Kingmakers 0 (0)
by Bill Lockwood
Ugliness of the debate aside, one worrisome element pertaining to Donald Trump was revealed that has received little, if any, attention. When asked who he would consider putting on his security team if elected president, businessman Trump named three persons: Richard Haass, Gen. Jack Keane and Col. Jack Jacobs. It is troubling that Richard Haass was the billionaire’s first-mentioned name.
As reported by The New York Times Donald Trump held a private briefing last summer with Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Described by the Times as “an independent nonpartisan organization,” the CFR has offered to hold briefings with all candidates from both parties.
To date, Senator Marco Rubio, Jim Webb, Hillary Clinton, Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. John Kasich and Jeb Bush have all made appearances at the Council of Foreign Relations. The back-story of the CFR fills in the details which make this a matter of serious concern.
CFR Beginnings & Goals
The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1921 as the brainchild of Edward Mandell House, a “progressive” who was the real power-broker behind President Woodrow Wilson. House anonymously published a book entitled Philip Dru: Administrator in which he laid out his clandestine plans to create in the United States a government that reflected the “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” This absolutism needed to be masked, therefore he established the CFR as a “neutral think tank” to influence politicians into a “globalist” system.
On page 222 of Philip Dru House wrote: “Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first 100 years of our existence, but under the conditions of today, they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque.” This was the design of the CFR from the beginning. Those familiar with Woodrow Wilson recognize a commonality in ideas that House shared with Wilson.
The CFR itself does not shy away from these roots, trumpeting on its website that “Since 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the privileged and preeminent nongovernmental impresario of America’s pageant to find its place in the world.” This velvet-covering to its real iron-fisted mission is plainly described by CFR member Richard Gardner in Foreign Affairs in 1974: “An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” This is what is intended by The New World Order.
Some Congressmen and Senators who are CFR members have distributed for public consumption that the “beginnings” of the CFR were indeed globalist-minded to destroy United States sovereignty, but now those ideals are not part of the CFR. Today, it is only a “neutral think tank,” we are told.
In a 2006 op-ed piece entitled “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” current CFR president Richard Haass removes any doubt about CFR goals. He openly opined that we must “rethink” national sovereignty and “redefine” it. In Haass’ view “new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance” and “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies.” Because of this wonderful globalization Haass said that “sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but … it needs to become weaker.” World Government is his solution—spoken in so many words.
In order to accomplish this goal, which for years was camouflaged by disguising words and using alternate synonyms for “world government,” the CFR now openly declares its plans for “integration” and “convergence” of various governments via the Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In 1995 it was offered that these “trade agreements” will assist the final mission to “promote and assist the convergence of EU/US Government policies … into a single political framework by early in the next century.” It is hard to miss this meaning.
Sadly, almost every administration since the time of Franklin Roosevelt has been larded with CFR Globalists whose primary aim is driving toward more international power. The Council on Foreign Relations may declare to be a “neutral” think-tank, but Establishment politicians know better. American voters better catch-on, and quick.
That Donald Trump names Richard Haass as his number one man on foreign policy in a potential Trump Administration shows his true colors. Trump’s stumping against unfair trade policies with such nations as China is apparently only words. If and when Trump becomes president it is certain that Kingmaker Richard Haass will show him the way.