Barak Obama lying about his C.F.R./N.A.U ties

Obama & The CFR



The 2004 Democratic
National Convention may be remembered most for a young and energetic
senator that immediately drew comparison to the Kennedys. Obama's
speech launched his name and image into the public spotlight, and his
fresh style of rhetoric filled a growing anti-war political void –
He voted against the Iraq war and wasn't afraid to criticize it's
handling. Excitement and support for the senator eventually
snowballed into his current presidential campaign. He enjoys a
popular image as a liberal democrat, and his harsh criticism of the
Iraq war has earned him support from a population united in it's
discontent with the current government. To a select crowd of
Americans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war. To
other more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on new
middle eastern countries. Obama has aligned himself with several
lobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further US
militarization of the world. In several speeches and essays, Obama
makes his foreign policy goals clear – and he is not anti-war. Is
Obama intentionally sending a deceptive message to his constituency?

In a recent speech
given to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, Obama
outlines a plan for U.S. hegemony. He suggests polarizing political
alignments that are already breeding anti-U.S. sentiment.
Specifically, Obama pledges unfaltering military support to Israel.
The U.S. has long supported Israel – this year they were given $30
billion for defense of the young state. To put this in perspective,
less than $7 billion has been federally granted to rebuild homes
destroyed after hurricane Katrina. Although the U.S. has always
given billions in aid to Israel, his alliance backs preemptive
strikes against countries deemed a threat. Israel is unpopular in
the region, and is threatened by Iran's desire for modern nuclear
energy in the future. Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Obama states
“We should take no option, including military action, off the
table”. The US has already constructed massive permanent military
bases in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve as hubs for such an operation.
The fleet of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf continues to
grow, while politicians and media simultaneously hype a nonexistent
enemy. This reckless policy leaves the U.S. on the brink of full
scale war at all times.

Obama differed from
many of his peers by admitting the Iraq war was heavily motivated by
Iraq's oil reserves. Iran's oilfields, and the military buildup of
the Persian Gulf creates and incentive for military action. It has
been questioned if the U.S. military even has the capability of
securing the strategic oil reserve. Iran has some of the most
lucrative oilfields in the region, and provides energy to Asia and
Europe. International economies would be disenfranchised with the US
military disruption of its energy supplies. Meddling in other
countries' foreign affairs has spurred backlash against the U.S.
This phenomenon is referred to as “blowback”, or, the
consequences from provoking actions. Ignoring this cause and effect,
Obama advocates troops in Iraq be redeployed to Pakistan and
Afghanistan to fight amorphous groups of “terrorists”. Regarding
the war on terror, Obama differs from his colleagues in that he does
not believe nuclear weapons should be used – a small concession for
an ambitious military operation. This policy still backs preemptive
strikes and the further militarization of the middle east, all at the
expense of US resources.

Obama outlines his
ambitious geopolitical plans in a recent essay for Foreign Affairs
magazine. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign
Relations, which describes itself as a non-partisan group of which he
is a member. Established in the 1920's and headquartered in New
York, its membership includes prominent politicians and business
elite, including heads of academia and media. The organization seeks
to centralize both political power and market power to craft
legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy. The CFR is
rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, making it difficult to
fully gauge its influence. When it is mentioned in the press, it is
likely whitewashed as trivial or irrelevant. Notable members of the
CFR include:


Dick Cheney

John Kerry

Bill Clinton

Al Gore

Ronald Reagan

George H. W. Bush

Gerald Ford

Richard Nixon


John, David &
Nelson Rockefeller

Condolezza Rice

Paul Wolfowitz

Alan Greenspan

Colon Powell

Henry Kissinger

Angelina Jolie
(Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an
ambassador)


Its membership list
is a who's who of Washington and Wall St. elite going back nearly a
century. It should not be surprising that most presidential
candidates in the 2008 election are CFR members. Candidates do not
advertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as
“liberals” and “conservatives” to control all aspects of the
debate. The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with
several members in the race from both sides of the isle:

Democrat CFR
Candidates:

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Chris Dodd

Bill Richardson

Republican CFR
Candidates:

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

Fred Thompson

Newt Gingrich

The mainstream
media's self-proclaimed “top tier” candidates are united in their
CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political
diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to
instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in
plain view. Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is
the only “top tier” candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

Although many
politicians hold membership, It must be noted that the Council on
Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization. The CFR's
membership is a union of politicians, bankers, and scholars, with
several large businesses holding additional corporate memberships.
Corporate members include:


Halliburton of
Dubai

British Petroleum

Dutch Royal Shell

Exxon Mobile

General Electric
(NBC)

Chevron

Lockheed Martin

Merck
Pharmaceuticals

News Corp (FOX)

Bloomberg

IBM

Time Warner

JP Morgan/ Chase
Manhattan

& several other
major financial institutions

Members are united
in their interventionist intentions with the goal of a consolidated
global governance. The CFR's mission is to influence policy through
the reach of its members and publications. Those who study the CFR
ideology are recruited and cultured for membership. The best and
brightest university students are taught to propagate the CFR model.
Individuals who both subscribe to the CFR ideology and can bring an
element of capital (political status, business influence, money) to
the group will be given membership. Members meet at the CFR
headquarters in Manhattan and Washington DC, and round-table style
discussions are held for its membership to discuss foreign affairs
and make recommendations on policy. The CFR often creates “task
forces” to report “findings and policy prescriptions” (cfr.org)
for specific current world events, and also publishes the periodical
Foreign Affairs magazine. CFR authors are often found in mainstream
media publications. In a recent issue of TIME magazine, one CFR
member writes: “The US should make (Pakistani President & US
intelligence asset) Musharraf the best dictator he can be”.
Another author, this time in Newsweek magazine objectively argues to
the readers that the world really isn't all that bad in an article
titled “Don't Worry, Be Happy”. Currently, the front page of
CFR.org features essays on European anti-terrorism measures, radical
Iranians, and the reemergence of the nuclear threat (CFR members in
government control the nuclear football). Many prominent
publications are influenced and controlled by the CFR:


Time

Newsweek

US News & World
Report

Atlantic Monthly

Forbes

& several major
publishing houses


Members of the CFR
in the media intend to inject it's pro-globalist arguments into the
mainstream consciousness. Although the CFR is self-described as a
non-partisan association, it unabashedly promotes a
one-world-government agenda without regard for US sovereignty or the
desires of the American people.

The goals of the
CFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton's
Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: “The
Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society
which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries
should be obliterated and one world rule established.”. Quigley
differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their
plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In his
book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers
in that he believes the new world order plan of global government's
“role in history is significant enough to be known”. Quigley
also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be
controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. As
Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to “throw the
rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of
extreme shifts in policy.”. Controlling Washington elite allowed
private central banks to “dominate the political system... ...and
economy of world as a whole” and implement a new system of
“feudalist fashion” through “secret agreements”. Although he
believes the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigley
understands the average person doesn't understand feudalism or
serfdom and will never read his book.

Surprisingly, many
of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic
process. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy
Admiral Chester Ward writes “The main purpose of the (CFR) is
promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence
and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.”.
This high ranking military officer went on to explain their
procedures for influencing policy, claiming: “Once the ruling
members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US
government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial
research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments,
intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound
and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.”.

The CFR's strategy
is also being used to promote world government as well as the new
environmental agenda. Obama and most candidates have made the
environment a major issue in the policy. The CFR has long suggested
a global tax, specifically identifying the environmental movement as
a means for its advancement. All CFR candidates align themselves
with the position that the government has both the ability and
responsibility to maintain the world's environment. Good intentioned
individuals may genuinely seek environmental protection, but
nongovernmental organizations are quickly capitalizing on land
acquisitions and taxes in the name of global warming. While most
scientist agree the planet earth is undergoing a degree of climactic
change, the CFR admits the environmental argument will be used to
erode national sovereignty and build up their global authority.
Proposed “Carbon Taxes” place carbon expenditure ratings on
mundane human activities. Contrary to popular misconceptions, CO2
is by no means a pollutant. As an essential gas for life, plants
thrive on increased levels of CO2 which in turn they produce higher
levels of oxygen. Furthermore, carbon based life forms emit carbon
to the atmosphere, hence a “Carbon Tax” is a tariff for doing
nothing but maintaining life. A popular movement lead by the CFR's
own Al Gore would have you believe CO2 is the root cause of
environmental woes while ignoring real industrial pollution in
developing countries. There are serious environmental problems that
are ignored in favor of issues that can be used to tax the broad
population.

Environmental
protection has already lead countries to willingly surrender control
of natural resources. The US has ceded control of natural resources
to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) in a land grab under the guise of environmental
protection. UNESCO is part of the United Nations, an organization
controlled by many CFR members like permanent US ambassador John
Bolton. The CFR's President Richard N. Haass boldly admits “Some
governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to
address the threat of global climate change.”. He adds that this
“Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty... ...needs to become
weaker.”. While it is important to be conscious of humans' effects
on the earth, nongovernmental organizations like the CFR see an
opportunity to redistribute wealth through selective enforcement
targeting the US. The CFR openly states its intentions of using the
environmental movement and other emotional arguments to build up
global authority and undermine US sovereignty.

The CFR backs other
programs that promote regional governments. Another ambitious goal
of the CFR is the implementation of regional unions under the control
of a central world government. World leaders are moving towards a
regional partnership of North America consisting of Canada, the US,
and Mexico. In 2005, the CFR released a report titled “Building
an American Community” which sought to eliminate borders between
the three North American countries. One part of the plan called for
decreasing government control of cross-border traffic in an effort to
dissolve national borders. Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of the
task force that released “Building a North American Community”,
names the “Amero” as a hypothetical unified North American
currency similar to the Euro. Carried out with precision, the
private, run-for-profit federal reserve bank has massively devalued
the US dollar, allowing foreign corporations to buy up US resources
for literal pennies on the dollar.

The European Union
is a similar model to the North American partnership. The EU was
hugely opposed by Europeans, and took a half century for the
complicit European power elites to fully implement the union.
During his time as Prime Minister, Tony Blair tried several times for
the United Kingdom's adoption of the unpopular EU constitution that
was also staunchly rejected by French and Dutch voters. The current
Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to advance a similar
constitution under a new name. Like the EU, American countries would
keep their governmental infrastructure but all policy would be
superseded by a regional constitution.

Already in place in
North America is the Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov)
established in a meeting between Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox,
and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The SPP consolidates
protection of the North American Union by establishing a security
perimeter extending north of Canada to the Mexican/ Guatemalan
border. This measure was authorized under Bush's ambiguous executive
authority, thus avoiding any congressional input or oversight. It is
a precursor to a trilateral authority between the three North
American economies.

A similar measure
to the SPP in the establishment of a unified North American region is
the NAFTA “Superhighway” which eliminates border restrictions on
shipping, allowing imported goods destined for the US to arrive in
North America at ports in Mexico. Rather than arriving at the port
of Long Beach, imported goods would enter the US via a “port” in
the mid-west that lies along the shipping lane. This measure has
been unanimously opposed by US cities in proximity of the highway,
but the democratic voice is ignored as the government covertly
advances. Congress has largely looked away from the issue. Members
who are aware of this plan avoid this issue and prefer that it stay
secret, and the CFR presidential candidates will not address it. The
presidential candidates' association with the the self-described
“shadow government” compromises the the voting process and
defrauds the constituency.

Barack Obama has
captivated voters from all parties with his refreshing new style of
rhetoric. He has the voting record to back his criticism of the Iraq
war. But like his CFR colleagues, he vows to continue the pursuit of
a shadowy enemy under the vague threat of “terrorism” - a policy
that has cost citizens their personal liberties, trillions in debt
and untold lives. The war on terror has been crafted to spend the
US into bankruptcy and setup a domestic police state. Money
continues to be being printed out of thin air by the private
run-for-profit Federal Reserve, while China remains leveraged with
over $1 trillion in US dollar holdings. In the middle east, the
CFR's blank check for U.S. military operations will deplete U.S.
resources while inciting sectarian strife and anti-U.S. sentiment,
ignoring the history of blowback as documented by the CIA. Obama and
other CFR candidates affiliation with the organization is not
promoted on their websites or in any press releases because the
organization has centralized political power and financial capital to
set policy the public would otherwise oppose. The career
politicians in the CFR know corporate sponsorship is frowned upon by
voters. The Council is one of the major conduits between government
and business leaders in the US. The CFR is guaranteeing power by
owning all the horses in the race that is the 2008 election. Obama
is captivating unlike most of his competition, undoubtedly
intelligent enough to understand his political niche. Another CFR
US president guarantees more of the same costly foreign policy that
protects corporate interests and isolates the US. Like his
colleagues, Barack Obama's stated foreign policy intentions foment
the long term militarization and balkanization of the middle east
while resources will continue to be spent in deficit to finance an
illegal foreign policy. Only when the control of the CFR is fully
exposed will the voters have a real democratic choice.