21 votes

Yes, Jon Huntsman was a member of the CFR

(Digg this here)

Given Jon Huntsman’s recent attacks on Ron Paul (including his last week’s shameful "false-flag"-style dirty trick), and the media’s sudden decision to shower him with positive press in a transparent effort to manufacture a "Huntsman surge" self-fulfilling prophecy, a lot people have been wondering: Is he, or has he ever been, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?

The answer is yes. While his name has not appeared on their roster in recent years, he was a member in the 1990′s.

Just to put any doubts to rest, here is a document straight off of the official CFR website confirming this.

Continued here:

While Huntsman, the son of a billionaire, has taken to trying to paint himself as an alternative to the "Establishment’s favorite", Mitt Romney (Huntsman himself calls him that), his history of membership in the CFR makes it easy to understand why the media is propping him up and enthusiastically cooperating with him in shameful attacks against Ron Paul: Huntsman, too, is an Establishment candidate. Given the fact that Huntsman is unelectable, having failed to get on the ballot in three states already, it’s clear that his role is to attempt to tear down the Ron Paul campaign to make way for other Establishment darlings, especially the ruling class’s "heir apparent", Mitt Romney.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What I think is the more scary proposition was what someone

recently posted that "all diplomats are CIA agents."

That one is certainly plausible, and much more fearsome than belonging to a pundit club.

Sure the pundit club THINKS they can and does ATTEMPT to pull everyone's puppet strings to control the world, but they mainly do this by "group think."

The CIA however is much more nefarious.

Huntsman is controlled opposition

I wonder how he ties in with the Koch brothers?


The rest of the story

This a conspiracy -- not a theory!
Romney camp moved London fundraiser out of Huntsman supporter’s home

WASHINGTON -- The Mitt Romney campaign thought they had the perfect place staked out for their fundraiser in London next week: an elegant home that once belonged to famed American portrait artist John Singer Sargent.

The home now belongs to wealthy financier Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and his wife, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a well-connected American lawyer and entrepreneur.

But one major problem got in the way: the Lady joined up with one of Romney’s rivals, Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. She hosted a dinner for him last week at another one of her homes, in New York, and says they raised $1.2 million.

“He’s the real deal,” Forester said of Huntsman in an interview. “He is a genuine fiscal conservative. He’s not doctrinaire. He sticks to what he believes in. He’s just a pragmatic, non-ideological, let’s-roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-it-done kind of American. I really think he’s fabulous.”

merciful heavens!!!

'real deal' to the PTB, apparently.

Huntsman, like Clinton and Obama, and even the Bushes . . . came from out of 'nowhere'--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Huntsman is doing what he is instucted to do.

Siphon as many votes as possible away from Dr. Paul.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Is JFK a conspiracy theorist too? New York City, April 27, 1961

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.


It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.


It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

You left off the intro.

That speech wasn't trying to warn anyone of secrecy and conspiracy, it was trying to convince the media to be mouthpieces for the government despite their objection and aversion to it.

Once CFR

Always CFR, I think they have to promise an unborn child then like any gang of thugs be "jumped in" of course being "jumped in" the CFR isn't so much of fist fight as it is open hand slapping and hair pulling all while screaming degrading remarks such as "My daddy is richer than yours!" and "You attended public schools!". The "thug-life" in DC has to stop.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson


Few "daddies" are richer than Huntsman's billionaire father. As the Occupiers might say, he is "The 0.000001%"

CFR = Ministry of Propaganda.

humanic, thanks for posting. please see comment on DP thread -

we can also call CFR as the Dirty-Tricks Dept in the pay of the RothsChilde-Rockfeller Bank$ter Cartel.


Some of you guys seem to be coming down a little hard on humanic here. I applaud his efforts.

I don't believe in conspiracy. Something is true or it is not. What is so conspiring about questioning anything? Who exactly came up with the phrase "conspiracy theory?" I've noticed that whenever it has something to do with distrust of the govt., it is automatically labeled such. It's become taboo to talk about CFR, Tri-lateral commission, Bildebergs, and 9/11 - much like it was taboo to talk about The Federal Reserve not so long ago. Where do we all stand on that now? There's a reason we want to END THE FED - but do you know why? How far have you chased this subject down the rabbit hole? It can get pretty scary.

Truth is truth. In this case, the CFR is very real and dangerous for anyone who loves liberty. You should educate yourself. G. Edward Griffin is a fantastic researcher. Don't discount his work on the basis that it is "conspiracy." His work on the Federal Reserve is outstanding, as is his work on cancer and yes, chemtrails. Ultimately you make up your own mind, but at least be willing to have the discussion.

I am not saying that every theory out there is a good one. For example, there are "theories" of lizard people/aliens hijacking the bodies of our leaders and running governments around the globe - which, in my opinion, is nuts! (However, it could be argued that these people are simply confused because of the cold-blooded individuals who vie for power election after election) In this case, a reasonable person looking at the evidence should be able to quickly surmise that this particular theory has no merit.

The point is, don't discount something as a conspiracy theory just because the media has brandished something as a taboo subject. There is very good scientific research behind many of these topics.

Most of you can see the bias of the news media when it comes to Dr. Paul. If I told you 5-10 years ago that the media was working together to distract you and brainwash you would you have believed it? Probably not. Today? - I'm guessing you might be seeing the evidence as they broadcast over radio and tv all the reasons why YOU should discredit Ron Paul, all with the same phrasing and opinion as if they are reading from a script. Or, how many of you would have thought the government would try to control elections through tampering and fraud 5-10 years ago? Now? Evidence in both of these instances is pretty staggering. Does that make you a conspiracy theorist?

I am not talking to you as a crazy person, nor am I trying to convince you of anything. My reasoning here is simple; Freedom requires serious discussion. It's the fear of talking about a subject that is dangerous. Trust is how we've arrived in the mess our country is in today. Fear is preventing us from fixing it. Vetting theories, no matter how crazy they seem to you is our job as citizens. Distrust in Government is what SHOULD make this country strong! It was certainly distrust of government that was the driving force behind our Revolution and the writing of our Constitution. I say be brave and embrace it!

Make your vote matter this year. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil! Vote your conscience, vote for Liberty, vote for the Constitution, VOTE RON PAUL!!!

Great points freetheconstitution, thanks

It's really just the one guy that was pooh-poohing it.


let's just keep it to one guy :)

Make your vote matter this year. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil! Vote your conscience, vote for Liberty, vote for the Constitution, VOTE RON PAUL!!!

Good thread!

I'm bumping it.

Don't be discouraged by the know-nothing nay-sayers.
It really cracks me up to see these johnny-come-lately types who fell off the turnip truck last night, trying to disparage knowledgeable people that have actually learned something in their lives.

I think maybe they feel inadequate that they know so little, and others know so much more than they do, that they feel the need to lash out in their ignorance.

God forbid that "new people" might be permitted to learn what these ignorant knee-jerk reactionaries never have taken the time to learn.

Aw heck. Here's one more.

(I know jtbraine, I know... I'm making "new people" read quotes from a book by Senator Barry Goldwater, endorsed by President Reagan. Total fringe figures.)

"The Roman emperor Augustus created the Praetorian Guard, an elitist, privileged, protective corps. Over the years the Praetorians accumulated sufficient power to destroy any emperor they opposed. They blocked efforts to reestablish a true republican. They were able to select and elevate their candidate to the position of emperor.

The Trilateral Commission is a modern Praetorian Guard. David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the nomination and the presidency. To accomplish this purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community -- which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax-free foundations -- and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR and Trilalteral."

- Senator Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (1979), p. 300

"Everyone in America should read this frank accounting of backstage Washington by an honest man. With No Apologies is required reading for those who want to know the inner workings of the political world."

- Ronald Reagan, talking about the Goldwater book I just quoted from

posts like this

Remind me of alex jones conspiracy articles. Not a good thing to have when new people come to see the forum.

you don't have a clue dude.

you don't have a clue dude.

Uh, what is "conspiracy article" about this?

Nothing. He was a member. The article provides documentation from the CFR's own website. Dr. Paul has repeatedly addressed the CFR himself and explained how he differs from the organization ideologically.

"The CFR exists. The Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a quote 'conspiracy of ideas.' This is an ideological battle. Some people beleive in globalism, others of us believe in national sovereignty."
-Ron Paul, 2007, on national TV

Dr. Paul also endorsed G. Edward Griffin's book the Creature From Jekyll Island, which is all about the historical relationship between the CFR and the Fed. Look at the back of the book.

"A superb analysis. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." – Ron Paul, about the Creature from Jekyll Island

The CFR is a very real and extremely influential organization promoting globalism and collectivism. It is quite significant that Huntsman has been a member, especially since he's trying to paint himself as non-Establishment. The CFR is a primary embodiment of "the Establishment". I'm sorry if you're not up to speed , but your knee-jerk reaction is not logical. Please read the article and check out the links.

read the article

The video at the end. A "source" is called The Quigley Formula - [The World Government Conspiracy] described as A lecture by G. Edward Griffin on the New World Order.

G. Edward Griffin is one of best conspiracy theoriest out there.

Also in your article is the video called The CFR Controls Mainstream Media. That too is a sorce. Its a paranoid idea and should be in off topic.

would you like to get

would you like to get educated on this.. 2 books to pick up. Written by Larry Abraham. None dare call it Conspiracy and Call it Conspiracy. You read those 2 books and still have the need to question then your brain is not functioning.

you need to get your head out

you need to get your head out of the sand FNG.

I'll be the first to

I'll be the first to empathize with you about the nutty conspiracy wing of our movement, and how much I dislike it - the wing that doesn't like logic, facts and reason all that much. Being a huge fan of Ayn Rand, this is something I cannot stand.

For example, there are some people - who I think are just a vocal minority - who think everything is a conspiracy. These people believe in any ridiculous claim without evidence, or with the smallest amount of truth. They never consider any other possibilities, which might also be true, nor do they ask questions which might lead them to other conclusions. In short, these people do not use logic and reason.

HOWEVER, we have to distinguish between these types of "conspiracy hypothesizers" and actual real conspiracies. The Federal Reserve System and the CFR are so well-documented, and have so much evidence supporting them, that we have to come to the conclusion that their threats are very real. They are not simply "conspiracy hypothesis's", or anything like that. They are very real.

I use the term "conspiracy hypothesis" because a conspiracy theory actually means something that is true in theory - i.e. it would work in the practice. Theories are implied to be true. Not all "conspiracy theories" are actually true, so we should call the false ones or the undetermined ones "conspiracy hypothesis's"

It has to be said that it is possible to know that conspiracies exist and still hate Alex Jones and people like him with a passion at the same time - because those people don't always use logic and reason, and that is a danger to our movement.

I don't even think Alex Jones is helpful. He paralyzes people and gets you stuck. He also collaborates with a lot of people who have questionable reputation. The list is huge of the people you shouldn't trust that he routinely talks to. For example, he has ties to Joseph Farrah and WND, NIA, gold/silver sellers that WAY overcharge per ounce, and several others questionable relationships.

In contrast, G.E.Griffon is very philosophical, and is very intelligent. He also presents real solutions to our problems. He doesn't fear-monger like Alex. He actually wants a solution to the problem - not just to sell more dvd's and build up his ego.

And when you got a guy like Tom Woods backing you up on some of this stuff, it's pretty hard to argue against it and call it foolish.

It's important to know the difference.

I'm guessing the person who

I'm guessing the person who voted this down didn't actually read it. Whatever. Was part of that vocal minority.

Guess that must be WHY Dr.Paul calls

G. Edward Griffin his PERSONAL FRIEND, and wrote a few forwards for his books.

If you were to ask the Doc what is the best book to learn about the Federal Reserve, he almost always without fail recommends "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Ed. Griffin.

It's only "conspiracy theory" if one doesn't know something.

guess Alex Jones' 3 million DAILY audience(radio/shortwave/internet/mirrored streams/mirrored uploads/YT/XMradio/satellite/TV) all must be deluded "conspiracy theorists," too. not to mention about 40% of the initial group of people who actively funded and supported the Doc's 2008 campaign, who just happened to be Alex Jones listeners.

I know, it can be bitter, until you actually take the time to actually read the govt's, thinktanks, NGO's own public whitepapers. most have no clue how just seriously screwed up the world is. it's even more confusing when one is so overwhelmed they cannot discern who's telling the truth.

I'm not blaming you, or mean this to be condescending in any way. ask many here, they'll readily tell you, before they actually sat down and read the Doc's actual writings, books, heard him on TV/radio/internet/CSPAN interviews, they all believed what MSM made out to be: a kook, a crank, a crazy uncle, blah blah blah.

Don't know if you realize this, but even the notion of bringing up the Federal Reserve all until 2007 were practically a national taboo and in the "conspiracy theory" land. guess all the R3VOL and TeaParty, even some OWS who want either to audit, transition it into Treasury or abolish the Federal Reserve altogether must all be tin-foil madhatters, too. Huh, that comes out to a couple of millions of Dr. Paul's fans, I guess.

the most fallacious assumption one can make about any topic one may not be too familiar with, is to ignore or dismiss it out of hand a-priori with undue prejudice.

go at your pace, but if you start the rabbithole goes deep. but just don't forget to put it in perspective. if you don't want to bother, matters not to me.

but, don't go around calling people names or infer one, against those whom you believe to be less than informed. Ironically, THEY are the ones who should be laughing AT you, but it does no service to ridicule each other here.

So, if you're still interested, just look it up yourself, along with perhaps looking up couple of info that perhaps you normally ventured into.

If you're still not convinced, all you lost is some time. No big. Besides, if one is secure in one's global worldview, frankly no info in the world should bother that person to the point of becoming threatened by it.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Ha, ha!

New knowledge is suspect to the uninformed.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Paranoid huh?

G. Edward Griffin is not a "conspiracy theorist". Ron Paul endorsed his book about the Fed and CFR, calling it "superb". You are simply what Griffin would call a "conspriacy poo-pooist".

Also, "The Quigley Formula" is the name of the lecture. "The World Government Conspiracy" is not the title Griffin gave the lecture. The YouTube user simply added that after the actual title. Get over it.

Here, let's look at what these two "paranoid" guys have to say:

"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945 three different Republicans have occupied the White House for a period of sixteen years. Four Democrats have held this most powerful post the world has to offer for a period of seventeen years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction.

When a new President comeson board, there is a great turnover in personnel but no change in policy. Example: During the years Henry Kissinger, CFR member and Nelson Rockefeller's protege, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zibniew Brzezinski, CFR member and David Rockefeller's protege"

- Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (1979), p. 292 (Yes this is a real quote, I have the book next to me and just transcribed it myself for you.)

"Everyone in America should read this frank accounting of backstage Washington by an honest man. With No Apologies is required reading for those who want to know the inner workings of the political world."

- Ronald Reagan, talking about the Goldwater book I just quoted from

Are these guys paranoid conspiracy theorists jtbraine? Give it a rest and get off your high horse.

(Goldwater also talks in detail about the "new world order". Yes, he uses that phrase, repeatedly. I won't transcribe it here though because God forbid someone "new" reads a quote from Barry Goldwater from a book endorsed by Ronald Reagan.)

The book was from 2002

Ron Paul didn't know griffin would become a conspiracy theorist nutjob

G. Edward Griffin talks about new CHEMTRAIL film

Im not going to reply to you, as Ive bumped this enough already.

Good, because you have nothing constructive to say.

Only empty name calling.

By the way, I have to address this

The "chemtrail" thing you brought up is way off topic, but this is just too ironic to not point out.

Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”

(NOT trying to start a sub-discussion about this subject, but I felt this needed to be mentioned in response.)