Thread: Mitt Romney and the CFR question

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Originally Posted by ndmibby

For those seeking Mitt Romney's membership in the CFR all you have to do is '..make something up..' bla bla bla..

The CFR website link you source is a candidate profile on Romney. It is NOT an indication of membership OR affiliation with the CFR.

W

THANKS for the clarification William..!

..Seems to be a TON of wolves in sheeps clothes out and about..

Romney is BY FAR..

..NOT a 'rino' ..!

"What we can do is look at his positions, they are 100% in line with the CFR."

Controlling and stopping illegal immigration is CFR?

Originally Posted by usanevada

"What we can do is look at his positions, they are 100% in line with the CFR."

Controlling and stopping illegal immigration is CFR?

Yes, illegal, they pay lip service to it. More importantly is the fact that Romney is in favor of cafta, nafta and probably NAU, once that happens no one will be illegal.

As for the other positions, go look at his CFR speech, looks like a carbon copy of anything they would write.

I never did take much stock in the guilt by association theory.

Personally, I don't know if Romney holds membership in the CFR or not. However, I do know that no one on ALIPAC has provided undisputable proof that indicates he does.

I created this post to challenge people to verify their sources.

Right now, the political disinformation generators are very active and out on the net spreading lies. You have to be diligent and not get ground up by the rumor mill or fall into the smear tactic traps.

Alipacers are too smart for those cheep tricks. Don't forget what you have learned.

Research it, question it and confirm it with a reputable source, one who will attach their name and reputation to what they are saying.

Dixie

btt

Originally Posted by Dixie

..I created this post to challenge people to verify their sources.

Right now, the political disinformation generators are very active and out on the net spreading lies. You have to be diligent and not get ground up by the rumor mill or fall into the smear tactic traps.

Alipacers are too smart for those cheap tricks. Don't forget what you have learned.

Research it, question it and confirm it with a reputable source, one who will attach their name and reputation to what they are saying.

Dixie

Right on Dixie..!

[quote="ndmibby"]...Romney elaborates in a summer 2007 Foreign Affairs article, saying he would like to create a "Partnership for Prosperity and Progress" aimed at supporting moderate Muslims in economic, health, rule of law and other areas to help them "defeat radical and violent Islam."

After the initial phases of the SPP/NAU are up and running, given the massive U.S. Embassy complex being built in Iraq, I guess this is the next logical step towards the neo-con theme of "One World Order."

George W Bush was not technically a member either however he does write articles for them just like Romney. The proof is with Romney's positions about taxation and the departments of... True conservative non-CFR candidates would not be concerned about taxation and the departments of... because they are not Constitutional, there is no need, State legislation takes precedence...

CFR candidates, who write articles at their website, want either the continued tax rate or higher (Hilary, Obama, McCain) because they do not take State legislation seriously or they feel they have to federally take care of the States (some think we have to take care of other countries). They want continued involvement in foreign wars (occupation, intervention) so they have an excuse to tax, have no bid contracts for CFR corporations, they have their excuse not to fund securing our border... etc...

I can go on all one has to do is review the debates only one candidate is not CFR affiliated and that is Ron Paul! All the others want some presence in Iraq, continue the current federal tax rate (not Constitutional), continue all Departments of... (not Constitutional)... etc...

Doesn't Ron Paul oppose workplace enforcement as a means of deterring illegal immigration? And isn't that because of his Libertarian affiliations? Does he also oppose Real ID for the same reason?