Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Ronald Reagan speaks out on Socialized Medicine
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats. Then a private citizen, Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association
Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I would like to talk about another way because this threat is with us, and at the moment, is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.
It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.
Now , Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.
Walter Ruther said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well, let us see what the socialists themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned.
Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, "What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?”
That’s ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time -- socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, “When the American people wants something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want."
So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it.
Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don’t tax to get the money they need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system.
You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he's on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now call your friends and them to write.
If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Friday, August 23, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Friday, August 16, 2013
Introduction to your new outlook on life!
When we forget the sanctity of humanity is when we lose religion too. All religion is, is a way for humans to hold on to their humanity. Religion is order and lack of religion would be chaos. Religion was made to control the population with stories of promise, retribution, love, and hope. The biggest question is: which religion is correct and which is wrong? ANSWER: Both! The religions ARE in fact all inspired by God, but man has corrupted them so much, that people seem to believe that they are all right, when that is a bad way of thinking. The origin of humanity has always eluded us as humans and we have always attempted to find out why we are here and how we were made. That is when religious wars start. What I am about to do in this blog is to explain the differences between the religions and the similarities and how science and government play a role within. Then I will explain how the past panned out, what is happening in the present, and what the future will be like. This will take a while, so I have broken down the entire thing into "chapters" and if I offend anyone, I really do not care! If you feel the need to possibly sue me over any reason as a result of this blog, BRING IT ON!! I also will welcome comments of all sorts, so please leave a comment or two if you feel the need to do so. I will be attempting to update this blog once a week or once every two weeks after I get a working smart phone or computer to be able to keep up with my thoughts and findings so keep posted!
Disclaimer:
I WOULD LIKE TO, AT THIS TIME, POINT OUT THAT EVERYTHING DISCUSSED WITHIN MY PERSONAL WRITINGS ARE MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT THAT OF ANY PERSON, PLACE, THING, IDEA, OR RELIGION PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE EITHER DISCUSSED UPON THIS MEDIUM OR OF ANY OTHER MEDIUM NOW CURRENTLY KNOWN ON OUR PLANET OR ON ANY OTHER MEDIUM TO BE FOUND IN THE FUTURE HERE ON THIS PLANET OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE! ANYTHING I POINT OUT CAN BE RESEARCHED BY OTHERS AND I AM JUST EXCERSIZING MY RIGHT TO DO RESEARCH AND PRESENT MY FINDINGS. ALL FACTS AND FIGURES ARE IN FACT THINGS FOUND IN OTHER WRITINGS AND MEDIUMS AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR MEDIUM IS TO JUST PIECE TOGETHER WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN. TO PREVENT COPY-WRITE INFRINGEMENT, SOURCES WILL AND HAVE BEEN IN FACT STATED AS TO THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS, POSTS, PICTURES, VIDEOS, LINKS, DATES, PUBLISHERS, EDITORS, WEBSITES, ETC. AND ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FOUND HEREIN. I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY FACTS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS I HAVE RETRIEVED THE INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES.
Copyright Disclaimer:
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use is in favor of fair use.
Disclaimer:
I WOULD LIKE TO, AT THIS TIME, POINT OUT THAT EVERYTHING DISCUSSED WITHIN MY PERSONAL WRITINGS ARE MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT THAT OF ANY PERSON, PLACE, THING, IDEA, OR RELIGION PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE EITHER DISCUSSED UPON THIS MEDIUM OR OF ANY OTHER MEDIUM NOW CURRENTLY KNOWN ON OUR PLANET OR ON ANY OTHER MEDIUM TO BE FOUND IN THE FUTURE HERE ON THIS PLANET OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE! ANYTHING I POINT OUT CAN BE RESEARCHED BY OTHERS AND I AM JUST EXCERSIZING MY RIGHT TO DO RESEARCH AND PRESENT MY FINDINGS. ALL FACTS AND FIGURES ARE IN FACT THINGS FOUND IN OTHER WRITINGS AND MEDIUMS AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR MEDIUM IS TO JUST PIECE TOGETHER WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN. TO PREVENT COPY-WRITE INFRINGEMENT, SOURCES WILL AND HAVE BEEN IN FACT STATED AS TO THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS, POSTS, PICTURES, VIDEOS, LINKS, DATES, PUBLISHERS, EDITORS, WEBSITES, ETC. AND ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FOUND HEREIN. I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY FACTS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS I HAVE RETRIEVED THE INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES.
Copyright Disclaimer:
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use is in favor of fair use.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Here's an idea that only our lawmakers could come up with: LET'S TAKE MORE MONEY!!!!
There is a very concerning law from 1974 known as ERISA. At the time of its passage, most people were not even aware of ERISA. Even today, many people have never even heard of this act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon. The full impact of this law change will not be felt for twenty-five to fifty years after it's passing.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (Pub.L. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829, enacted September 2, 1974, codified in part at 29 U.S.C. ch. 18) is a federal law which establishes minimum standards for pension plans in private industry and provides for extensive rules on the federal income tax effects of transactions associated with employee benefit plans. ERISA was enacted to protect the interests of employee benefit plan participants and their beneficiaries by:
* Requiring the disclosure of financial and other information concerning the plan to beneficiaries;
* Establishing standards of conduct for plan fiduciaries;
* Providing for appropriate remedies and access to the federal courts.
ERISA is sometimes used to refer to the full body of laws regulating employee benefit plans, which are found mainly in the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA itself. Responsibility for the interpretation and enforcement of ERISA is divided among the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury (particularly the Internal Revenue Service), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
In 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy created the President's Committee on Corporate Pension Plans. The movement for pension reform gained some momentum when the Studebaker Corporation, an automobile manufacturer, closed its plant in 1963. Its pension plan was so poorly funded that Studebaker could not afford to provide all employees with their pensions. The company created a program in which 3,600 workers who had reached the retirement age of 60 received full pension benefits, 4,000 workers aged 40–59 who had ten years with Studebaker received lump sum payments valued at roughly 15% of the actuarial value of their pension benefits, and the remaining 2,900 workers received no pensions.
In 1967, Senator Jacob K. Javits proposed legislation that would address the funding, vesting, reporting, and disclosure issues identified by the presidential committee. His bill was opposed by business groups and labor unions, which sought to retain the flexibility they enjoyed under pre-ERISA law. On September 12, 1972, NBC broadcast Pensions: The Broken Promise, an hour-long television special that showed millions of Americans the consequences of poorly funded pension plans and onerous vesting requirements. In the following years, Congress held a series of public hearings on pension issues and public support for pension reform grew significantly.
ERISA was enacted in 1974 and signed into law by President Gerald Ford on September 2, 1974, Labor Day. In the years since 1974, ERISA has been amended repeatedly.
ERISA does not require employers to establish pension plans. Likewise, as a general rule, it does not require that plans provide a minimum level of benefits. Instead, it regulates the operation of a pension plan once it has been established. Under ERISA, pension plans must provide for vesting of employees' pension benefits after a specified minimum number of years. ERISA requires that the employers who sponsor plans satisfy certain minimum funding requirements. ERISA also regulates the manner in which a pension plan may pay benefits. For example, a defined benefit plan must pay a married participant's pension as a "joint-and-survivor annuity" that provides continuing benefits to the surviving spouse unless both the participant and the spouse waive the survivor coverage.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established by ERISA to provide coverage in the event that a terminated defined benefit pension plan does not have sufficient assets to provide the benefits earned by participants. Later amendments to ERISA require an employer who withdraws from participation in a multiemployer pension plan with insufficient assets to pay all participants' vested benefits to contribute the pro rata share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits liability.
ERISA does not require that an employer provide health insurance to its employees or retirees, but it regulates the operation of a health benefit plan if an employer chooses to establish one. There have been several significant amendments to ERISA concerning health benefit plans:
* The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provides some employees and beneficiaries with the right to continue their coverage under an employer-sponsored group health benefit plan for a limited time after the occurrence of certain events that would otherwise cause termination of such coverage, such as the loss of employment.
* The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) prohibits a health benefit plan from refusing to cover an employee's pre-existing medical conditions in some circumstances. It also bars health benefit plans from certain types of discrimination on the basis of health status, genetic information, or disability.
Other relevant amendments to ERISA include the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act, the Mental Health Parity Act, and the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act.
During the 1990s and 2000s, many employers who promised lifetime health coverage to their retirees limited or eliminated those benefits. ERISA does not provide for vesting of health care benefits in the way that employees become vested in their accrued pension benefits. Employees and retirees who were promised lifetime health coverage may be able to enforce those promises by suing the employer for breach of contract, or by challenging the right of the health benefit plan to change its plan documents in order to eliminate those promised benefits.
In January of 2002, the people of the United States, still reeling from the events of September 11, 2001, began hearing of the bankruptcy of one of the biggest blue chip companies in America. But more than the bankruptcy, the news that sent chills through many people of an older generation, the baby-boom generation, the generation born between 1946 and 1964, was the realization
that many of the employees of Enron had lost their entire retirement savings. For the first time, millions of baby boomers began to realize that a 401(k), IRA, and other such plans, filled with mutual funds and company stock, were not as safe as they thought or had been told by their financial planner. Millions of baby boomers shared something in common with the thousands of people who worked for Enron. The demise of Enron was sounding a personal alarm, a fear, a realization that their own retirement might not be as secure as they may have once thought.
One of the intended results of ERISA was to encourage individuals to
save for their own retirement. This would encourage a three-pronged approach to retirement funding:
1. Social Security
2. A worker’s own savings
3. A company pension plan paid out of money the company set aside for a defined pension plan for their employees.
On May 5, 2002, an article in the Washington Post entitled “Pension Changes Pose Challenges” compared this three-pronged approach to a three-legged stool:
Last time we looked, the first leg, Social Security, was still standing, though shuddering a bit as its guarantees are pecked away at—ever-increasing taxable income, a raised retirement age, taxation of some benefits and so forth. . . .
All the lettered and numbered savings plans blessed by Congress—
* Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)
* Roth IRAs
* 401(k) Plans
* 403(b) Plans
* SIMPLE IRA Plans (Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees)
* SEP Plans (Simplified Employee Pension)
* SARSEP Plans (Salary Reduction Simplified Employee Pension)
* Payroll Deduction IRAs
* Profit-Sharing Plans
* Defined Benefit Plans
* Money Purchase Plans
* Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)
* Keoghs
Governmental Plans:
* 457 Plans
5 / 23
* 409A Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plans
— were arguably intended to bolster the second leg, workers’ savings, needed to meet an ever longer and ever more expensive retirement. The corporate tax benefits attached to the company -sponsored plans—
made up largely of a worker’s own cash—
have been nudged over to bolster or even replace the third leg of the stool. Instead of rewarding thrift in employees, they have enabled companies to ditch or severely curtail traditional pension plans. All of which means: Look, Ma, a three-legged stool with only
two legs!
So as a result of ERISA, people suddenly became responsible for their own retirement planning, transferring it from the employer to the employee— without the financial education needed to help the employee plan successfully. Suddenly there were thousands of quickly trained financial planners educating millions of people to “Invest for the long term, buy and hold, diversify.” Many of these employees still do not realize that their income during retirement is totally dependent on their ability to invest wisely now. If this prophecy comes true . . . for millions of people, but not all people, the problem will only get worse over the next twenty-five years.
Always watch for changes in the law. Every time a law changes, the future changes. If you will prepare to change with the changes in the law you will lead a good life. If you do not pay attention to changes in the law, you may find yourself behaving like the driver of a car who fails to see the sign warning him of a sharp turn in the road up ahead . . . and instead of slowing to prepare to make the turn, reaches over to turn on the radio, fails to make the turn, and drives the car off the road and into the woods.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was another change in the law many people did not pay attention to and the price tag for their lack of awareness was measured in the billions of dollars. This 1986 law change was a major contributor to the crash of the savings and loan industry, one of the biggest crashes of the real estate market, and the reason why well-educated professionals such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, and architects cannot use many of the tax law benefits businesspeople enjoy.
For millions of people because of ERISA, this little known change in the law, will negatively affect their financial lives. For others, this law change will be the best thing that ever happened to them. We must see the world today with a true financial perspective. People back then that knew what the effects of this law would create took cues from solid facts, facts such as changes in the law and the flaws in the law. Thay also used statistical realities, realities such as the fact that 75 million baby boomers, 83 million if you count immigrants legal and illegal, are getting older as well, and most will live longer than their parents. They would then ask the question, How many of these baby boomers have enough assets set aside to retire on? Conservative estimates show that less than 40 percent of the baby boomers today have enough.
If the U.S. government must raise taxes to pay for these aging baby boomers’ financial and medical needs in old age, what happens to the U.S. economy? Can it sustain its leadership role in the world? Can we afford to remain competitive if the government raises taxes to pay for the aged and continue to pay for a strong military? When taxes are raised, companies may leave in search of countries with lower taxes. And what happens if China passes the United States as the world’s largest economy? Can we afford to keep wages high when a Chinese worker will do the same job for less?
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Monday, August 5, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Monday, July 22, 2013
Before we begin our little journey down the rabbit hole, allow me to explain something...
It's funny really what the general public really do not know what is going on around them but at the same time they seem to want to accept what society says is acceptable. "Big Brother" is extending his hands far beyond the reach that our forefathers even could imagine.
How out of control has our government gotten? What are they doing WITHOUT our knowledge? Is there anything we can do? How far back do the issues go and what are they? I hope to explain all of this in this report! It would appear that we have to go back pretty far in our country's history and be able to figure out how it all fits together. As it turns out, there are things beyond our control that just seem to lead into one another and that is not good considering that the American people do not seem to have any sort of an idea just how extensive this goes and I will make the best possible connections I can to show you where our country has been and where it is going.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Founded in 1921 and headquartered at 58 East 68th Street in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C., the CFR is considered to be the nation's "most influential foreign-policy think tank"
The CFR aims to maintain a diverse membership, including special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders. It convenes meetings at which government officials, global leaders and prominent members of the foreign policy community discuss major international issues. Its think tank, the David Rockefeller Studies Program, is composed of about fifty adjunct and full-time scholars, as well as ten in-resident recipients of year-long fellowships, who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today's international agenda. These scholars contribute to the foreign policy debate by making recommendations to the presidential administration, testifying before Congress, serving as a resource to the diplomatic community, interacting with the media, authoring books, reports, articles, and op-eds on foreign policy issues.
Sounds to me like they help to influence things like laws and policies regarding our involvement in this country and how we deal with other countries. Without being a REAL part of our government and a branch of any actual government entity, just how much power could they have?
The earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of about 150 scholars called "The Inquiry" tasked to brief President Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world when Germany was defeated. Through 1917–1918, this academic band, including Wilson's closest adviser and long-time friend "Colonel" Edward M. House, as well as Walter Lippmann, gathered at 155th Street and Broadway at the Harold Pratt House in New York City, to assemble the strategy for the postwar world. The team produced more than 2,000 documents detailing and analyzing the political, economic, and social facts globally that would be helpful for Wilson in the peace talks. Their reports formed the basis for the Fourteen Points, which outlined Wilson's strategy for peace after war's end.
These scholars then traveled to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 that would end the war; it was at one of the meetings of a small group of British and American diplomats and scholars, on May 30, 1919, at the Hotel Majestic, that both the Council and its British counterpart, the Chatham House in London, were born. Some of the participants at that meeting, apart from Edward House, were: Paul Warburg, Herbert Hoover, Harold Temperley, Lionel Curtis, Lord Eustace Percy, Christian Herter, and American academic historians James Thomson Shotwell of Columbia University, Archibald Cary Coolidge of Harvard, and Charles Seymour of Yale.
In 1938 they created various Committees on Foreign Relations throughout the country. These later became governed by the American Committees on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. From its inception the Council was bipartisan, welcoming members of both Democratic and Republican parties. It also welcomed Jews and African Americans, although women were initially barred from membership. Its proceedings were almost universally private and confidential. A critical study found that of 502 government officials surveyed from 1945 to 1972, more than half were members of the Council.
The Council has been the subject of debates over sovereignty as well as the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. This is primarily due to the number of high-ranking government officials (along with world business leaders and prominent media figures) in its membership and the large number of aspects of American foreign policy that its members have been involved with. Echoing the most common accusation, the paleoconservative John Birch Society claims that the CFR is "Guilty of conspiring with others to build a one world government...". Other figures like Cleon Skousen opposed the CFR vociferously. In response to the allegations and insinuations, the CFR's website (www.cfr.org) contains an FAQ section about its affairs.
I would say then that they would then have the ability to influence lawmakers to make laws that fit into assisting other countries, right? How would we do that? What about the idea of reallocating assets for companies while providing cheaper labor to compete with other countries all while allowing companies to expand to other countries to assist with foreign policy by seeming like we are trying to help by providing jobs over seas? In order to do that, we needed to come up with laws that assisted companies in keeping as much of their assets as possible so that they would have the money to open factories in other countries. How would THAT work?
How out of control has our government gotten? What are they doing WITHOUT our knowledge? Is there anything we can do? How far back do the issues go and what are they? I hope to explain all of this in this report! It would appear that we have to go back pretty far in our country's history and be able to figure out how it all fits together. As it turns out, there are things beyond our control that just seem to lead into one another and that is not good considering that the American people do not seem to have any sort of an idea just how extensive this goes and I will make the best possible connections I can to show you where our country has been and where it is going.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Founded in 1921 and headquartered at 58 East 68th Street in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C., the CFR is considered to be the nation's "most influential foreign-policy think tank"
The CFR aims to maintain a diverse membership, including special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders. It convenes meetings at which government officials, global leaders and prominent members of the foreign policy community discuss major international issues. Its think tank, the David Rockefeller Studies Program, is composed of about fifty adjunct and full-time scholars, as well as ten in-resident recipients of year-long fellowships, who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today's international agenda. These scholars contribute to the foreign policy debate by making recommendations to the presidential administration, testifying before Congress, serving as a resource to the diplomatic community, interacting with the media, authoring books, reports, articles, and op-eds on foreign policy issues.
Sounds to me like they help to influence things like laws and policies regarding our involvement in this country and how we deal with other countries. Without being a REAL part of our government and a branch of any actual government entity, just how much power could they have?
The earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of about 150 scholars called "The Inquiry" tasked to brief President Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world when Germany was defeated. Through 1917–1918, this academic band, including Wilson's closest adviser and long-time friend "Colonel" Edward M. House, as well as Walter Lippmann, gathered at 155th Street and Broadway at the Harold Pratt House in New York City, to assemble the strategy for the postwar world. The team produced more than 2,000 documents detailing and analyzing the political, economic, and social facts globally that would be helpful for Wilson in the peace talks. Their reports formed the basis for the Fourteen Points, which outlined Wilson's strategy for peace after war's end.
These scholars then traveled to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 that would end the war; it was at one of the meetings of a small group of British and American diplomats and scholars, on May 30, 1919, at the Hotel Majestic, that both the Council and its British counterpart, the Chatham House in London, were born. Some of the participants at that meeting, apart from Edward House, were: Paul Warburg, Herbert Hoover, Harold Temperley, Lionel Curtis, Lord Eustace Percy, Christian Herter, and American academic historians James Thomson Shotwell of Columbia University, Archibald Cary Coolidge of Harvard, and Charles Seymour of Yale.
In 1938 they created various Committees on Foreign Relations throughout the country. These later became governed by the American Committees on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. From its inception the Council was bipartisan, welcoming members of both Democratic and Republican parties. It also welcomed Jews and African Americans, although women were initially barred from membership. Its proceedings were almost universally private and confidential. A critical study found that of 502 government officials surveyed from 1945 to 1972, more than half were members of the Council.
The Council has been the subject of debates over sovereignty as well as the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. This is primarily due to the number of high-ranking government officials (along with world business leaders and prominent media figures) in its membership and the large number of aspects of American foreign policy that its members have been involved with. Echoing the most common accusation, the paleoconservative John Birch Society claims that the CFR is "Guilty of conspiring with others to build a one world government...". Other figures like Cleon Skousen opposed the CFR vociferously. In response to the allegations and insinuations, the CFR's website (www.cfr.org) contains an FAQ section about its affairs.
I would say then that they would then have the ability to influence lawmakers to make laws that fit into assisting other countries, right? How would we do that? What about the idea of reallocating assets for companies while providing cheaper labor to compete with other countries all while allowing companies to expand to other countries to assist with foreign policy by seeming like we are trying to help by providing jobs over seas? In order to do that, we needed to come up with laws that assisted companies in keeping as much of their assets as possible so that they would have the money to open factories in other countries. How would THAT work?
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)