council on foreign relations
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
One of the major downsides of skilled immigration to the U.S. is that it also represents skilled emigration from other countries, many of which are struggling Third World countries that need all the smart people they can keep.
There's a list of supposed members of the Council on Foreign Relations here, including both famous and non-famous names. Can anyone find any public figures on that list who oppose illegal immigration (for real) or who even support reducing legal immigration? If so, please leave a comment.
In the meantime, here are some of their members who are on the wrong side; this list will be updated with new names occasionally:
Tom Brokaw, Wesley Clark, Tom Daschle, Obama sister, Sidwell Friends board member, others on White House Fellowships Commission - 06/17/09
The 28 members of the "President’s Commission on White House Fellowships" have been named  and include:
Rosa Brooks to Pentagon; CFR, Soros; her Darwinistic, anti-American immigration policy; journalism bailout - 04/09/09
Former Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks is going through the revolving door again, this time to be an advisor at the Defense Department, specifically to Michele Flournoy the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. There's a lot about her not to like; here's just some of it:
3. In her farewell (for now) column, she advocates for a "government bailout of journalism" (link). In addition to various subsidies, she wants to "[use] tax dollars and [grant] licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary". Anyone who's older than five knows just how narrowly she'd define "robust". For instance, Lou Dobbs probably wouldn't make the cut, not to mention many others.
4. In June 2007, she offered "How immigrants improve the curve" (link). Discussing all the things wrong with it would take too long, but the first thing wrong is her contention that Americans are fat and lazy and that the only solution is giving us (them from her perspective) the competition of bringing in immigrants, whether legal or not.
The second thing wrong with that column is much more troubling and hopefully she'll be called on it one of these days:
And when it comes to illegal immigrants, just getting here takes astounding courage. Illegal immigrants endure astonishing privation and risk - just for the chance to improve their lot by doing the backbreaking work so few native-born Americans have the inclination to do.
It's rare to find anyone promoting the benefits of illegally journeying to the U.S., which frequently involves crossing a dry and either very hot or very cold desert. What Brooks' statement equates to is a Darwinistic immigration policy, where our southern border serves as a way to filter out those not fit enough to come to the U.S.: they die along the way. According to Rosa Brooks, they wouldn't have made good Americans anyway.
Please go to one of her public appearances or similar and point that out to her on video, then upload her response to video sharing sites.
In violation of Barack Obama's promise to run an open and transparent transition to the next administration, an associate of convicted document thief Sandy Berger has been secretly meeting with far-left groups under the auspices of the Obama-Biden Transition Project to develop a range of pro-U.N. policies. These include placing "more [U.N.] blue helmets on U.S. troops" and forcing the U.S. to join the U.N.'s International Criminal Court (ICC)...There's a letter Kincaid sent about this in December here. Eric Schwartz's biographies are at connectusfund.org/about/staff/eric-p-schwartz and hias.org/WhoWeAre/board.php?individual=45; they include work at the United Nations and with the Council on Foreign Relations in addition to during the Bill Clinton administration.
...While Obama comes across in the media as a "moderate" or "centrist" in foreign policy, his Transition Project is developing an extreme pro-U.N. policy that is supposed to be implemented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. (Susan Rice).
The Berger associate, Eric. P. Schwartz, is the executive director of the U.S. Connect Fund and represents several liberal and leftist foundations, including and most notably the Open Society Institute of financial hedge-fund operator George Soros...
He's listed among many other names at change dot gov at these pages among others:
Barack Obama: no evidence of North American Union, confirms NAFTA Superhighway (?), says not CFR member - 04/02/08
In Lancaster, Pennsylvania on 3/31/08, an audience member asked Barack Obama whether he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and asks about the North American Union. He denied being a member of the CFR, and said he didn't see any evidence of the NAU. However, in his discussion of the NAU he described something sounding an awful lot like the NAFTA Superhighway. If you go to one of his appearances, read back his statements (below) and tell him that he came close to verifying something that we're told doesn't exist.
And, if Obama is truthful when he says he sees no evidence of the NAU - for instance as a gleam in the eyes of powerful people - then he's not qualified for major public office. But, we knew that already. Were he an honest and brave politician he'd acknowledge that there are plenty of signs that powerful forces want something like a NAU, and he'd work to oppose them.
Details after the clip (NOTE: see the update).
Regarding the CFR, Obama says he doesn't know whether he's an "official member", but says he's spoken there in the past. He then says:
"the CFR is basically just a forum where a bunch of people talk about foreign policy... so there's no official membership... I don't have a card or an [inaudible, perhaps 'special'] handshake or anything like that..."
For the last part of that he was mocking the questioner, causing the audience to laugh right along with him. And, of course, he was lying about them just being a forum; they're obviously much more and almost all top government officials for the past several administrations have been members. In fact, here's CFR member Dick Cheney - standing next to David Rockefeller - laughing about not telling the folks back in Wyoming that he's a member: link.
Obama then pretends not to remember that the final word in NAU is "Union", asking the original questioner for the word. He says he sees no evidence of it taking place. Then, perhaps saying more than his handlers would like him to say, he goes on:
It was based partly on the fact that there's this highway being built in Texas that will facilitate more transportation and travel between Mexico and the intercontinental United States, on up to Canada so people have perceived that this potentially means that somehow there's gonna be this Union like the European Union... there's no evidence that that's taking place.
So, it runs from Mexico to Canada, and will facilitate transportation. Sounds like... an intercontinental trade corridor, no? In fact, it certainly sounds like the NAFTA Superhighway, something that hacks have worked night and day to deny. In fact, most of them, if they acknowledge the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) at all, stop right there and don't go past, say, Oklahoma. But, brave soul that he is, Obama went all the way up to Canada.
James Kirchick of the New Republic - home of the odious Jason Zengerle - offers "Angry White Man/The bigoted past of Ron Paul", an attempt by the Beltway establishment to sink his candidacy by revealing excerpts from his old newsletters. Apparently much or all of it was ghostwritten, and the campaign tries to portray him as a (per Kirchick) "naive, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf". To a good extent that doesn't wash, and many of the quotes provided are indeed very questionable in and of themselves. (The Ron Paul campaign responds to the TNR piece here. See also the response from Thomas DiLorenzo (not Lew Rockwell as previously stated), in which he implies he might sue Kirchik for libel; the article implies that DiLorenzo is a neo-Confederate due to a conference he spoke at, when the conference actually dealt with the pre-Civil War northern secessionist movement.)
However, other quotes from the TNR piece beg for context, and others are craftily spun in order to make Paul look as bad as possible. Consider this:
That same year , citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false.
There are at least three things wrong with that.
1. Per the Red Cross (link):
There are no known cases of saliva by itself spreading HIV... However, because there could be a risk of blood contact during prolonged open-mouth kissing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends against doing this with a partner who has HIV.
So, outright calling it "false" isn't exactly honest, not that TNR has much familiarity with that concept.
2. In 1990, how many studies had been done on transmission via saliva? In 1990 - when the excerpt was written - was it still a very open question? [UPDATE: a search of the contemporaneous NYT and medical literature at pubmed.gov shows mixed results, with some saying it could be transmitted via saliva and some saying it's very unlikely; one HIV+ person was convicted of attempted murder after biting someone.]
3. Just because someone "cites" something doesn't mean that they agree with it.
Did Kirchick make a "mistake"? Or was he intentionally trying to deceive by confusing what we (mostly) know now with what was known in 1990?
Kirchick goes on:
The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States."
I guess that reasonable people can disagree on whether the CFR and other Rockefeller-linked groups are just friendly social groups or whether they do attempt to run matters, but I suggest being very suspicious of hacks who try to claim the former. As for the Treaty, consider this:
...the White House in late 1977 directed the well-connected former chairman of the finance committee of the Democratic National Committee,
S. Lee Kling, to set up the "Committee of Americans for the Canal Treaties, Inc." (COACT). To anyone not aware of Kling's past or his mandate from the White House, COACT seemed like a grassroots, nonpartisan effort on behalf of the treaties... the list of COACT members included David Rockefeller (chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank)...
What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America.
Being interviewed by someone doesn't mean you agree with everything they say. And, while Alex Jones is a bit of a showman and does have some far-out-there ideas, others are not. And, unlike someone like Kirchick, he's willing to buck the establishment.
Note also this email he sent to a RP supporter a few weeks ago:
I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist.
The recipient goes on to call Kirchick a "muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite"; as for the part about "dishonoring" TNR with his presence, I'd say he fits right in.
UPDATE: John Gibson of Fox News did a radio interview with Kurchik here. It contains this absolutely incredible statement:
"When someone mentions the Trilaterial Commission in nefarious terms, you know that they're a little kooky... ...The Bilderbergers, that's a real out there conspiracy theory..."
Then, he pretended that Bohemian Grove was just a "men's social club in Northern California".
This guy is a complete establishment suck-up and apologist. While some of the theories about those groups are indeed out there, pretending they're just happy friendly social groups is something that no one who isn't just trying to suck-up should engage in. Also, he appears to be a fan of Rudy Giuliani; at the last link Rudy gives an award to David Rockefeller and mentions all the groups with which he's been associated, including the CFR and the Bilderbergers.
TNR has released some scanned copies of the newsletters here. I'm going to leave it to others to look through all of them but the first one in the "Conspiracies" section is from 1978 - well before some of RP's supporters were born - and it contains highlighted sections that apparently we're supposed to shocked at, such the fact that David Rockefeller is linked to politicians and the news media or that the true owners of the Panama Canal are not just the supposed owners. So? Another one in that section, a solicitation letter, is so over the top that I'm almost positive that Ron Paul himself didn't write it, and I don't think too many politician write their own solicitation letters.
UPDATE 2: This has got to be a joke. Little Green Footballs - added as a show of support to this site's "blogroll" after some incident a few years ago and just now removed - offers "Ron Paul's Personal Details in Racist Newsletter" (link). Apparently the fact that whoever wrote a paragraph knew that Ron Paul had grandchildren strongly implies that the author was Paul himself and not a surrogate.
UPDATE 3: Andrew Sullivan - someone who wouldn't last more than a week as a pundit if he allowed open comments - flees the ship for USS McCain:
After the awful news about Ron Paul's ugly, repellent past newsletters, I find myself rooting again for the man who was my second choice.
UPDATE 4: Via this guy in the comment at http://volokh.com/posts/1199830642.shtml#311903 consider this from their documents page:
A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier.
The 1989 PDF (link) only "compares" their cases and points out liberal hypocrisy, calling out TNR by name (probably why they highlighted it; bolding added):
Would the New Republic, which has been sickenly pompous on Rushdie and in its hymns to secular humanism, defend things it would find heretical? The answer is no. This liberal magazine has past defended Canada's "anti-hate" law, which was used to fine and jail a Canadian author, Ernst Zundel, who questioned the historical reality of the Holocaust. Liberal newspapers like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe have also praised the Canadian law and this prosecution. I'll believe Establishment liberals are really committed to free speech when I see Norman Mailer and his cohorts wearing "I am Ernst Zundel" buttons and holding readings of his works. I personally am offended by writings advocating fascism, socialism, Communism, and other forms of special-interest big government. Many people understandably find Zundel's writings offensive. But his case is no different in principle from Rushdie's except that Zundel is poor and in jail, and Rushdie is rich and protected.
A group of about 30 conservatives have sent an open letter to the rest demanding that they band together and support the Bush/Kennedy/Kyl massive illegal alien amnesty bill. The letter itself is full of half-truths, such as their claim that "it will make sure that the law is enforced first, before any other provisions of the legislation take effect".