Video: Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney CPAC 2011 Speech Comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATJe6jwv ... dded#at=19
Printable View
Video: Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney CPAC 2011 Speech Comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATJe6jwv ... dded#at=19
Ron Paul Slams John McCain and Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFFb9m9SCio&NR=1
About Romney being a member of CFR.
From 2008
Quote:
Dear Dylan,
I have just read your blog post ( http://forums.myspace.com/t/3477697.asp ... viewthread ) about Mitt Romney's biography on CFR.org. While you are correct that his bio appeared under the "Leadership and Staff" heading, Mr. Romney is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, nor is he a member of our staff.
That Mr. Romney's biography appeared under the Leadership and Staff heading was the product of an error by the staff working on our Campaign 2008 site ( http://www.cfr.org/campaign2008/ ). That section of our site will eventually include bios for all the 2008 presidential candidates, but the beta versions of these bio pages appeared under the wrong heading by mistake. This problem should be corrected by tomorrow, by which time all candidate bios will appear under the Campaign 2008 heading.
I apologize for the confusion and would ask that you retract the accusation that Mr. Romney lied about his affiliation with CFR. If you have questions or concerns, you may e-mail directly at ekaplan@cfr.org.
Thank you.
Regards,
Eben Kaplan
Will secret clubs pick next prez?
CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission insiders usually run for, win White House, shows new book
Posted: November 01, 2007
1:00 am Eastern
© 2011 WND
WASHINGTON – It started in 1952.
Nearly every person elected as president of the United States since then – and nearly every opponent – has belonged to a secretive, globalism-oriented organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations.
Some presidents and their challengers have belonged to additional clubs of internationalists – the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. Running mates, too, more often than not have had ties to the groups.
That the groups exert enormous influence on public policy is indisputable. What is disputed is whether such groups are, as adherents and members argue, just discussion forums for movers and shakers, or, as critics have long alleged, secret societies shaping a new world order from behind the scenes. On that last point at least, no one could challenge the critics: All these groups operate in considerable secrecy, away from the scrutiny of the American public.
Regardless of how one characterizes them, the fact that virtually all presidents belong to the same secret clubs prompts the author of a new book to wonder if the 2008 election will also be a contest between globalist insiders. Judging from the list of frontrunners of each party, Daniel Estulin, author of "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group," may be on to something.
According to a variety of sources, the following presidential candidates are either members of one of the groups or have strong ties: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.
Mike Huckabee, though not a member, spoke to the CFR in September. Since then, his political star has risen to the point that he has become a top-tier candidate.
So often throughout recent history it has been the case.
Ever since Democrat Adlai Stevenson challenged Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, the odds have significantly favored those with membership in the elite groups.
In 1960, both John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon were members.
In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson was not a member. Neither was his opponent, Barry Goldwater. But Johnson had already staffed his administration with plenty of insiders.
In 1968, it was Nixon versus club member Hubert H. Humphrey.
In 1972, it was Nixon again against Democratic Party CFR member George McGovern.
In 1976, it was CFR Republican Gerald Ford losing to CFR Democrat Jimmy Carter.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was not a member, but his running mate, George H.W. Bush, was. So were both of his opponents – Carter and independent John Anderson. Assuming office, however, Reagan quickly named 313 CFR members to his team.
In 1984, another CFR member, Walter Mondale, was nominated by the Democratic Party to challenge Reagan.
In 1988, CFR member Bush took on CFR member Michael Dukakis.
In 1992, Bush was challenged by an obscure governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who won the "trifecta" by being a member of the CFR, Trlateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. He was also a Rhodes scholar – another favored credential of the worldwide elite.
In 1996, Clinton was challenged by CFR member Bob Dole.
In 2000, CFR member Al Gore ran against non-member George W. Bush, but his running mate, Dick Cheney, was.
In 2004, Bush was challenged by CFR member John Kerry.
"David Rockefeller, whose family financed the CFR, is a common denominator among these parallel groups," writes Estulin. "Not only is he the CFR chairman emeritus, but he also continues to provide financial and personal support to the TC, CFR and Bilderberg Group."
What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"?
"The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government."
Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation need only recall organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs."
"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 conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
With regard to insider roles in recent U.S. presidential races, two of the most interesting were 1976 and 1992.
"In the spring of 1972, a high-profile group of men gathered for dinner with W. Averell Harriman, the grand old man of the Democratic Party, a Bilderberger and a member of the CFR," writes Estulin. "Also present were Milton Katz, a CFR member and director of international studies at Harvard, Robert Bowie, who would later become deputy director of the CIA, George Franklin, David Rockefeller's coordinator for the Trilateral Commission, and Gerald Smith, U.S. ambassador-at-large for non-proliferation matters. The focus of their discussion was the not-too-distant 1976 presidential elections. Harriman suggested that if the Democrats wanted to recapture the White House, "we had better get off our high horses and look at some of those southern governors." Several names cropped up. Among them were Ruben Askew, governor of Florida, and Terry Sanford, former governor of North Carolina and, at the time, president of Duke University."
Katz reportedly informed David Rockefeller of the viability of Jimmy Carter, then governor of Georgia. According to the author, he could be sold politically to the American people. At a dinner in London, recorded by the London Times, Rockefeller got acquainted with Carter and became convinced he could become the next U.S. president. Carter was invited to join the Trilateral Commission and quickly accepted.
Later, U.S. News and World Report would have this to say about the Carter administration: "The Trilateralists have taken charge of foreign policy-making in the Carter administration, and already the immense power they wield is sparking some controversy. Active or former members of the Trilateral Commission now head every key agency involved in mapping U.S. strategy for dealing with the rest of the world."
In 1992, Estulin concludes Bill Clinton was similarly "anointed" for the presidency at the 1991 Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden. Following the meeting, Clinton immediately took a trip to Russia to meet with Soviet Interior Minister Vadim Balatin, then serving Mikhail Gorbachev. Later, when Boris Yeltsin won the presidential election, Bakatin became the new chief of the KGB.
The meeting went unnoticed in most of the press, with the exception of the Arkansas Democrat, whose headline told the story: "Clinton has powerful buddy in U.S.S.R – New head of KGB."
Estulin's book, first written in 2005 in Spain, has been translated into 24 languages, most recently this English edition. He has covered the Bilderberg Group as a journalist for more than 15 years.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44290
Conclusive evidence that Romney's policies are CFR policies and that he is supported by the CFR
by John Green
Date: 08-11-2009
Subject: Politics: Republican Campaigns
William Weld is the former Governor of Massachusetts and also a high ranking member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/
As a CFR member, William Weld helped create policies leading to the integration of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
William Weld was the New York state co-chairman for Mitt Romney's campaign for president. Weld was active in campaigning for Governor Romney and both Governors were known to travel together during the New Hampshire primaries.
William Weld resigned the governorship of Massachusetts after being appointed United States Ambassador to Mexico by President Bill Clinton. He was never confirmed by the United States Senate, however, and hence never served as Ambassador. This was due mainly to opposition from Senate Foreign Relations committee chairman Jesse Helms, who refused to hold talks on the nomination, effectively blocking it. Though both were Republicans and though that party held the majority in the chamber, Helms objected to Weld's moderate stance on several social issues.
When George W. Bush was running against John Kerry, it was William Weld that helped Bush prepare for the debates.
William Weld co-chaired the Independent Task Force on North America for the Council on Foreign Relations. Here is the May 2005 report titled "Building a North American Community."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/
It was created by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
George W. Bush has put the policies shaped by William Weld and the CFR into action by creating the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56809
The Council on Foreign Relations published a speech by Mitt Romney in their July/August '07 issue of Foreign Affairs, titled "Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13632/ri ... enges.html
The CFR also has a web page devoted to Romney's campaign issues.
http://www.cfr.org/bios/13226/mitt_romney.html
The CFR is one of the most powerful organizations on the planet. So it is unlikely that Mitt Romney will go his own way and secure our borders, end illegal immigration and stop the creation of the North American Union when he, like all past Presidents will fill his cabinet with members of this elite organization. The goal of these elitists is to create a world government and secure global monopolies for themselves. The reason our borders remain open is because these elitists want to abolish all borders but only under the rubric where every "resident" is tracked via national ids, the national id database at the Department of Homeland Security which exchanges your private data with other nations so you can be tracked despite the open borders.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/ ... puppet.htm
Analyzing Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Views
Posted on March 25, 2008
by Mark Hudson |
Below you will read a very revealing document about what Mitt Romney really believes about the proper role of government. In July of 2007, Mitt Romney wrote a featured article in the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs Journal. This – in and of itself – reveals much about Mitt Romney. Anyone who is familiar with the purposes of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) will understand the significance of Mitt Romney having had an article published in this nefarious organization’s publication.
In order to properly understand the context of why this is a big deal, you must learn just a little big about the CFR. Before learning about the CFR, it is important to read a Prophet’s words about the importance of national sovereignty, and how important it is that America remain free and independent from all other nations under heaven.
President Ezra Taft Benson said: “Our leaders in Washington have been acting as though the American people elected them to office for the primary purpose of leading the entire planet toward international peace, prosperity, and one-world government. At times, these men appear to be more concerned with something called world opinion or with their image as world leaders than they are with securing the best possible advantage for us.â€
Gardner told his fellow one-worlders that “instant world governmentâ€
Today, the nation’s attention is focused on Iraq. All Americans want U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible. But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world. Iran could seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey. A regional conflict could ensue, perhaps even requiring the return of U.S. troops under far worse circumstances. There is no guarantee that the new strategy pursued by General Petraeus will ultimately succeed, but the stakes are too high and the potential fallout too great to deny our military leaders and troops on the ground the resources and the time needed to give it an opportunity to succeed.
[U.S. President and the Father of the Constitution - James Madison: "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."Â
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
Second, the United States must become energy independent. This does not mean no longer importing or using oil. It means making sure that our nation’s future will always be in our hands. Our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states.
We use about 25 percent of the world’s oil supply to power our economy, but according to the Department of Energy, we possess only 1.7 percent of the world’s crude oil reserves. Our military and economic strength depend on our becoming energy independent — moving past symbolic measures to actually produce as much energy as we use. This could take 20 years or more; and, of course, we would continue to purchase fuel after that time. Yet we would end our strategic vulnerability to oil shutoffs by nations such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela and stop sending almost $1 billion a day to other oil-producing nations, some of which use the money against us. At the same time, we may well be able to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy independence will require technology that allows us to use energy more efficiently in our cars, homes, and businesses. It will also mean increasing our domestic energy production with more drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more nuclear power, more renewable energy sources, more ethanol, more biodiesel, more solar and wind power, and a fuller exploitation of coal. Shared investments or incentives may be required to develop additional and alternative sources of energy.
We need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative — an energy revolution — that will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon. It will be a mission to create new, economical sources of clean energy and clean ways to use the sources we have now. We will license our technology to other nations, and, of course, we will employ it at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, and it will be good for our economy. Moreover, even as scientists still debate how much human activity impacts the environment, we can all agree that alternative energy sources will be good for the planet. For any and all of these reasons, the time for energy independence has come.
RETHINKING AND REENERGIZING CIVILIAN CAPABILITIES
Third, we need to dramatically and fundamentally transform our civilian capabilities to promote peace, security, and freedom around the world. After World War II, America created capabilities and structures — such as the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development — to meet the challenges of a world that was radically different from that of the 1930s. In the Reagan era, the Goldwater-Nichols Act helped tear down bureaucratic boundaries that were undermining our military effectiveness, fostered unified efforts across military services, and established “joint commands,â€
Mitt Romney continues:
The problem has been just as evident in Iraq. In 2003, while the U.S. military moved in rapid order to topple Saddam Hussein, many of our nonmilitary resources seemed stuck in tar. Then, even as we were taking casualties and spending over $7 billion a month on the war, U.S. civilian authorities were fighting over which agency was going to pay their employees’ $11 daily food allowance. In response to these problems, the White House has sought to give to a single individual the authority to oversee all the agencies operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet broad interagency challenges remain and continue to stymie our efforts not only in these areas but around the world.
It is time to move beyond the current limited approaches that call for “transformationâ€
Mitt Romney continues:
In no area is our leadership more important and more urgently needed than the Islamic world. Today, the Middle East is facing a demographic crisis: over half the population there is under 22 years old, and the GDP of all Arab nations put together remains lower than that of Spain. A growing population and a lack of jobs create fertile ground for radical Islam. The Marshall Plan showed our deep understanding that winning the Cold War would depend on far more than the strength of our military. The situation we face today is dramatically different from the one we faced in the wake of World War II. Yet it requires the same type of political attention and resolve we exhibited then. Today, thousands of Americans, such as former Senator Bill Frist, are helping to alleviate problems in the vulnerable parts of Africa and the Middle East, showing that we are a compassionate people. And other leaders in this effort, such as the musician Bono, have highlighted the need to address problems far from one’s borders in today’s interconnected world. Recent government efforts such as the Middle East Partnership Initiative, the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative of the G-8, and the Forum for the Future are a start, but they have garnered nowhere near the degree of attention, resources, and commitment necessary to address such serious problems.
If elected, one of my first acts as president would be to call for a summit of nations to address these issues. In addition to the United States, the countries convened would include other leading developed nations and moderate Muslim states. The objective of the summit would be to create a worldwide strategy to support moderate Muslims in their effort to defeat radical and violent Islam. I envision that the summit would lead to the creation of a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress: a coalition of states that would assemble resources from developed nations and use them to support public schools (not Wahhabi madrasahs), microcredit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic health care, and free-market policies in modernizing Islamic states. These resources would be drawn from public and private institutions and from volunteers and nongovernmental organizations.
A critical part of this effort would involve creating new trade and economic opportunities for the Middle East that could be powerful forces, not only economically, but also in breaking down barriers to cooperation on even the most intractable problems. Muslim countries pursuing free-trade agreements with the United States, for example, have dismantled all aspects of the Arab League’s boycott of Israel. The power of trade to break down barriers and build ties is also seen in the Qualified Industrial Zone program that grants U.S. free-trade benefits to Egyptian products that incorporate materials from Israel. When the program was first suggested, some Egyptian officials balked, saying that trade with Israel would spark protests. When the program was launched, there were indeed protests — from Egyptians who were excluded from the program and wanted to participate.
[Again, we read of the acceptance and promotion of "trade and economic opportunities" around the world. This is the playbook of Globalists who want to destroy Sovereign nations around the world replacing them with a one-world government. Richard N. Gardner, mentioned at the beginning of this treatise, said that "the house of world order" must come about gradually. He suggested luring all nations into a variety of technological, economic, and political entanglements which would gradually be strengthened until they formed a genuine world government.
The first three institutions Gardner pointed to for this purpose were the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In 1995, GATT was transformed into the WTO, with greatly expanded status and powers.
The World Trade Organization created the entangling alliances of the aforementioned NAFTA and CAFTA under which we are now suffering and they are promoting the expansion of those agreements into the FTAA.
Lest one thinks that this is only a Republican problem - it certainly is not. Politicians from both sides of the isle are guilty of ignoring the Constitution and either knowingly or unknowingly working towards a loss of U.S. Sovereignty and a move towards world government. Believe it or not - this has been part of a plan by powerful elites to use both major parties to achieve their world government goals.]
Mitt Romney continues:
Congress must give the president the authority to move forward with these efforts so that we can expand and integrate our existing free-trade agreements in the region. A critical part of the economic resurgence and peace of postwar Europe was the United States’ support for a unified market and U.S. engagement in cross-country ties. Today, we must push for more integration and cross-border cooperation in the Middle East. As a group of experts working on the Princeton Project on National Security noted recently, “The history of Europe since 1945 tells us that institutions can play a constructive role in building a framework for cooperation, channeling nationalist sentiments in a positive direction, and fostering economic development and liberalization. Yet the Middle East is one of the least institutionalized regions in the world.â€
We are a unique nation, and there is no substitute for our leadership. The difficulties we face in Iraq should neither cause us to lose faith in the United States’ strength and role in the world nor blind us to the new challenges we face. Our future and that of generations to come depend on our resolve to move beyond the divisiveness in Washington today and unite America and our allies to confront a new generation of global challenges. [end of Mitt Romney article]
In conclusion, Mitt Romney may be a good man. I do not know that, either way. But his policies prove that either he is deceived or he is a wolf sheep’s clothing. This should not be shocking to us, for the Prophets have warned us that such would be the case. President Ezra Taft Benson warned in his Civic Standards For The Faithful Saints talkfrom 1972:
“We need the constant guidance of that Spirit. We live in an age of deceit. “O my people,â€
bttt