Little of what either of you post can be believed. Cartoons, make believe, doctored videos, dubbed voices ... mainly fabrications, not true to life reporting of actual facts. In other words lies.
There is nothing humorous or of good report about deceit.
TRUMP.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Elizabeth, why do you focus on youtube videos and cartoons and ignore the fact that Trump killed innocent people in Syria? Which is worse, Elizabeth, killing innocent people or cartoons?
Of course, in this case, since the Marmalade In Chief is a cartoonish, buffoonish character, it's sort of the same thing. Wars and killing have always been a part of this troubled world's history. There was this guy... He got kicked out of heaven... He swore he'd use the treasures of the earth to wage war... Fascinating back story, you should read up about it. So Trump is just like all the New World Order puppets before him...simply following his master.
Tell you what, I'll stop posting cartoons about the Orange Billionaire just as soon as you cite the laws that Joel supposedly broke by posting the Sassy Trump videos. Remember? You declared them illegal. Live up to that statement, Elizabeth, and own it. Don't talk about it. Be about it.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Here...President Benson praised the John Birch Society. Trump has hired a couple dozen members of his administration who belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. If you still support Trump after reading the article, you might want to start getting ready to explain your indefensible position to President Benson some day.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/f ... -relations
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Council On Foreign Relations
Written by James Perloff
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama consistently promised Americans “change.” Such promises aren’t new to the voting public.
When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he said: “The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.” And top Carter aide Hamilton Jordan promised: “If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.” Yet Carter selected Vance as Secretary of State and Brzezinski as National Security Adviser; the “same group of insiders” had been shifted around; and Jordan did not quit.
Carter’s administration was dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission, which had been founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was campaigning against Carter, he protested:
I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction.
Yet after his election, President Reagan picked 10 Trilateralists for his transition team, and included in his administration such Trilateralists as Vice President George Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, U.S. Trade Representative William Brock, and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Yet the entire North American membership of the Trilateral Commission has never numbered much over 100.
The reason that presidential candidates’ promises of “change” go largely unfulfilled once in office: they draw their top personnel from the same establishment groups — of which the Trilateral Commission is only one.
Chief among these groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of what some have called the American establishment. Members of the council have dominated the administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level. It does not matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. As we will later see, Barack Obama is no exception to CFR influence.
Power Behind the Throne
In theory, America’s government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” While this concept rang true in early America, and many individuals still trust in it, the last century has seen the reality of power increasingly shift from the people to an establishment rooted in banking, Wall Street, and powerful multinational corporations. Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, explained:
The word “Establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area.
Roosevelt added that this group’s goal is “a One World Socialist state governed by ‘experts’ like themselves.”
David Rockefeller, the longtime chairman (and now chairman emeritus) of the CFR, acknowledged the role of the establishment in trying to lead America in the one-world direction in his 2002 book Memoirs:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Two major means the establishment employs for controlling government policy: (1) through its influence within the two major parties and the mass media, it can usually assure that both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates will be its own hand-picked men; (2) by stacking presidential cabinets with CFR members at key positions — especially those involving defense, finance, foreign policy, and national security — it can assure that America will move in the direction it wants. Since the council’s founding in 1921, 21 secretaries of defense or war, 19 secretaries of the treasury, 17 secretaries of state, and 15 CIA directors have hailed from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Background
Prior to the CFR’s founding, what Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. (the father of the famous aviator) called the “Money Trust” — a cabal of international bankers including the houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild — conspired to create the Federal Reserve System. Their agents, such as Paul Warburg and Benjamin Strong, who had secretly planned the Fed at a nine-day meeting on Jekyll Island, were then put in charge of the system itself. This gave them control of American interest rates, and, by virtue of this, control of the stock market, as well as the capacity to have the U.S. government spend without limit by having the Fed create money from nothing. The result has been decades of inflation and skyrocketing national debt. (For full details, see the April 13, 2009 New American or Our Monetary Mayhem Began With the Fed.)
Not just an accumulation of wealth, but a consolidation of political power was involved. The Money Trust had backed Woodrow Wilson in the presidential elections, and then controlled him through their front man, Edward Mandell House, who lived in the White House. The trust recognized how the power of government could be used to advance their own interests.
Wilson, surrounded by the bankers, traveled to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which was settling the aftermath of World War I. His chief proposal there, of course, was the League of Nations — a first step toward world government. However, although the League was established by the Versailles Treaty, the United States did not join because the Senate refused to ratify the treaty.
In response to this rejection, the bankers’ circle, still in Paris, held a series of meetings and proposed to establish a new organization in the United States, whose purpose would be to lead America into the League. This organization was incorporated in New York City two years later as the Council on Foreign Relations.
Architects of a New World Order
The CFR’s goal was formation of an incrementally stronger world government. Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”
After World War II, the League’s successor, the United Nations, was born. Contrary to what the public is commonly told, the UN was not founded by nations who had tired of war. The UN was conceived by a group of CFR members in the State Department calling themselves the Informal Agenda Group. They drafted the original proposal for the UN, and secured the approval of President Roosevelt, who then made establishing the UN his highest postwar priority. When the UN held its founding meeting in San Francisco in 1945, 47 of the American delegates were CFR members.
Though the UN was not initially set up as a world government, the intent was that it would develop into one over time. John Foster Dulles (CFR), an American delegate to the UN founding meeting who later became Secretary of State under Eisenhower, acknowledged as much in his book War or Peace: “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”
Two other postwar institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, were technically created at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference. But the initial planning was done by the CFR’s Economic and Finance Group, part of their wartime War and Peace Studies Project. The World Bank and IMF act as a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpayer money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bailouts, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.
Despite what Americans were told, the postwar Marshall Plan was not invented by General George Marshall, though he did announce it in a 1947 Harvard commencement speech. The Marshall Plan was dreamed up at a CFR study group with David Rockefeller as its secretary. Marshall was simply selected to announce the plan because, as a general, he would be perceived as politically neutral and help garner bipartisan congressional support for the plan. Unknown to the public, Marshall Plan funds were circuitously rerouted by John J. McCloy — appointed U.S. High Commissioner to Germany — to Jean Monnet, founder of the Common Market, which evolved into today’s European Union, a microcosm of world government. McCloy returned home to become chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1953.
The tragic Vietnam War was run almost entirely by CFR members. William P. Bundy (CFR) drafted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution before the now-discredited Tonkin Gulf Incident even took place. Bundy’s father-in-law, Dean Acheson (CFR), as leader of a senior team of advisers nicknamed “the Wise Men,” persuaded Lyndon Baines Johnson to dramatically escalate the war beginning in 1965. And Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (CFR) helped develop the “rules of engagement” (e.g., preventing the Air Force from attacking critical targets) that guaranteed the war’s disastrous prolongation. This generated a huge slide to the left among American college students. When Bundy left the State Department, David Rockefeller appointed him editor of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs. And McNamara, one of the leading architects of the Vietnam War debacle, became president of the World Bank.
Broadening the Scheme
The CFR is not a uniquely American phenomenon. It has counterpart organizations throughout the world — e.g., the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England, the French Institute of International Relations, etc.
To help coordinate policy on an international scale, CFR chairman David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973. “Trilateral” refers to the coordination of three global regions: North America, Europe, and Asia. The commission’s meetings allow the gathering together of heads of state, banks, multinational corporations, and media. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater called the commission “David Rockefeller’s newest cabal,” and said, “It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.” The commission, like the annual secretive meetings of the Bilderbergers and the notorious Bohemian Grove, enables the international power elite to privately assemble and plan our destiny.
Jimmy Carter was a member of the commission, hand-picked to be president after meeting with Brzezinski and Rockefeller at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York, estate. Carter filled his administration with CFR members and Trilateralists. Indeed, Brzezinski noted in his memoirs that “all the key foreign policy decision makers of the Carter Administration had previously served in the Trilateral Commission.” Carter then embarked on a destructive course of foreign policy that included betraying the Shah of Iran, leading to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini and the U.S. hostage crisis; betraying President Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, resulting in a Marxist dictatorship under the Sandinistas; and betraying Taiwan in order to recognize Communist China — a move previously set up by Richard Nixon’s overtures to China, dictated by his own CFR advisers.
Under Bill Clinton (a CFR member who selected 12 CFR members for his cabinet), the United States enacted NAFTA, an economic alliance with Mexico and Canada. This arrangement was created by the establishment, not by the American people, who did not suspect the game being played on them. Not only did NAFTA swamp us with cheap, job-destroying imports, but it was designed to be the foundation for a continental economic union leading to political union. Robert Pastor (CFR), a key architect of North American integration, acknowledged in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.” And Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute said: “NAFTA will signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit — North America. With economic integration will come political integration. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government. Following the lead of the Europeans, North Americans should begin considering formation of a continental parliament.” [Emphasis added.]
A similar stratagem had been used against the peoples of Europe — by first deceptively hooking them into an “economic” alliance called the Common Market, which then, requiring common laws to regulate trade, transformed via a series of steps into the European Union, the super-national government of Europe that is swallowing up national sovereignty.
Following the initial step enacted under Clinton, President George W. Bush, whose father was a CFR director, moved toward politicizing the NAFTA alliance. On March 23, 2005, he met Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to launch the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the rudiments of a North American Union. CNN’s Lou Dobbs said of it: “President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it.”
Furthermore, regional alliances such as the European Union and proposed North American Union are not ends, but only steppingstones to world government. As CFR/Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”
In furtherance of this, on April 30, 2007, President Bush stood at the White House beside Angela Merkel, president of the European Council, and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and announced the signing of a new agreement to “strengthen transatlantic economic integration.” It called for “joint work in the areas of regulatory cooperation, financial markets, trade and transport security, innovation and technological development, intellectual property rights, energy, investment, competition, services, and government procurement,” and various other steps toward economic integration. But as usual, “economic integration” is the predecessor of political integration. CFR members have dreamed of a political union between the United States and Europe since the 1950s, when the CFR-dominated Atlantic Union Committee promoted a merger they called “Atlantica.”
Enter Obama
Candidate Barack Obama revealed he would proceed with the Bush initiatives. In a speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008, he stated:
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.... Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.... In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
Obama had only been president for a little over two months when he traveled to Europe for a series of meetings with European leaders. He attended the G20 Summit, which ended with a tentative agreement to launch a new global financial system, using as the rationale for this major step toward global government the recent Fed- and government-spawned financial meltdown.
Henry Kissinger — foreign policy mouthpiece of the establishment for four decades — wrote an article for the January 12, 2009 issue of the International Herald Tribune entitled “The Chance for a New World Order.” He stated:
As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy....
Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being....
The alternative to a new international order is chaos.
Kissinger also stated on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street”: “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously.... His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”
Past statements reveal that the establishment wants a single currency for the world, just as the EU has consolidated its currencies into the “euro.” As far back as the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, John Maynard Keynes proposed a world currency he dubbed bancor. Richard L. Gardner (CFR) wrote in the Fall 1984 Foreign Affairs: “I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of common currency for all the industrial democracies and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that Monetary Policy.”
In March of this year, Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with reporters at the White House. Brown announced that “there is the possibility in the next few months of a global new deal that will involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system.” Obama added that
Globalization can be an enormous force for good.... But what is also true is … we still have a 1930s regulatory system in place in most countries designed from the last great crisis, that we’ve got to update our institutions, our regulatory frameworks, so that the power of globalization is channeled for the benefit of ordinary men and women.
If trends continue, however, the changes can be expected to benefit a tiny handful of the global elite, not “ordinary men and women.” Further evidence that Obama’s administration will simply continue the globalist agenda is indicated by his appointments.
CFR Domination Continues
During his campaign, Obama selected the ubiquitous Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), promoter of the “regional” approach to world government, as one of his top foreign policy advisors. Obama called Brzezinski “one of our more outstanding thinkers” and “somebody I have learned an immense amount from.” Presumably Brzezinski’s teachings included the world government he advocates.
For Treasury Secretary, Obama chose Timothy Geithner: Senior Fellow in International Economics at the CFR, Bilderberger, former head of the New York Federal Reserve, and former employee of both the IMF and Kissinger Associates. One doesn’t get more establishment than that! It is Geithner who is managing the bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer dollars. Assisting Geithner at Treasury in overseeing the auto industry bailout is fellow CFR member Stephen Rattner.
For Director of the National Economic Council — a U.S. government agency created by a Bill Clinton executive order — Obama selected Lawrence Summers (CFR, Bilderberger). Former Chief Economist at the World Bank, his last position was at the investment firm of D. E. Shaw & Co, where he earned $5.2 million in one year while working one day per week. Henry Kissinger had said Summers should “be given a White House post in which he was charged with shooting down or fixing bad ideas.”
For Defense Secretary, Obama elected to continue with Bush pick Robert Gates (CFR, Bilderberger). During the Carter administration, Gates served as a special assistant to Zbigniew Brzezinski. In 2004, he co-chaired a CFR Task Force on Iran with Brzezinski, who lauded Gates in Time in 2008. Joining Gates in the Defense Department are fellow CFR members Michele Flournoy (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), Jeh C. Johnson (Defense Department General Counsel), and Kathleen Hicks (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces).
For Secretary of State, Obama chose Hillary Clinton, who has attended the top-secret Bilderberger meetings. Hillary is not a CFR member, but husband Bill is, and her State Department is laden with CFR members, including James B. Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), William J. Burns (Under Secretary for Political Affairs), Susan Rice (U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Jacob J. Lew (Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources), Todd Stern (Special Envoy for Climate Change), and many others.
The Department of Homeland Security, which many Americans fear may turn our country into an Orwellian surveillance society, was conceived before 9/11 by a task force called the U.S. Commission on National Security, nine of whose 12 members belonged to the CFR. The administration of the department under Obama is particularly heavy with CFR members, including Janet Napolitano (Secretary), Jane Holl Lute (Deputy Secretary), Juliette Kayyem (Assistant Secretary, Office of Intergovernmental Programs), and Alan Bersin (Assistant Secretary, Office of International Affairs).
Thus the CFR continues to dominate our government’s key areas: finance, defense, foreign policy, and security. To this may be added various other Obama CFR appointees, such as Mona Sutphen (White House Deputy Chief of Staff), Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board), Peter Cowhey, (Senior Counsel, Office of U.S. Trade Representative), and Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
The Future
The idea that Barack Obama became president from a “grass-roots” movement is illusory. American government policy continues to be largely dictated by the rich and the few. This is generally unknown to the public — not because it is a bizarre conspiracy theory, but because the same power elite who run our government, mega-banks, and multinational corporations also run the major media, as an inspection of the CFR membership roster would reveal.
Membership in the CFR, of course, is not an automatic condemnation. A few people are added as “window dressing” to give the group distinction and a veneer of diversity. An example is movie star Angelina Jolie. No one suspects Jolie knows much about foreign affairs or is a conspirator for world government. But within the CFR are hardcore globalists who, linked with their foreign counterparts through the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission, head the drive for one-world government.
Though numerically small (less than 1,000 members during the Kennedy years, less than 4,500 today), this organization has dominated every administration for over seven decades.
As long as the CFR controls our government, we can anticipate more of the same: diminishing national sovereignty; free flow of immigration (which confuses national identity and weakens national loyalties); increasing jobs losses through multinational trade agreements; further internationalization of law (Law of the Sea Treaty, Kyoto Protocol, World Court, global taxation, etc.); increasing loss of freedoms in a “surveillance society”; progressive organization of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union; and ultimately, broader merger into a world government where all power will be concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Eternal vigilance continues to be the price of freedom.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/f ... -relations
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Council On Foreign Relations
Written by James Perloff
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama consistently promised Americans “change.” Such promises aren’t new to the voting public.
When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he said: “The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.” And top Carter aide Hamilton Jordan promised: “If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.” Yet Carter selected Vance as Secretary of State and Brzezinski as National Security Adviser; the “same group of insiders” had been shifted around; and Jordan did not quit.
Carter’s administration was dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission, which had been founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was campaigning against Carter, he protested:
I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction.
Yet after his election, President Reagan picked 10 Trilateralists for his transition team, and included in his administration such Trilateralists as Vice President George Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, U.S. Trade Representative William Brock, and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Yet the entire North American membership of the Trilateral Commission has never numbered much over 100.
The reason that presidential candidates’ promises of “change” go largely unfulfilled once in office: they draw their top personnel from the same establishment groups — of which the Trilateral Commission is only one.
Chief among these groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of what some have called the American establishment. Members of the council have dominated the administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level. It does not matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. As we will later see, Barack Obama is no exception to CFR influence.
Power Behind the Throne
In theory, America’s government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” While this concept rang true in early America, and many individuals still trust in it, the last century has seen the reality of power increasingly shift from the people to an establishment rooted in banking, Wall Street, and powerful multinational corporations. Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, explained:
The word “Establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area.
Roosevelt added that this group’s goal is “a One World Socialist state governed by ‘experts’ like themselves.”
David Rockefeller, the longtime chairman (and now chairman emeritus) of the CFR, acknowledged the role of the establishment in trying to lead America in the one-world direction in his 2002 book Memoirs:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Two major means the establishment employs for controlling government policy: (1) through its influence within the two major parties and the mass media, it can usually assure that both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates will be its own hand-picked men; (2) by stacking presidential cabinets with CFR members at key positions — especially those involving defense, finance, foreign policy, and national security — it can assure that America will move in the direction it wants. Since the council’s founding in 1921, 21 secretaries of defense or war, 19 secretaries of the treasury, 17 secretaries of state, and 15 CIA directors have hailed from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Background
Prior to the CFR’s founding, what Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. (the father of the famous aviator) called the “Money Trust” — a cabal of international bankers including the houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild — conspired to create the Federal Reserve System. Their agents, such as Paul Warburg and Benjamin Strong, who had secretly planned the Fed at a nine-day meeting on Jekyll Island, were then put in charge of the system itself. This gave them control of American interest rates, and, by virtue of this, control of the stock market, as well as the capacity to have the U.S. government spend without limit by having the Fed create money from nothing. The result has been decades of inflation and skyrocketing national debt. (For full details, see the April 13, 2009 New American or Our Monetary Mayhem Began With the Fed.)
Not just an accumulation of wealth, but a consolidation of political power was involved. The Money Trust had backed Woodrow Wilson in the presidential elections, and then controlled him through their front man, Edward Mandell House, who lived in the White House. The trust recognized how the power of government could be used to advance their own interests.
Wilson, surrounded by the bankers, traveled to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which was settling the aftermath of World War I. His chief proposal there, of course, was the League of Nations — a first step toward world government. However, although the League was established by the Versailles Treaty, the United States did not join because the Senate refused to ratify the treaty.
In response to this rejection, the bankers’ circle, still in Paris, held a series of meetings and proposed to establish a new organization in the United States, whose purpose would be to lead America into the League. This organization was incorporated in New York City two years later as the Council on Foreign Relations.
Architects of a New World Order
The CFR’s goal was formation of an incrementally stronger world government. Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”
After World War II, the League’s successor, the United Nations, was born. Contrary to what the public is commonly told, the UN was not founded by nations who had tired of war. The UN was conceived by a group of CFR members in the State Department calling themselves the Informal Agenda Group. They drafted the original proposal for the UN, and secured the approval of President Roosevelt, who then made establishing the UN his highest postwar priority. When the UN held its founding meeting in San Francisco in 1945, 47 of the American delegates were CFR members.
Though the UN was not initially set up as a world government, the intent was that it would develop into one over time. John Foster Dulles (CFR), an American delegate to the UN founding meeting who later became Secretary of State under Eisenhower, acknowledged as much in his book War or Peace: “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”
Two other postwar institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, were technically created at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference. But the initial planning was done by the CFR’s Economic and Finance Group, part of their wartime War and Peace Studies Project. The World Bank and IMF act as a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpayer money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bailouts, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.
Despite what Americans were told, the postwar Marshall Plan was not invented by General George Marshall, though he did announce it in a 1947 Harvard commencement speech. The Marshall Plan was dreamed up at a CFR study group with David Rockefeller as its secretary. Marshall was simply selected to announce the plan because, as a general, he would be perceived as politically neutral and help garner bipartisan congressional support for the plan. Unknown to the public, Marshall Plan funds were circuitously rerouted by John J. McCloy — appointed U.S. High Commissioner to Germany — to Jean Monnet, founder of the Common Market, which evolved into today’s European Union, a microcosm of world government. McCloy returned home to become chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1953.
The tragic Vietnam War was run almost entirely by CFR members. William P. Bundy (CFR) drafted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution before the now-discredited Tonkin Gulf Incident even took place. Bundy’s father-in-law, Dean Acheson (CFR), as leader of a senior team of advisers nicknamed “the Wise Men,” persuaded Lyndon Baines Johnson to dramatically escalate the war beginning in 1965. And Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (CFR) helped develop the “rules of engagement” (e.g., preventing the Air Force from attacking critical targets) that guaranteed the war’s disastrous prolongation. This generated a huge slide to the left among American college students. When Bundy left the State Department, David Rockefeller appointed him editor of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs. And McNamara, one of the leading architects of the Vietnam War debacle, became president of the World Bank.
Broadening the Scheme
The CFR is not a uniquely American phenomenon. It has counterpart organizations throughout the world — e.g., the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England, the French Institute of International Relations, etc.
To help coordinate policy on an international scale, CFR chairman David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973. “Trilateral” refers to the coordination of three global regions: North America, Europe, and Asia. The commission’s meetings allow the gathering together of heads of state, banks, multinational corporations, and media. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater called the commission “David Rockefeller’s newest cabal,” and said, “It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.” The commission, like the annual secretive meetings of the Bilderbergers and the notorious Bohemian Grove, enables the international power elite to privately assemble and plan our destiny.
Jimmy Carter was a member of the commission, hand-picked to be president after meeting with Brzezinski and Rockefeller at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York, estate. Carter filled his administration with CFR members and Trilateralists. Indeed, Brzezinski noted in his memoirs that “all the key foreign policy decision makers of the Carter Administration had previously served in the Trilateral Commission.” Carter then embarked on a destructive course of foreign policy that included betraying the Shah of Iran, leading to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini and the U.S. hostage crisis; betraying President Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, resulting in a Marxist dictatorship under the Sandinistas; and betraying Taiwan in order to recognize Communist China — a move previously set up by Richard Nixon’s overtures to China, dictated by his own CFR advisers.
Under Bill Clinton (a CFR member who selected 12 CFR members for his cabinet), the United States enacted NAFTA, an economic alliance with Mexico and Canada. This arrangement was created by the establishment, not by the American people, who did not suspect the game being played on them. Not only did NAFTA swamp us with cheap, job-destroying imports, but it was designed to be the foundation for a continental economic union leading to political union. Robert Pastor (CFR), a key architect of North American integration, acknowledged in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.” And Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute said: “NAFTA will signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit — North America. With economic integration will come political integration. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government. Following the lead of the Europeans, North Americans should begin considering formation of a continental parliament.” [Emphasis added.]
A similar stratagem had been used against the peoples of Europe — by first deceptively hooking them into an “economic” alliance called the Common Market, which then, requiring common laws to regulate trade, transformed via a series of steps into the European Union, the super-national government of Europe that is swallowing up national sovereignty.
Following the initial step enacted under Clinton, President George W. Bush, whose father was a CFR director, moved toward politicizing the NAFTA alliance. On March 23, 2005, he met Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to launch the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the rudiments of a North American Union. CNN’s Lou Dobbs said of it: “President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it.”
Furthermore, regional alliances such as the European Union and proposed North American Union are not ends, but only steppingstones to world government. As CFR/Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”
In furtherance of this, on April 30, 2007, President Bush stood at the White House beside Angela Merkel, president of the European Council, and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and announced the signing of a new agreement to “strengthen transatlantic economic integration.” It called for “joint work in the areas of regulatory cooperation, financial markets, trade and transport security, innovation and technological development, intellectual property rights, energy, investment, competition, services, and government procurement,” and various other steps toward economic integration. But as usual, “economic integration” is the predecessor of political integration. CFR members have dreamed of a political union between the United States and Europe since the 1950s, when the CFR-dominated Atlantic Union Committee promoted a merger they called “Atlantica.”
Enter Obama
Candidate Barack Obama revealed he would proceed with the Bush initiatives. In a speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008, he stated:
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.... Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.... In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
Obama had only been president for a little over two months when he traveled to Europe for a series of meetings with European leaders. He attended the G20 Summit, which ended with a tentative agreement to launch a new global financial system, using as the rationale for this major step toward global government the recent Fed- and government-spawned financial meltdown.
Henry Kissinger — foreign policy mouthpiece of the establishment for four decades — wrote an article for the January 12, 2009 issue of the International Herald Tribune entitled “The Chance for a New World Order.” He stated:
As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy....
Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being....
The alternative to a new international order is chaos.
Kissinger also stated on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street”: “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously.... His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”
Past statements reveal that the establishment wants a single currency for the world, just as the EU has consolidated its currencies into the “euro.” As far back as the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, John Maynard Keynes proposed a world currency he dubbed bancor. Richard L. Gardner (CFR) wrote in the Fall 1984 Foreign Affairs: “I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of common currency for all the industrial democracies and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that Monetary Policy.”
In March of this year, Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with reporters at the White House. Brown announced that “there is the possibility in the next few months of a global new deal that will involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system.” Obama added that
Globalization can be an enormous force for good.... But what is also true is … we still have a 1930s regulatory system in place in most countries designed from the last great crisis, that we’ve got to update our institutions, our regulatory frameworks, so that the power of globalization is channeled for the benefit of ordinary men and women.
If trends continue, however, the changes can be expected to benefit a tiny handful of the global elite, not “ordinary men and women.” Further evidence that Obama’s administration will simply continue the globalist agenda is indicated by his appointments.
CFR Domination Continues
During his campaign, Obama selected the ubiquitous Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), promoter of the “regional” approach to world government, as one of his top foreign policy advisors. Obama called Brzezinski “one of our more outstanding thinkers” and “somebody I have learned an immense amount from.” Presumably Brzezinski’s teachings included the world government he advocates.
For Treasury Secretary, Obama chose Timothy Geithner: Senior Fellow in International Economics at the CFR, Bilderberger, former head of the New York Federal Reserve, and former employee of both the IMF and Kissinger Associates. One doesn’t get more establishment than that! It is Geithner who is managing the bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer dollars. Assisting Geithner at Treasury in overseeing the auto industry bailout is fellow CFR member Stephen Rattner.
For Director of the National Economic Council — a U.S. government agency created by a Bill Clinton executive order — Obama selected Lawrence Summers (CFR, Bilderberger). Former Chief Economist at the World Bank, his last position was at the investment firm of D. E. Shaw & Co, where he earned $5.2 million in one year while working one day per week. Henry Kissinger had said Summers should “be given a White House post in which he was charged with shooting down or fixing bad ideas.”
For Defense Secretary, Obama elected to continue with Bush pick Robert Gates (CFR, Bilderberger). During the Carter administration, Gates served as a special assistant to Zbigniew Brzezinski. In 2004, he co-chaired a CFR Task Force on Iran with Brzezinski, who lauded Gates in Time in 2008. Joining Gates in the Defense Department are fellow CFR members Michele Flournoy (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), Jeh C. Johnson (Defense Department General Counsel), and Kathleen Hicks (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces).
For Secretary of State, Obama chose Hillary Clinton, who has attended the top-secret Bilderberger meetings. Hillary is not a CFR member, but husband Bill is, and her State Department is laden with CFR members, including James B. Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), William J. Burns (Under Secretary for Political Affairs), Susan Rice (U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Jacob J. Lew (Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources), Todd Stern (Special Envoy for Climate Change), and many others.
The Department of Homeland Security, which many Americans fear may turn our country into an Orwellian surveillance society, was conceived before 9/11 by a task force called the U.S. Commission on National Security, nine of whose 12 members belonged to the CFR. The administration of the department under Obama is particularly heavy with CFR members, including Janet Napolitano (Secretary), Jane Holl Lute (Deputy Secretary), Juliette Kayyem (Assistant Secretary, Office of Intergovernmental Programs), and Alan Bersin (Assistant Secretary, Office of International Affairs).
Thus the CFR continues to dominate our government’s key areas: finance, defense, foreign policy, and security. To this may be added various other Obama CFR appointees, such as Mona Sutphen (White House Deputy Chief of Staff), Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board), Peter Cowhey, (Senior Counsel, Office of U.S. Trade Representative), and Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
The Future
The idea that Barack Obama became president from a “grass-roots” movement is illusory. American government policy continues to be largely dictated by the rich and the few. This is generally unknown to the public — not because it is a bizarre conspiracy theory, but because the same power elite who run our government, mega-banks, and multinational corporations also run the major media, as an inspection of the CFR membership roster would reveal.
Membership in the CFR, of course, is not an automatic condemnation. A few people are added as “window dressing” to give the group distinction and a veneer of diversity. An example is movie star Angelina Jolie. No one suspects Jolie knows much about foreign affairs or is a conspirator for world government. But within the CFR are hardcore globalists who, linked with their foreign counterparts through the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission, head the drive for one-world government.
Though numerically small (less than 1,000 members during the Kennedy years, less than 4,500 today), this organization has dominated every administration for over seven decades.
As long as the CFR controls our government, we can anticipate more of the same: diminishing national sovereignty; free flow of immigration (which confuses national identity and weakens national loyalties); increasing jobs losses through multinational trade agreements; further internationalization of law (Law of the Sea Treaty, Kyoto Protocol, World Court, global taxation, etc.); increasing loss of freedoms in a “surveillance society”; progressive organization of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union; and ultimately, broader merger into a world government where all power will be concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Eternal vigilance continues to be the price of freedom.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
See the link for video/pictures.
Ann Coulter puts the Marmalade In Chief on notice.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-1 ... negotiator
Ann Coulter was a Trump believer from the beginning. As far back at June 2015 she predicted a Trump victory on the Bill Maher show and was openly mocked by the audience and other panelists. But, turns out she was quite right.
Coulter even went on to publish a book entitled "In Trump We Trust" which she hailed as the story of a "one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment."
But, after a series of flip-flops on everything from the timing of the border wall to the 'obsolescence' of NATO, Coulter is growing a little weary of waiting on Trump to deliver on campaign promises.
Sitting down for an interview with the Daily Caller, Coulter said she's "not very happy with what has happened so far" and asked "is the great negotiator?"
Uhhhh. I’m not very happy with what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn’t North Korea, and if he doesn’t keep his promises I’m out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.
I hate to say it, but I agree with every line in my friend Frank Bruni’s op-ed in The New York Times today. Where is the great negotiation? Where is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed through was like a practical joke… Did we win anything? And this is the great negotiator?
We had no choice. Yeah, I mean my fingers are still crossed, it’s not like I’m out yet, but boy things don’t look good. I’ve said to other people, “It’s as if we’re in Chicago and Trump tells us he’s going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I’m a little nervous.
Asked why she thought Trump was failing, Coulter blamed a lack of "professional" political experience and a Washington establishment intent upon bringing down his administration.
"...just put it down to him not being a professional politician and having to come into the presidency with no support network, with all of official Washington against him.
I do of course blame Congress most of all. They are swine. They only care about their own careers. Who knows how much of it is corruption and how much of it is pure stupidity. People should start sending Paul Ryan bricks to indicate how much we want the wall.
They are the opposition party to Donald Trump. This is really something we’ve never seen before. The president stands alone, it’s his own political party, he’s Gary Cooper. All we have is millions of Americans behind him, but he doesn’t have anybody in Washington behind him.
Coulter
Meanwhile, Coulter also took a shot at Trump's new National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster for coming off as a caricature of a "stupid Republican" with his pronunciation of "Murica"...
It’s just that it has been such a disaster so far, and that General Kelly is so preposterous, and McMaster — did you see him at that press conference? I thought he was retarded. You have to link to that video.
I’ve never actually heard anyone other than liberals mocking their idea of a stupid Republican say, “Murica.”
...something we also noted last week...
"But his pronunciation of "Muricah" stole the spotlight..."
And while Coulter said she's still holding out 'hope' for the Trump presidency, a dangerous thing when it comes to Washington D.C. and politicians, she concluded by saying, "I think all of the Trump true believers are petrified."
Ann Coulter puts the Marmalade In Chief on notice.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-1 ... negotiator
Ann Coulter was a Trump believer from the beginning. As far back at June 2015 she predicted a Trump victory on the Bill Maher show and was openly mocked by the audience and other panelists. But, turns out she was quite right.
Coulter even went on to publish a book entitled "In Trump We Trust" which she hailed as the story of a "one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment."
But, after a series of flip-flops on everything from the timing of the border wall to the 'obsolescence' of NATO, Coulter is growing a little weary of waiting on Trump to deliver on campaign promises.
Sitting down for an interview with the Daily Caller, Coulter said she's "not very happy with what has happened so far" and asked "is the great negotiator?"
Uhhhh. I’m not very happy with what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn’t North Korea, and if he doesn’t keep his promises I’m out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.
I hate to say it, but I agree with every line in my friend Frank Bruni’s op-ed in The New York Times today. Where is the great negotiation? Where is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed through was like a practical joke… Did we win anything? And this is the great negotiator?
We had no choice. Yeah, I mean my fingers are still crossed, it’s not like I’m out yet, but boy things don’t look good. I’ve said to other people, “It’s as if we’re in Chicago and Trump tells us he’s going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I’m a little nervous.
Asked why she thought Trump was failing, Coulter blamed a lack of "professional" political experience and a Washington establishment intent upon bringing down his administration.
"...just put it down to him not being a professional politician and having to come into the presidency with no support network, with all of official Washington against him.
I do of course blame Congress most of all. They are swine. They only care about their own careers. Who knows how much of it is corruption and how much of it is pure stupidity. People should start sending Paul Ryan bricks to indicate how much we want the wall.
They are the opposition party to Donald Trump. This is really something we’ve never seen before. The president stands alone, it’s his own political party, he’s Gary Cooper. All we have is millions of Americans behind him, but he doesn’t have anybody in Washington behind him.
Coulter
Meanwhile, Coulter also took a shot at Trump's new National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster for coming off as a caricature of a "stupid Republican" with his pronunciation of "Murica"...
It’s just that it has been such a disaster so far, and that General Kelly is so preposterous, and McMaster — did you see him at that press conference? I thought he was retarded. You have to link to that video.
I’ve never actually heard anyone other than liberals mocking their idea of a stupid Republican say, “Murica.”
...something we also noted last week...
"But his pronunciation of "Muricah" stole the spotlight..."
And while Coulter said she's still holding out 'hope' for the Trump presidency, a dangerous thing when it comes to Washington D.C. and politicians, she concluded by saying, "I think all of the Trump true believers are petrified."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: TRUMP.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tru ... cy-n759841
"The Trump administration is expanding their policy banning U.S. foreign aid to groups performing or promoting abortion overseas, the State Department announced Monday. As of May 15, foreign organizations will be required to agree to new terms of "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance" before receiving any new funding from the U.S. government.
The announcement marks a significant increase in both the scope and financial implications of the policy which initially impacted less than $600 million in programs specifically for family planning assistance. The broadened policy referred to as the Global Gag Rule will now affect $8.8 billion in funding for international health programs including those for HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, malaria, global health security, family planning and reproductive health.
The State Department says that the policy will not reduce the overall level of foreign aid as funds from those groups that do not agree to the new terms will be redistributed to organisations that do.
"The U.S. is the largest bilateral donor to global health programs, and this does not affect that commitment to global health worldwide," a senior State Department official told reporters Monday. "We do remain committed to helping women and children thrive, and that's certainly where our programs will go and we don't expect this to change that in any way, shape, or form."
In conjunction with the expansion, the State Department will be conducting a six month review of the impact of the policy's application by "identifying implementation issues" and will give special attention to newly affected programs, including President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President's Malaria Initiative.
The U.S. government partners with many faith based organizations who they anticipate will agree to the new terms and continue to receive funding.
National Right to Life commended the Trump Administration for expanding the policy to apply "pro-life conditions to a broad range of health-related U.S. foreign aid."
The so-called "Mexico City policy" was first instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and each of the previous three presidents have taken actions early in their presidency to reverse or reinstitute it. President Trump, newly sworn in, reinstituted the policy on January 23, exactly eight years to the day that his predecessor Barack Obama reversed it.
In that presidential memorandum, he directed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilisation."
"The Trump administration is expanding their policy banning U.S. foreign aid to groups performing or promoting abortion overseas, the State Department announced Monday. As of May 15, foreign organizations will be required to agree to new terms of "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance" before receiving any new funding from the U.S. government.
The announcement marks a significant increase in both the scope and financial implications of the policy which initially impacted less than $600 million in programs specifically for family planning assistance. The broadened policy referred to as the Global Gag Rule will now affect $8.8 billion in funding for international health programs including those for HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, malaria, global health security, family planning and reproductive health.
The State Department says that the policy will not reduce the overall level of foreign aid as funds from those groups that do not agree to the new terms will be redistributed to organisations that do.
"The U.S. is the largest bilateral donor to global health programs, and this does not affect that commitment to global health worldwide," a senior State Department official told reporters Monday. "We do remain committed to helping women and children thrive, and that's certainly where our programs will go and we don't expect this to change that in any way, shape, or form."
In conjunction with the expansion, the State Department will be conducting a six month review of the impact of the policy's application by "identifying implementation issues" and will give special attention to newly affected programs, including President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President's Malaria Initiative.
The U.S. government partners with many faith based organizations who they anticipate will agree to the new terms and continue to receive funding.
National Right to Life commended the Trump Administration for expanding the policy to apply "pro-life conditions to a broad range of health-related U.S. foreign aid."
The so-called "Mexico City policy" was first instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and each of the previous three presidents have taken actions early in their presidency to reverse or reinstitute it. President Trump, newly sworn in, reinstituted the policy on January 23, exactly eight years to the day that his predecessor Barack Obama reversed it.
In that presidential memorandum, he directed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilisation."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: TRUMP.
Newsmax.com
"President Trump took aim at the Black Lives Matter movement and former President Obama Monday, saying ambush-style killings of police last year during tensions in minority communities were “a stain on the very fabric of our society” and that too many Americans “obstruct” law enforcement. “We are living through an era in which our police are subjected to unfair vilification and defamation — even worse, hostility and violence,” Mr. Trump said at a memorial ceremony at the Capitol for fallen officers. “More officers were slain last year in ambushes than in any year in more than two decades.”
"President Trump took aim at the Black Lives Matter movement and former President Obama Monday, saying ambush-style killings of police last year during tensions in minority communities were “a stain on the very fabric of our society” and that too many Americans “obstruct” law enforcement. “We are living through an era in which our police are subjected to unfair vilification and defamation — even worse, hostility and violence,” Mr. Trump said at a memorial ceremony at the Capitol for fallen officers. “More officers were slain last year in ambushes than in any year in more than two decades.”
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Of course the irony is that Trump doesn't really care if somebody unconnected to him dies. We know this because he has killed innocent people in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan. I bet he's just getting started though. More blood and guts to come.Elizabeth wrote: ↑May 15th, 2017, 6:58 pm Newsmax.com
"President Trump took aim at the Black Lives Matter movement and former President Obama Monday, saying ambush-style killings of police last year during tensions in minority communities were “a stain on the very fabric of our society” and that too many Americans “obstruct” law enforcement. “We are living through an era in which our police are subjected to unfair vilification and defamation — even worse, hostility and violence,” Mr. Trump said at a memorial ceremony at the Capitol for fallen officers. “More officers were slain last year in ambushes than in any year in more than two decades.”
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Foreign countries should be left alone and our domestic problems should be dealt with first. Cleanse the inner vessel. If Trump wanted to save the lives of the unborn, he could veto the budget passed by Congress and sent to his desk forcing them to go back and remove the funding for Planned Parenthood.Elizabeth wrote: ↑May 15th, 2017, 6:37 pm http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tru ... cy-n759841
"The Trump administration is expanding their policy banning U.S. foreign aid to groups performing or promoting abortion overseas, the State Department announced Monday. As of May 15, foreign organizations will be required to agree to new terms of "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance" before receiving any new funding from the U.S. government.
The announcement marks a significant increase in both the scope and financial implications of the policy which initially impacted less than $600 million in programs specifically for family planning assistance. The broadened policy referred to as the Global Gag Rule will now affect $8.8 billion in funding for international health programs including those for HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, malaria, global health security, family planning and reproductive health.
The State Department says that the policy will not reduce the overall level of foreign aid as funds from those groups that do not agree to the new terms will be redistributed to organisations that do.
"The U.S. is the largest bilateral donor to global health programs, and this does not affect that commitment to global health worldwide," a senior State Department official told reporters Monday. "We do remain committed to helping women and children thrive, and that's certainly where our programs will go and we don't expect this to change that in any way, shape, or form."
In conjunction with the expansion, the State Department will be conducting a six month review of the impact of the policy's application by "identifying implementation issues" and will give special attention to newly affected programs, including President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President's Malaria Initiative.
The U.S. government partners with many faith based organizations who they anticipate will agree to the new terms and continue to receive funding.
National Right to Life commended the Trump Administration for expanding the policy to apply "pro-life conditions to a broad range of health-related U.S. foreign aid."
The so-called "Mexico City policy" was first instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and each of the previous three presidents have taken actions early in their presidency to reverse or reinstitute it. President Trump, newly sworn in, reinstituted the policy on January 23, exactly eight years to the day that his predecessor Barack Obama reversed it.
In that presidential memorandum, he directed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilisation."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: TRUMP.
If there is to be any aid given by any country to any other country then it is commendable to stipulate that such aid will not be used for abortion. I consider all countries should look after their own, and not expect their tax payers to be forced to work for the benefit of other lands. As an Australian, I am personally tired of the high taxes I am forced to pay.
Silver wrote: ↑May 15th, 2017, 7:55 pm Foreign countries should be left alone and our domestic problems should be dealt with first. Cleanse the inner vessel. If Trump wanted to save the lives of the unborn, he could veto the budget passed by Congress and sent to his desk forcing them to go back and remove the funding for Planned Parenthood.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
There must be many ways you could work to save a fetus in Australia, right there in your town. Good luck.Elizabeth wrote: ↑May 15th, 2017, 9:20 pm If there is to be any aid given by any country to any other country then it is commendable to stipulate that such aid will not be used for abortion. I consider all countries should look after their own, and not expect their tax payers to be forced to work for the benefit of other lands. As an Australian, I am personally tired of the high taxes I am forced to pay.
Silver wrote: ↑May 15th, 2017, 7:55 pm Foreign countries should be left alone and our domestic problems should be dealt with first. Cleanse the inner vessel. If Trump wanted to save the lives of the unborn, he could veto the budget passed by Congress and sent to his desk forcing them to go back and remove the funding for Planned Parenthood.
What you seem to be able to overlook is that the man you support as president of the US is actively killing innocent lives, people of all ages, not just infants in the womb. But as with almost all things Trump, we find that he doesn't have the capability to focus for more than a few days. He has already turned over the killing to the warmongers. Here's his admission:
"I’ve been doing this, in all fairness, when I first came into the office, the first night. You weren’t here.
But they say sir, we’re ready to go. I said where? They had some people in a certain country, Yemen, where they had them [surveilled] and they needed the go ahead to kill, to kill them.
But in other words they wanted the right to go. So they’re telling me this. And this happened for two or three weeks, four weeks. And they keep coming to me, at weird times too. I don’t care about that.
And they’re in parts of the world that most people have never even heard about. They were in cities that nobody every heard about or towns. And in some cases they’re ISIS or al-Qaeda. And so they say sir, we have a situation we’d like to be able to go and they tell me what.
Then after about four or five weeks I said wait a minute. By the time they get to me, and I get back to them, usually it’s over anyway, it’s gone, they’re gone. They couldn’t fire. You know under the Obama Administration they get back to them three or four weeks later and say it’s okay to go. They say okay to go, they left three weeks ago.
So I said to myself, I’m a believer in professionals, these people over there, whether it’s in Iraq or in Yemen or anywhere, Libya, they went to West Point, or wherever. Annapolis, they went to Air Force Academy.
I said to the general, I said how good. … The lieutenants, the captains, their majors, their colonels, they’re professionals. They love doing it, they know every inch of the territory, right. I say why am I telling them? So I authorized the generals to do the fighting. You know."
http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-ti ... president/
So not only are we seeing that even in a formal interview he can't string together two coherent sentences in a row, the Marmalade In Chief is fine with just letting the "professionals" kill a bunch of people.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Does it still happen anyway?
Edited to add this wikipedia link. It's a bit more nuanced than your statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: TRUMP.
Abortion is illegal in Australia. There are no abortion clinics. Who knows how a pregnant womens' Doctor may interpret the mothers life being in danger or the Doctors obligations under the law.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Abortion happens in Australia. The place where it happens may not go by the name of "abortion clinic," however, in many places with abortion practitioners, abortions are happening. So getting back to my original point on this matter, if preventing abortions is such a critical issue for you, why don't you work to reduce abortions in your country?
Look, you're clearly wrong about there being no abortions. Abortions are legal under certain circumstances so stop saying that it is illegal. You're also wrong to support Trump. He is a puppet of the NWO and killing innocent people. If you're a fan of life, stop supporting Trump.
In one Australian state alone:
"HOW MANY ABORTIONS TAKE PLACE IN QUEENSLAND EACH YEAR?
In 2015 we had two public health students on placement examine this question and attempt to pull together all the available data on abortion in Queensland. Their conclusion was that, due to a number of contributing factors including those outlined on this fact sheet, 'a statistically significant estimate could not be made'.
It is generally accepted that somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 abortions take place each year in Queensland, but without standardised data collection and reporting it is impossible to narrow that broad estimate down any further." (close quote) https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/fac ... statistics
Just a quick Google search found the info above. Google is your friend, Elizabeth. There's a whole world out there waiting to be discovered.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/ ... ralia.html
Australian abortion statistics going back decades. Googled it!
Australian abortion statistics going back decades. Googled it!
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Elizabeth, instead of worrying about how the US funds tyrants in other countries, here's a great organization you could join right there in Australia:
http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/austr ... statistics
http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/austr ... statistics
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: TRUMP.
Silver, live your own life and I will make my own decisions regarding mine without your input.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: TRUMP.
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/05/15/pres ... arenthood/
In an email to LifeNews.com, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser praised Trump for expanding the policy.
“Votes in America have international consequences. The Executive Memorandum implemented today is one of the reasons pro-life voters worked to elect Donald Trump to the White House. With the implementation of Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, we have officially ceased exporting abortion to foreign nations. No longer will we undermine the pro-life laws and cultural commitments of other countries by funding organizations like Marie Stopes International that obsessively promote and perform abortion,” she said.
Dannenfelser told LifeNews: “By modernizing this important policy and expanding it to include $8.8 billion in foreign aid, President Trump is continuing Ronald Reagan’s pro-life legacy. This executive order does not cut a single penny from U.S. aid, rather it simply ensures our hard-earned tax dollars are used by other health care entities that act consistently to save lives, rather than promoting and performing abortion. Abortion is not health care.”
In an email to LifeNews.com, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser praised Trump for expanding the policy.
“Votes in America have international consequences. The Executive Memorandum implemented today is one of the reasons pro-life voters worked to elect Donald Trump to the White House. With the implementation of Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, we have officially ceased exporting abortion to foreign nations. No longer will we undermine the pro-life laws and cultural commitments of other countries by funding organizations like Marie Stopes International that obsessively promote and perform abortion,” she said.
Dannenfelser told LifeNews: “By modernizing this important policy and expanding it to include $8.8 billion in foreign aid, President Trump is continuing Ronald Reagan’s pro-life legacy. This executive order does not cut a single penny from U.S. aid, rather it simply ensures our hard-earned tax dollars are used by other health care entities that act consistently to save lives, rather than promoting and performing abortion. Abortion is not health care.”
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
This turned out to be not true.Older/wiser? wrote: ↑March 8th, 2017, 6:36 pm Love Trump or hate him, He told planned parenthood no more money unless they stop doing abortions, ya got love that. Whether it comes to pass or not time will tell, it's great to hear the man at the top say things like "G_d bless America " and refer to us as a Christian Nation. Over the pass 8 yrs I don't believe I ever heard the previous pontiff refer to our nation in that light. He may fail the odds aren't in his favor, to much to untangle and battle. For the moment, I just found it refreshing to hear him say No money unless you stop abortions. To that I wholeheartedly add my support.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ter ... -sanctuary
Trump is a liar. If you will just accept that, the cognitive dissonance will go away.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
So you get to question my belief in God like this:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=39530&p=778119&hil ... ic#p778119
And you get to call Joel and me lawbreakers without a shred of evidence:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=39530&p=777972&hil ... al#p778028
And you get to call us deceitful:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=39530&hilit=agnost ... 10#p783061
But I am not allowed to give you any input? That sort of attitude comes pretty close to the definition of hypocrisy. Thanks for giving me the energy and motivation to continue showing what a horrible president Trump is.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Elizabeth,
You posted incorrect information on Australian abortion practices. I called you on it. Remember? It's just a few posts above this one. Why is it so hard for you to own your mistakes?
You posted incorrect information on Australian abortion practices. I called you on it. Remember? It's just a few posts above this one. Why is it so hard for you to own your mistakes?
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
For someone who wants other people to stay out of your life, you sure like to get involved in the lives of people outside of your sphere of influence. Here you are again talking about abortions in foreign countries that may not get financial support by America. Yet you ignore the abortion problem in your own country...pretend as if it hardly exists.Elizabeth wrote: ↑May 16th, 2017, 1:45 am http://www.lifenews.com/2017/05/15/pres ... arenthood/
In an email to LifeNews.com, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser praised Trump for expanding the policy.
“Votes in America have international consequences. The Executive Memorandum implemented today is one of the reasons pro-life voters worked to elect Donald Trump to the White House. With the implementation of Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, we have officially ceased exporting abortion to foreign nations. No longer will we undermine the pro-life laws and cultural commitments of other countries by funding organizations like Marie Stopes International that obsessively promote and perform abortion,” she said.
Dannenfelser told LifeNews: “By modernizing this important policy and expanding it to include $8.8 billion in foreign aid, President Trump is continuing Ronald Reagan’s pro-life legacy. This executive order does not cut a single penny from U.S. aid, rather it simply ensures our hard-earned tax dollars are used by other health care entities that act consistently to save lives, rather than promoting and performing abortion. Abortion is not health care.”
In the meantime, Trump just signed a spending bill which continues to fund the abortion assembly line called Planned Parenthood in America. So let's get this straight...Trump takes away money for non-US abortion but doesn't veto a bill giving money to US-based abortions. Hypocrite, he is. Nonsensical, you are.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: TRUMP.
What I posted is correct and I have no interest nor intention of arguing about it.
It is not wise to have faith in every source you find on the internet, there are many who would spread that which is misleading and false.
It is not wise to have faith in every source you find on the internet, there are many who would spread that which is misleading and false.
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: TRUMP.
Elizabeth,
Your post is so ironic. You get to quote whatever source you want from the Internet, but then claim that my sources are not correct.
However, just for the record:
1. You don't like a video that makes fun of Trump, but say nothing of Trump killing innocent people. Which is worse a video poking fun at Trump or Trump killing innocent people?
2. You like Trump saying he won't fund abortions overseas, but ignore that Trump funded abortions in his own country. Which is worse?
3. You make all the claims you like on the Internet using Internet resources. When someone posts a contrary opinion, you dismiss them because it's based on Internet sources.
But you don't want to argue about it. Fine...I win. LOL
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: TRUMP.
http://conservativetribune.com/trump-at ... mencement/
On Saturday, President Donald Trump gave his first commencement speech as president. Trump chose to give his speech at Liberty University, in a nod to evangelicals who helped win him the presidency.
During the speech, Trump mostly struck to his script and promised Christians that he would always stand up for their rights, and railed against those who sit around and criticize everything his administration has accomplished, The Daily Caller reported.
“As long as I am your president, no one is ever going to stop you from practicing your faith or from preaching what is in your heart,” Trump said. Trump touched on Christianity several times, and made it clear that the United States is a nation under God.
“When the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they invoked our creator four times, because in America we don’t worship government, we worship God. That is why our elected officials put their hands on the Bible and say, ‘So help me God,’ as they take the oath of office,” Trump said.
Trump’s speech was anchored in religious conviction. Trump highlighted several times that the students from Liberty would become the torchbearers for the next generation and continue fighting for the rights of Christians all around the world.
“As long as you remember what you have learned here at Liberty, as long as you have pride in your beliefs, courage in your convictions and faith in your God, then you will not fail,” Trump remarked. “And as long as America remains true to its values, loyal to its citizens, and devoted to its creator, then our best days are yet to come, I can promise you that.”
On Saturday, President Donald Trump gave his first commencement speech as president. Trump chose to give his speech at Liberty University, in a nod to evangelicals who helped win him the presidency.
During the speech, Trump mostly struck to his script and promised Christians that he would always stand up for their rights, and railed against those who sit around and criticize everything his administration has accomplished, The Daily Caller reported.
“As long as I am your president, no one is ever going to stop you from practicing your faith or from preaching what is in your heart,” Trump said. Trump touched on Christianity several times, and made it clear that the United States is a nation under God.
“When the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they invoked our creator four times, because in America we don’t worship government, we worship God. That is why our elected officials put their hands on the Bible and say, ‘So help me God,’ as they take the oath of office,” Trump said.
Trump’s speech was anchored in religious conviction. Trump highlighted several times that the students from Liberty would become the torchbearers for the next generation and continue fighting for the rights of Christians all around the world.
“As long as you remember what you have learned here at Liberty, as long as you have pride in your beliefs, courage in your convictions and faith in your God, then you will not fail,” Trump remarked. “And as long as America remains true to its values, loyal to its citizens, and devoted to its creator, then our best days are yet to come, I can promise you that.”
