The Council on Foreign Relations (The CFR) is a shady organization.

--Background/Points:-- Definition of Marxism: The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society. http://www.answers.com... Are we supposed to be a capitalist country or a country on its way to communism? That the founder of the CFR was a Marxist seems in sharp contrast to what this country is all about and sort of ironic. So the founder of this organization, with his communist ideals, padded himself and what he was creating with international banker investments to build from the ground up… what exactly? A great tool for the public at large so that they may educate themselves better as to our foreign policy? Lol, yeah… "Also, consider that the organization has no official positions on matters of policy…" That's right, that's what the website says. However, the website also specifies that it does indeed "make recommendations" to the president of the US at any one given time. These recommendations are often implemented into law as we saw after World War II with president Roosevelt (there goes the local governments, during his presidency Washington rose to its current strength over all of the states) and as we'll continue to witness today, tomorrow, next year… and so on. (1) Consider this quote for a second by Admiral Chester Ward, who's a former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy. He says, "Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. government should adopt a particular policy… the very substantial research facilities of the (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." (2) Niiice, good. Now aren't we all happy it says it doesn't have any official political stance? Except, of course, for when it goes on to say that the CFR seeks to, "cooperate with the government and all existing agencies and to bring them into constructive accord." And lol, you yourself said, "…It has likely been helpful to the US, due to its frequent advice often being utilized by the Government." Hmm. So Beemor, help me to understand where you're going with this anyway… the CFR isn't shady because its website on the very surface says it isn't…? (I hope I'm not sounding too sarcastic, I do like you…) --Federal Reserve Act/16th Amendment-- "Also, my opponent suggests that the Federal Reserve Act, among others proposed by the CFR, make the organization shady…" -- The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment (which you seemed to imply you have extensive economical knowledge of) weren't proposed by the CFR at all, they were pushed through congress during Woodrow Wilson's presidency. It has been alleged that Wilson agreed to passing these policies while he was still merely the Rockefeller backed candidate still running for president… I brought these two policy changes up in order to show what kind of man Colonel House was (remember, Wilson's alter-ego and the only one out of the two who never expressed remorse for these decisions…) because after all, what's more telling than actual policy decisions we see materialize under these men's watch? However, I find it sort of disheartening that you didn't know that? --CFR Equals Big Business-- "Then my opponent suggests that since big businesses back the CFR, it MUST be shady…" CFR.org claims that it, "is composed of men and women from all walks of international life and from all parts of America." But they LIE, and that is, of course, pretty shady. Its membership is in all reality still largely comprised of just more of the same when it comes to its founders; and this is another reason why it's important who the founders were. The CFR is still mostly white rich men who are predominantly corporate in background and viewpoints. It goes something like, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, John, David, and Nelson Rockefeller and so on…(also 2) Influential members who even know what's going on -- "life members" --… white, rich, male. (I encourage everybody to go and read how life members even get to be that way…) http://www.cfr.org... "They [big business] back the organization because the organization benefits them. That doesn't mean it hurts the rest of America." How do we know they're not hurting us? If they had no intention of doing so, then more than 50 percent(3) of their board meetings would be open to the public. There's no way to tell what they're scheming and dreaming up in there half of the time, why should that be acceptable? But here I'll go on to: Two Reasons Why The CFR Is Hurting America: 1. They undermine our democracy, voters don't count. They dominate our foreign policy (which I have shown above) so what does it matter who or what we vote for? Plus, all of the presidential candidates this year are members and "had been briefed" by the CFR excluding only two: Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. These are the only people we have to vote for in the first place, let alone trying to cling to any illusion of substantial influence. 2. They aim to abolish our United States sovereignty. Yeah, I know… big claim. However, stay with me and let's look at what the President of the CFR (Richard N. Haas) has to say about it, "…states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change… Sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization… Globalization thus implies that sovereignty… needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…"(4) I'll go more into this in my next round. Burdens: I accept Beemor's redefining of the burdens. His Argument: It seems he's saying the CFR is good for us because it says it is… Okay, got it. ;) Thanks for accepting, Bee… you're much better to debate than Geekis was. (1) http://www.cfr.org... (2) http://www.nowpublic.com... (3)" Many Council meetings are held on a not-for-attribution basis to encourage frankness among participants who may be hesitant to express new or developing ideas if they feared that they would be publicized. An *increasing number* of Council meetings—nearly 50 percent—are conducted on an on-the-record basis." http://www.cfr.org... (4) http://www.project-syndicate.org...