0 votes

Look Who's On Cover/Foreign Affairs Newsletter

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

No comment. Make signs. Get the word out.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

A New Deal for Globalization

Look just below the pictures of Obama and Romney to the headline... "A New Deal for Globalization".

Ron Paul has these grand ideas of returning to our roots of individual freedoms, with a smaller federal government, and it doesn't matter who you are, or what you believe, Globalization does NOT equal freedom in any way, shape, or form.

Globalization literally means the dissolution of our borders, and a redistribution of wealth. This is in direct contrast to the independence and sovereignty that our founding fathers fought and died for.

Ron Paul's views on this matter are of public record. He is definitely for American sovereignty, (no North American Union) and definitely against the redistribution of wealth (pro free market). So, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Ron Paul's photo EVER be above a statement that is pro-globalism. (His pic should never be on a CFR website period, unless they are attacking him, which in turn is good for his campaign.) It is not who he is, or what he stands for.

This CFR web page does, however, offer a unique perspective on the other candidates. It is time for Americans to choose what they value about this country, and it is damn well time people stand up and fight for their freedoms!! If they don't, their kids will have to do the fighting by default.

A revolution is coming one way or another. I for one will NEVER be a part of a CFR fashioned globalist society. Get Ron Paul elected in 08. It is the best chance to take our country back non-violently. And non-violent change is the best option for the United States.

"The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war

Oh, I misread the headline

Oh, I misread the headline for this post. I thought "Look Who" meant Ron Paul. Turns out "Look Who" meant Romney/Obama.

I Am Laughing

...NOW I understand a couple of the posts including yours. All day I have been puzzled. It never occurred to me that people might think I meant Ron was featured, but now I see how you might think that. Somebody even said they kept refreshing the page to get RP's picture to come up.

I'm innocent....I was not going for a hook . I really meant...yeah, sure right, of course...these would be candidates they would feature, hence "Look Who's..etc." Thank you for clearing up my confusion on some of the comments and I am sorry if I confused anyone.

fonta

Look Which Presidential Candidates Are CFR Members

Most of you have probably already seen this UTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

It is worth following the Foreign Relations newsletter once you learn to navigate through it.

My question is how much "wiggle room" is there. I believe there is a lot. If Ron Paul becomes the "peoples candidate," rather than upset some monetary applecarts, the CFR might go along with it. And, RP has stated that he would be more than willing to work with the neocons if they were working for good. That DOES NOT mean he would become one.

Only that it is his placement as President that would enable him to get us pointed in some better directions. Others will, hopefully, take on the gauntlet after his term(s) are over. These guys (CFR/Trilateral etc.) like to work with some of the situations as they occur and then seek opportunities within the situation. They seem to enjoy the giant chessboard.

Truth is a great deal more powerful than lies. I am for the first time somewhat positive about the outcome and that optimism, in my case, is greatly accelerated by really believing that "His truth is marching on."

fonta

Ron Paul Attitude Toward CFR

Again, many of you have heard this, but I'm going to try to adopt his attitude concerning Secret Societies, CFR, Trilateral:

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/114/162/

Thinking about them makes me crazy anyway.

fonta

SCARY

It will be a cold day in hell when Foreign Affairs publishes an article by Ron Paul.

Obama and Romney are corporatist/globalist kool aid drinking CFR members. What's pitiful is that the majority of CFR members think they're doing good things (watch the video interview with Aaron Russo on prisonplanet.com). It's the few really twisted individuals (Rockefellars & bankers) mixing the kool aid they're all pickled in.

People who read that magazine fancy themselves as intellectuals and are overly impressed with the advanced grammatical and rhetorical skills of the writers. The content itself of every article I've ever read in FA is over the top globalist propaganda on steroids.

Good grief. What subversive garbage this is.

The audacity of fraud

Here is a nice critique of Barack Obama's essay.
http://pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/cn070607.htm

It basically lays out the case that Barack and Mitt are fairly identical in their views, just a little different in their rhetoric.

And some of the other commenters are totally missing the point.
:)

nope not there

i did a search in the archives of this site for ron paul and there is nothing on ron paul, and thats the way i want it. we want nothing to do with these scumbags, trust me!

You guys are kidding right?

Foreign Affairs is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. They wear the black hats, you know the the bad guys? If you don't know about them, then please educate yourself with James Perloff's book "Shadows of Power". The CFR, and it's puppets have been responsible for much of our current predicament that Ron Paul promises to deliver us from. You can't believe a word they say. Those at the top of this organization are liars of the highest order.

They are Plankton and they are implementing "evil plan Z". Take the "chum buckets" off your heads and wake up!

Jim Clark <><
Ron Paul for President!
www.jimclark.net

"Shadows of Power"

I'll check James Perloff's book "Shadows of Power".

Andon

Shadows of Power

....and in addition to what jamesclark said, here is one of my truth barometers: Look at the endorsements on the back of books, ie.

"Secret of the Temple" by William Greider (which is primarily about the Federal Reserve) is a very interesting tome of sanitized info on the history of the Federal Reserve. It won the LA Time Book Prize and is lauded on the back by The New York Times Book Review, The Wall Street Journal, Columbia Journalism Review etc. It may be taught and is one side of the coin.

"The Shadows of Power" is another side of the coin and tells perhaps more than anything else written on the real power of the CFR and how it operates. It is lauded on the back by a Ret. General, Philip Crane (Congressman at the time) a governor of New Hampshire and a former Ambassador to Romania. All pretty courageous people for lending their endorsements. It is not sanitized. The Powers That Be would prefer that Shadows of Power fall into the category of conspiracy theory. It is not, IMO.

There is a real spider web out there of information, disinformation, information that can be dispersed and information that will either be discredited or ignored by the mass media. I take info from where I can get it. However, you have to try to categorize the "truth barometers" in everything.

fonta

CFR trash

Did you notice this comes from the council on foriegn relations? it wouldnt surprise me if they are members of the CFR though which is why they get so much msm time. the first article talks about a new deal for globalism? The CFR is evil, they are the scumbags that run this world and the main reasons why its such a mess. if i were Ron Paul i wouldnt want to be seen on this site, even if it was a good article.

I've actually read this.

I find the Foreign Affairs magazine to be very informative. I highly recommend it. Other than that, not sure if the original OP is feeling like RP is ignored by them or not. But I believe what the purpose of the essays(and hopefully subsequent essays leading up to the elections) is that a candidate from each party is invited to write an essay for them...I think.

The 2 essays this month were pretty interesting. Both Obama and Romney are appealing for the same things(increased national defense, more more more) which I wasn't really surprised by. What was surprising is that Romney actually had tangible things as part of his arguments (Return to Cold War level of military spending...here's why)

So, I've bioled down the differences between the 2 candidates to be the following.

OBAMA:"The problem is [some hot issue], we need to do more [something], the current administration won't do [something], When I'm president, I'll do [something]".

ROMNEY:"The problem is [some hot issue], we need to do more [something], the next president needs to do A,B,C,D and E in order to accomplish [something] because of W,X,Y,Z".

Hopefully, Ron Paul will get to weigh in on this topic though.

I don't see it. There's a

I don't see it. There's a feature on Campaign 08 but it shows Obama and Romney. maybe it's constantly rotating through the candidates?

Repeated page refreshs didn't change Obama/Romney pics.

I tried several times but can't get the two socialists off the page-

Steve A.
Grantsville, WV

Does anyone remember "FREEDOM?"

Does anyone remember "FREEDOM?"

Same tired talking points

Romney sounds like a Bush re-run:

"First, we need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense. The need to support our troops is repeated like a mantra in Washington. Yet little has been said about the commitment of resources needed to make this more than an empty phrase."

So the hundreds of billions of military spending in Iraq is going to what? He's asking for MORE? If we spent even a fraction of what we're blowing in the Middle East on DEFENSE (protection) instead of OFFENSE (pre-emptive intervention) our military would not be over extended and in much better shape.

Do they think mainstream America is really buying this garbage?