See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama: I don't carry a Council on Foreign Relations card or know any 'special handshake'
Source:
Raw Story
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_no_secret_trade_deals_0331.html
Published: Mar 31, 2008
Author: David Edwards and Eric Mayes
Post Date: 2008-03-31 18:47:26 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 1311
Comments: 98
Worries about One World Order and a North American Union have been "ginned up by the blogs and the Internet," Sen. Barack Obama told a Lancaster, Pennsylvania audience in a stump speech as he continued his tour through the battleground state. The Illinois senator also defended the recently re-authorized Patriot Act. Responding to a question from the audience, asking whether he was a member for the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many allege is leading a move toward one world government, Obama said: "I don’t know if I’m an official member. I’ve spoken there before. It basically is a forum where people talk about foreign policy. There is no official membership. I don’t have a card, or you know a special handshake or anything like that." Sen. Hillary Clinton has spoken several times to the club. Comments she made today against NAFTA, were posted on the group's website. Often, because the council has served as lightning rod for conspiracy theorists, candidates shy away from listing their affiliation with the group. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former director but has taken pains not to publicize the fact. "I’ve been a member for long and was actually a director for some period of time," he told members in a speech broadcast on C-Span and now on YouTube, adding, "I never mentioned that when I was running for re-election back home in Wyoming." The council has been at the center of several One World Order conspiracies with theorists contending that the group is conspiring to bring about one world government and a North American Union similar to the European Union. Obama dismissed those notions. "I see no evidence of this actually taking place," he said. "I think this is something that has been ginned up on certain blogs and the Internet. It was based mostly on the fact that there is this highway being built in Texas that will facilitate transportation more transportation between Mexico and the intercontinental United States and Canada...NAFTA helped to break down barriers, but I don’t think there is some conspiracy to create this one continental government." This video is from CNN.com, broadcast March 31, 2008:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-20) not displayed.
.
.
.
#21. To: Cynicom (#19)
(Edited)
I overheard two butt wipes talkin politics on the road last week. They said they could support McKook if he took on Condilesbo OWM Rice or "I'll lie for war" Colin OWM Powell...idiots.
You cannot make it as far as these three candidates have made it without embracing the non-elected rulers and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Barry Goldwater: With No Apologies Published: Dec 26, 1979 Author: Barry Goldwater From the Personal and Political Memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater In the Bible story of David and Goliath we are told that David’s brothers, who were older and bigger than he, ordered David to stay home while they went into the valley to confront the enemy. When David joined them a day or so later, they rebuked him. He replied with a question: “Is there not a cause?” To my mind there is a cause. That cause is freedom. We stand in danger of losing that freedom- not to a foreign tyrant, but to those well intentioned but misguided elitist utopians who stubbornly refuse to profit from errors of the past. If I am right, if the Republic is in danger, then time is short. I must take this opportunity to share what I have seen and experienced as a member of the U.S. Senate, as my party’s nominee for the presidency, as a man whose only aspiration has been to serve the cause of freedom. If I am wrong, time will display my error and reprimand me. If what I say strikes a response in the hearts and minds of other Americans, perhaps they will enlist in the cause to keep our country strong and to restrain those who seek to diminish the importance and significance of the individual. (Page 14) The Nonelected Rulers I believe the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, monarchy, oligarchy—it’s all the same to them. Rear Admiral Chester Ward, USN (Retd.), who was a member of the CFR for sixteen years, has written, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common—they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.” Their goal is to impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through the merger and consolidation. They see the elimination of national boundaries, the suppression of racial and ethnic loyalties as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. Their rationale rests exclusively on materialism. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension. This approach dismisses as insignificant the form of government or the political ideology expressed by that form. It may be that if the CFR vision of the future could be realized, there would be a reduction in wars, a lessening of poverty, a more efficient utilization of the world’s resources. To my mind, this would inevitably be accompanied by a loss of personal freedom of choice and the reestablishment of the restraints which provoked the American Revolution. (Pages 278-279) With No Apologies
I disagree with you there. This is politics. You and I seem to believe that it doesn't matter which candidate of the anointed three wins. Others may think that degrees of difference are worth some weight. That is their opinion, and in the people I know here on 4, it does not strike me as being disloyal. Obama's stated opinions on the Zionist issue seem very important to many. So has been his reluctance to meddle in Iraq. This pair of We are Change videos indicates that although Obama's foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski has had less interventionist opinions over the past 20 years, he defends the Bilderberg group, he denies a one-world government conspiracy in the TLC, and he appears to resent attempts to engage in critical dialog with others who strongly disagree with his opinions. But Brzezinski is a "better" globalist than Norman Podhoretz. For example, he is very critical of the impact of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. This is a significant difference on Obama's inner circle with say Rudy Giuliani's team of advisers. Keep in mind that people are desperate for any positive indication of improvement among the candidates. Obama is better than the others in several minor ways. Unfortunately, these appearances may even get a candidate in serious trouble once he is elected, if he tries to act on them.
I don't accept any nuanced arguments for the OWMs my friend...
I realize that, but is it fair to insult people who want to choose the least aggressive OWMer of the leading candidates? What is their alternative?
I do know that the sheeple who have peeked behind the curtain recently are now shi**ing bricks, because they realize the truth. Here's the core, bottom line truth. There is NO political solution. If there were, the Traitors would fix the game AGAIN. Short of a Civil Disobedience Revolution or OUTRIGHT Revolution of our Founders' fame, it's OVER. That's the reality. Nothing will change it... As christine pointed out, you CAN NOT get caught in the same trap! Can you imagine any of these clowns getting a landslide vote in a record turnout??? It's bad enough we have 3 CFR/Globalist-Traitors selected for us...
Reality is the alternative. That, and BUCKING UP...
I'm interested in working with people who support Obama, not against them. I see how they think, and it isn't necessarily traitorous.
Have fun...those spineless jellyfish don't deserve you.
If I had you in front of me right now, you'd simply be my bitch, fuckface.
Heheheheh You know there are ways to make things like this happen, 'cept you Traitors can't be trusted. Man to man, assuming you are, I would relish the opportunity to shove your nose back into your pea brain.
If I HAD YOU in front of me right now, you WOULD NOT even be my bitch, you wasted old piece of flesh.
I got your invite to the jacuzzi party. How many guys are coming? ;-}
Not on your best day...but we can have a go at it, if your not just talk bitch.
You want a piece of my fine action, too?
I have bigger fish to fry, but I'll put you on the list...
Sodie... Your intellect is showing and I may say it is sadly lacking.
You promised me some. (Your so sexy when you're like this.)
Down in Silicon Valley, about a decade ago, Jesse Jackson was whining about how there weren't "enough" blacks there. So we offered a deal to him. If he sent us any number of qualified engineers, we'd hire them on the spot. ALL of them. As many as he could send us. We never heard back from him. Racism? Hardly. How many "ethnic studies" majors do you know of who are qualified for anything besides teaching "ethnic studies" courses?
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
YES!
WADR, I have to put you on the filter. You're far too into Republicratism...
I got you PM. I understand. It will be just between you and I.
IF 4um is a microcosm of the state of our country right now, I think that the vacuum created when Ron Paul left the battlefield has further fractured us. His candidacy turned out to be much more divisive than unifying. Disclaimer: I am not criticizing or blaming Ron Paul. Just sayin'. This is my most humble opinion.
Did he leave willingly with no undue influence or pressure? The last time he left due pressure from Pat Buchanan.
Bingo. Both Perot and Buchanan ran out the waves and stood for election in November despite knowing the inevitable outcome. After RP secured his House seat, he should have been back in the fray. I have no idea why he isn't.
...nodding in total agreement and wishing I'd said it first. I wish I'd known RP was a 'reluctant' candidate. We all must've skipped some signs along the way, gave him the benefit of the doubt when he threatened the NeoCons with a 3rd Party run and generally wanted it more...gulp...than Ron Paul did. Sadness compounded...
RP took the dive and stated "I am a Republican Congressman" in his "Surrender To November" "Trotsky" letter...RIGHT AFTER *CPAC* and Romney's endorsement of Juan McStain!
Sure you do. I know you do.
ping to 48 Seems like *CPAC* was the catalyst potentially...
I still have my doubts if Paul wrote that email. If in fact he did, I have to wonder if he was trying to say something between the lines.
I know, you know I do too (adjusting Alcoa helmet)
JFK tried to take back the presidency. So did Reagan.
I wonder if we'll ever know. In my heart I believe Ron was honest and sincere...in hindsight he took on the fight reluctantly and who knows what kind and how much pressure or where it originated from, but something about that week wreaked of quit. I have two vids where RP said, when asked whether or not he would bolt the GOP and run, he was called a "Spoiler" by the NeoCons/Politboro. He responded "That's what I want them to think". I wonder if someone of the evil ilk conveyed to him potential personal costs to he and his for doing so...who knows?
If so, Reagan had already surrendered to the CFR/Bush Crime Family before even accepting the Nomination...
The Trotsky reference was totally out of context and character, or was it????
He wouldn't be the first sweet old patriot to play both sides and expose other patriots...
An audition for Obama's cabinet?
2 more things: 1) It's alleged that his wife denied that he wrote it. That's all I ever heard about that... 2) The Trotsky quote was never addressed by anyone at the campaign, including RP...
At 2:30pm on March 30, 1981, the son of a family with close ties to the Bush family (who had undergone "psychological treatment") nearly took the life out of the Reagan presidency. Don't blame Reagan for being more careful after that. See John Hankey's investigation of the JFK murder. These events may well have been psyops intended to reign in presidents — and terrify the American people, as well. JFK tried to "act" a little too presidential. Just consider EO 11110.
123 Book Meme & U.S. Foreign Policy Thanks to Ben of openswitch, I have become the latest victim of the 123 Meme (did you know that the origin of the word ‘meme’ comes from evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins?). Essentially, this latest online cultural idea — that, supposedly like a gene, can replicate and evolve — requires you to select the nearest book and post an excerpt on your blog using the following rules: Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. No cheating! 1 Turn to page 123. Find the first 5 [full] sentences. 2 Post the next 3 sentences. Tag 5 people. For regular readers this quote will come as no big surprise: […] Where they supported the Persian Gulf War, this administration has not garnered their support for partisan reasons. The principles of interventionism, constitutionality and morality have not been applied consistently to each war effort by either political party; and there is a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of many. The use of government force to mold personal behavior, manipulate the economy and interfere in the affairs of other nations is an acceptable practice endorsed by nearly everyone in Washington, regardless of party affiliation. […] "The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Comments (62 - 98) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#22. To: robin (#0)
#23. To: All (#22)
Barry Goldwater
#24. To: FOH (#20)
(Edited)
All the phonies are being exposed, though...
#25. To: buckeye (#24)
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#26. To: FOH (#25)
#27. To: buckeye (#24)
Keep in mind that people are desperate for any positive indication of improvement among the candidates. Obama is better than the others in several minor ways. Unfortunately, these appearances may even get a candidate in serious trouble once he is elected, if he tries to act on them.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#28. To: buckeye (#26)
(Edited)
This has been a very instructive exercise, though, in whether or not there's anything or anyone left in this former great nation worth fighting for.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#29. To: FOH (#28)
#30. To: buckeye (#29)
I'm interested in working with people who support Obama
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#31. To: FOH (#8)
#32. To: Sodie Pop (#31)
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#33. To: Cynicom (#9)
#34. To: FOH (#30)
#35. To: FOH (#32)
I would relish the opportunity to shove your nose back into your pea brain
#36. To: Trace21231 (#34)
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#37. To: Sodie Pop (#35)
Not on your best day...but we can have a go at it, if your not just talk bitch.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#38. To: Sodie Pop (#33)
#39. To: FOH (#36)
You want a piece of my fine action, too?
#40. To: Cynicom (#19)
Speak of racism?????
#41. To: honway (#22)
You cannot make it as far as these three candidates have made it without embracing the non-elected rulers and the Council on Foreign Relations.
#42. To: Trace21231 (#39)
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#43. To: FOH (#42)
I have to put you on the filter.
#44. To: All (#41)
#45. To: christine (#44)
I think that the vacuum created when Ron Paul left the battlefield has further fractured us.
#46. To: christine (#44)
#47. To: christine (#44)
IF 4um is a microcosm of the state of our country right now, I think that the vacuum created when Ron Paul left the battlefield has further fractured us. His candidacy turned out to be much more divisive than unifying. Disclaimer: I am not criticizing or blaming Ron Paul. Just sayin'. This is my most humble opinion.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#48. To: Cynicom (#45)
Did he leave willingly with no undue influence or pressure?
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#49. To: Jethro Tull (#46)
I have no idea why he isn't.
#50. To: Jethro Tull, buckeye (#46)
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#51. To: FOH (#48)
RP took the dive and stated
#52. To: Cynicom (#49)
#53. To: FOH (#50)
#54. To: Cynicom (#51)
I still have my doubts if Paul wrote that email. If in fact he did, I have to wonder if he was trying to say something between the lines.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#55. To: buckeye (#53)
JFK tried to take back the presidency. So did Reagan.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#56. To: FOH (#54)
..who knows?
#57. To: Cynicom (#56)
The Trotsky reference was totally out of context and character, or was it????
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#58. To: Cynicom (#56)
#59. To: Cynicom (#56)
The Trotsky reference was totally out of context and character, or was it????
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#60. To: FOH, Cynicom (#55)
#61. To: FOH (#57)
.
.
.