VIDEO: The Council on Foreign Relations Controls American Media

What exactly is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)? Many Americans know almost nothing about this organization. Yet, this organization has dominated this country’s politics, the press, and the economy. Representative John R. Rarick once said, “The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system.

Note:Video at the bottom of the article

Yet, the nation’s right to know machinery – the news media – usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities… The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign constitutional republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship.”

Of course, the people know almost nothing about the Council on Foreign Relations because many propagandists, I mean journalists, themselves are members of this elite organization. Some of the CFR propagandists include Barbara Walters, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Jim Lehrer, Lesley Stahl, Katie Couric, Tony Snow, Morton Kondracke, Daniel Pipes, and Charles Krauthammer. In fact, the CFR owns and control the television stations, radio stations, and newspapers such as ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, Time, U.S. News & World Report, and Newsweek.

Sadly, some of the Internet newssites “remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.” The John Birch Society, meanwhile, has exposed the Council on Foreign Relations for many years.

Since I knew very little about the CFR myself, I decided to do my own research. For almost a year, I spent some time researching and investigating the Council on Foreign Relations. I acquired a copy of past and present membership rosters, dug up some major dirt on many CFR members, acquired smoking-gun photographs of CFR members, and read Internet articles that discussed the CFR. In fact, I, along with my friend Beavis, managed to build a webpage condemning the Council on Foreign Relations. I have also spent some time reading None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, The Invisible Government by Dan Smoot, and Shadows of Power by James Perloff. I was interested in finding a “money trail” and I decided to look at the CFR from a business and financial perspective as well as the political perspective. After all, both politics and finances involve money and power.

In a book called Kissinger: A Biography, Walter Isaacson wrote (on p. 84): “Found in 1921 by members of Manhattan’s internationally minded business and legal elite, the Council on Foreign Relations is a private organization that serves as a discussion club for close to three thousand well-connected aficionados of foreign affairs. Beneath the chandeliers and stately portraits in its Park Avenue mansion, members attend lectures, dinners, and roundtable seminars featuring top officials and visiting world leaders.” Isaacson himself is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Rhodes Scholar. Notice that Isaacson used the word elite to describe members of CFR.

Who exactly were “Manhattan’s internationally minded business and legal elite” back in 1921? Some of the “internationally minded business and legal elite” who founded the Council on Foreign Relations include Edward Mandell House, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, John W. Davis, Isaiah Bowman, Archibald Cary Coolidge, Paul D. Cravath, Norman H. Davis, Stephen P. Duggan, John H. Finley, Edwin F. Gay, David F. Houston, Frank L. Polk, William R. Shepherd, and George Wickersham.

Today, the “internationally minded business and legal elite” include David Rockefeller, Stanley Fischer, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, George Soros, Paul Wolfowitz, and Rupert Murdoch. The Council on Foreign Relations is not an ordinary private organization; the Council on Foreign Relations is an elite cabal. In fact, the CFR is an organization where the enemies of America and its “controlled opposition” get down and dirty at the Harold Pratt House.

The Council on Foreign Relations control and dominate major corporations, banks, law firms, foundations, social organizations, labor unions, universities, and the press as well as the federal government. Some of the CFR-affiliated corporations and organizations include the JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, the Trilateral Commission, the Bretton Woods Committee, the CSIS, the Aspen Institute, Human Rights Watch, The Brookings Institution, Harvard University, Princeton, Johns Hopkins University, Georgetown, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox News, ACLU, AFL-CIO, and the Federal Reserve.

For example, John J. Sweeney is the president of AFL-CIO, America’s largest labor union, and Sweeney himself is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. On the other hand, Robert J. Stevens is the chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Stevens himself is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. On paper, industrial companies and labor unions are supposed to hate each other. In reality, however, both Big Industry and Big Labor are in bed together. Whenever a worker pays his or her union dues, they are simply getting shafted by the CFR cabal.

Politics is another example. On paper, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party oppose each other. However, the truth is stranger than fiction. High-ranking members of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are in bed together. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, and Dianne Feinstein are members of the Democratic Party, and they are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Henry Kissinger, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Katherine Harris, and Bill Frist are members of the Republican Party, and they are members of the Council of Foreign Relations. The international bankers control and finance both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. David Rockefeller is a Republican, and George Soros is a Democrat, but their membership into those political parties mean absolutely nothing to them. Thus, the so-called “Leftist-Rightist” political perspectives are nothing more than charades.

The CFR is one of the few organizations where capitalists and socialists work together in harmony. David Rockefeller himself has given aid and comfort to Nikita Khrushchev, Chou Enlai, and Fidel Castro. This explains why CFR members love the Chinese Communists and the Russian Bolsheviks so much. From the time America established diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union in 1933 until its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Embassy was located right across the street from the Harold Pratt House. Almost every ambassador to the Soviet Union were CFR members. In fact, every liaison officers and ambassadors to Red China is or has been members of the Council on Foreign Relations. By the way, Communist agent Alger Hiss was a member of CFR for a short time.

The CFR is truly an elite organization. Membership into this elite cabal is by invitation only. The Council on Foreign Relations is no different from the Chinese Communist Party, the Soviet Communist Party, and the Nazi Party of Germany. Dissent is not tolerated; any CFR member who fails to “toe the line” are expelled from the organization or in some cases killed in cold blood. Important CFR meetings are “off-the-record” and are never discussed in public. Those who leak any secrets will face consequences and repercussions on a massive scale.

According to the CFR’s own “Rule on Non-Attribution,” “[I]t would not be in compliance with the reformulated Rule, however, for any meeting participant (i) to publish a speaker’s statement in attributed form in a newspaper; (ii) to repeat it on television or radio, or on a speaker’s platform, or in a classroom; or (iii) to go beyond a memo of limited circulation, by distributing the attributed statement in a company or government agency newsletter.

The language of the Rule also goes out of its way to make it clear that a meeting participant is forbidden knowingly to transmit the attributed statement to a newspaper reporter or other such person who is likely to publish it in a public medium. The essence of the Rule as reformulated is simple enough: participants in Council meetings should not pass along an attributed statement in circumstances where there is substantial risk that it will promptly be widely circulated or published.” As CFR member David Gergen once said, “It’s none of your damn business.” In other words, just shut up and say nothing. This explains why CFR journalists will say or write absolutely nothing about the CFR’s evil, totalitarian agenda.

This elite cabal has a purpose; the Council on Foreign Relations wants to establish and exercise power and control over the American people and the entire world. Unfortunately, CFR members will do just about anything to achieve their lust for power and domination. Yes, CFR members will lie, cheat, covet, steal, and kill just to get what they want. They will engage in secrecy, treachery, and duplicity. They will even engage in a rebellion and an insurrection against our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence just to get what they want. We the people need to expose and eliminate the Council on Foreign Relations before the CFR destroys us. In the mean time, get a FREE copy of the 2005 CFR membership roster and my personal CFR charts and study them. On Election Day this year, I want you to go to the polls and vote, and I want you to expel the traitors and CFR members from office and elect patriotic Americans instead.

Old media by-lines aren’t worth the paper they’re written on

Outside of tech circles, online journalists are often looked upon as second-tier hacks, peculiar and idiosyncratic, or, as one experienced TV guy recently told me, “a bit strange”. Certainly, even in my supposedly tech-savvy journalism class in Ontario, Canada, many students scoffed at the online aspects of the course. I’m not sure why. Many journalists want their names on glossy spreads or on the front pages of daily newspapers and could care less about whether or not their stories get a ’second run’ on the internet. Not me.

I want to be an online journalist, and it doesn’t bother me if my stories never appear in print. At the moment, I’m in a weird reversal of that situation — I work for a magazine that covers the digital space but has no online presence. Try explaining that people from the tech industry — I do almost every day and a lot of people at first think I’m joking. (For the record, our site is getting built; it has just been slow in arriving.)

From a journalist’s perspective, the benefits of publishing online are manifold. For a start, you have a potentially global readership. Even if you’re writing for a relatively niche site such as, say, Asia Sentinel, there’s always a chance that a news aggregator such as Digg, Fark, or Google News will drive traffic to your story, or that it will benefit from a viral effect, being shared on blogs, social networks, and by email. A good scoop or a great investigative piece — provided it’s not behind a pay-wall — could have a readership in the millions, within hours.

The readership could also build to millions over years. The internet provides a platform to permanently archive your stories in the most incredibly easy-to-access way possible (by search). Again, even if you’re writing for a niche title, your stories will be part of the instantly-accessible body of knowledge right there alongside the New York Times for future readers and researchers to stumble upon.

There are, of course, many other benefits to online journalism, not the least of which is the interactivity inherent in online media, but I won’t bore you with a list. These reasons alone, however, are enough to convince me that if you don’t have online skills — some knowledge of content management, how to link, how to write for the web, how to make podcasts and, maybe, even write to pictures for online video — then there aren’t going to many journalism jobs available for you in five years’ time.

People who ‘don’t get’ online media often point to the gap between the ‘virtual world’ and the ‘physical world’, usually expressing a preference for being able to feel a product in their hands. I admit this is a charming quality of traditional media — I take special pleasure in disappearing into the bathroom with a copy of the New Yorker. But online reading habits and ever-evolving technology are fast closing that gap.

Two recently announced innovations are particularly exciting.

The Smartpen for a start could change the way we approach digital media. This Montblanc-size pen is actually a computer with ink. When you use it to write on special paper — ordinary paper printed with microdots — your scribblings are digitised and sound is recorded. The text and pictures can then be uploaded to your computer, or sent over the internet. Meanwhile, the noise going on while you’re writing is stored in the computer. When you use the pen to tap on a word or picture that you’ve just scribbled, it plays the audio recorded around the time that text or image was created.

Yeah, pretty damn cool. It’s technology that could streamline a journalist’s or a student’s work and open new possibilities for online publishing, including the ability to effectively and quickly present information straight-from-the-hand, which can then be linked to audio.

The pen, to go to market in the fourth quarter, is projected to cost less than US$200, and the paper will be comparable in price to regular paper. You can read more about the mobile computing platform here but I suggest clicking on that first link to see the demo video.

Another technology that got my quill quivering today is Microsoft’s Photosynth, “a monumental piece of software capable of assembling static photos into a synergy of zoomable, navigatable spaces”, according the bio of its architect, Blaise Aguera y Arcas. He’s also the mega-mind behind Seadragon, an in-development application that will allow readers to zoom in on images and text of any size in perfect resolution, and smoothly, regardless of bandwidth or amount of data. Seadragon does an infinitely better job at presenting an online replica of the newspaper-reading experience than any e-magazine or online reader out there today.

That all sounds very complicated, so see Blaise’s demo video to get a grasp of what it’s all about — and prepare to be gobsmacked in the process.

So, you see, with all the exciting movement in the digital space, rapidly increasing ad spend on digital platforms, and an online newspaper readership that is growing faster than general internet audience, I’m quite happy to let other journalists look at the .com guys as “a bit strange”. In the meantime, I’m going to keep honing my online skills to make sure I can thrive as a journalist in the future.

State Department awards UF first Study of U.S. program grant in journalism education

The State Department’s Study of the United States Branch recently awarded its first grant for international journalism and media faculty education to the College of Journalism and Communications.

The College is using the $275,000 grant to fund the newly created Study of the U.S. Institute on Journalism and Media, a six-week program beginning June 10 entitled “New Freedoms in Media: Teaching the Digital Journalism of Tomorrow.”

“The excitement and passion the University of Florida has shown in designing and planning this program is very evident,” said Adam Van Loon, a program officer in the State Department’s Study of the United States Branch. “We’re delighted to be working with the College of Journalism and Communications.”

Eighteen journalism educators from around the world will spend four weeks in Gainesville, a week in South Florida and a week in Washington, D.C., and New York. Among other topics, they’ll examine the media’s role in America, journalism’s potential in their countries and online communications’ influence on the international community.

The countries represented are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, China, Rwanda, Turkey, Russia, Czech Republic, the Ukraine, Macedonia, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cameroon, Pakistan, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Croatia and the Slovak Republic.

The participants – some of whom will be visiting the United States for the first time – bring a great deal of experience teaching and practicing journalism. Besides educating and training students, some of them have conducted research, edited publications, written books, created curricula and coordinated projects, among other professional endeavors.

The participants will benefit from the “skills and knowledge [they’ll] acquire and be able to disseminate,” said Prof. Sylvia Chan-Olmsted, principal investigator and associate dean for research. “The U.S. will also benefit, as better-informed audiences in the participants’ countries lead to more productive relationships.”

The institute goes beyond providing new tools. It aims to inspire such actions as the promotion of a global free press and engendering interaction among members of the media, said Prof. Emeritus Kurt Kent, the institute’s co-director.

The participants will produce news and multimedia blogs and take a close look at diversity in the United States. They will visit a Habitat for Humanity project and African-American, Haitian and Hispanic media operations.

To help them prepare for the program, the institute has set up a Web site.

They are among the 30,000 people who participate annually in State Department exchanges, which include the Fulbright program.

The experience is about more than exchanging knowledge and sharing viewpoints – it’s about establishing long-term, two-way relationships, Kent said. “Our faculty members will learn from them while they’re here, and afterwards.”

It’s also about the future, he said. The participants will have an impact on their countries’ next generations of journalists and media professionals.

June 4 Media Critique: "The Six Day War: Forty Years On"

Just looking at the events themselves really wouldn’t make HonestReportings case particulary well. And its case is nothing new, just the same old apologetics – nothing is Israels fault.

While June 5 marks the day that Israel initiated its military operation, it is important to note that the immediate Arab threats to wipe out Israel began in the preceding months. It is also critical to take the causes of the Six Day War into account before analyzing the resulting status of land taken as a result.

“Initiated its military operation” is alternatively known as an 'invasion' or 'armed aggression', the supreme war crime. Who needs such details when you have “context”!

International Law makes a clear distinction between land "occupied" during a war of aggression and land taken as a result of a defensive war.

Really? HR accidentally fail to mention where “International law” makes this distinction, or to provide a relevant quote. Let me assist HR to locate where in International Law this exists – NO WHERE.

Well, that takes care of the first two sentences. I think we can see where this is going.

Here’s a few other resources for “context”. From MERIP , and IMEU .

And a general overview of the June ’67 war, and since HR mention it, a review of the “Syrian Shelling” that “Initiates War with Israel”, according to HR.

Israel had every legal and moral right to defend herself in 1967 and has legitimate rights within the territory that is under her control today. If you see a media report that misrepresents the events of 1967, use this primer and the following links to respond to media bias: