTAA, CAFTA, and have publicly called for opening the borders between Candada, Mexico and the US. Even before the CFR was officially founded in the 1920's those behind it have had a single goal of a New World Order.

 

And I imagine it will one day be accused of being behind Earth's entry into the United Federation of Planets.

 

So are you just choosing to ignore the information available about the history and goals of the CFR that you yourself once talked about? Or, do you now support these goals of the CFR?

 

My aim is to support what I belive is best for America. When that goal is aligned with the CFR, or any other group, then I am in agreement with that group. When it doesn't then I am not in agreement with that group.