*Council on Foreign Relations member Anne-Marie Slaughter*, is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, and served as director of policy planning for the State Department from 2009 to 2011. The article that follows appeared in today’s Washington Post. The Washington Post is owned by the Graham family. Many Graham family members are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Slaughter’s article points out that the position of the Secretary of State of the United States is held by women. Missing from her article is that the women and men holding the position are connected to the Council on Foreign Relations.
On September 12, 1939, the Council on Foreign Relations began to take control of the Department of State. On that day Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor of Foreign Affairs, and Walter H. Mallory, Executive Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, paid a visit to the State Department. The Council proposed forming groups of experts to proceed with research in the general areas of Security, Armament, Economic, Political, and Territorial problems. The State Department accepted the proposal. The project (1939-1945) was called Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies. Hamilton Fish Armstrong was Executive director. In February 1941 the CFR officially became part of the State Department. The Department of State established the Division of Special Research. It was organized just like the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies project. It was divided into Economic, Political, Territorial, and Security Sections. The Research Secretaries serving with the Council groups were hired by the State Department to work in the new division. These men also were permitted to continue serving as Research Secretaries to their respective Council groups. Leo Pasvolsky was appointed Director of Research. In 1942 the relationship between the Department of State and the Council on Foreign Relations strengthened again. The Department organized an Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policies. The Chairman was Secretary Cordell Hull, the vice chairman, Under Secretary Sumner Wells, Dr. Leo Pasvolsky ( director of the Division of Special Research) was appointed Executive Officer. Several experts were brought in from outside the Department. The outside experts were Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies members; Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Isaiah Bowman, Benjamin V. Cohen, Norman H. Davis, and James T. Shotwell. In total there were 362 meetings of the War and Peace Studies groups. The meetings were held at Council on Foreign Relations headquarters -- the Harold Pratt house, Fifty-Eight East Sixty-Eighth Street, New York City. The Council's wartime work was confidential.17 In 1944 members of the Council on Foreign Relations The War and Peace Studies Political Group were invited to be active members at the Dumbarton Oaks conference on world economic arrangements. In 1945 these men and members of Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs were active at the San Francisco conference which ensured the establishment of the United Nations. In 1947 Council on Foreign Relations members George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, Paul Nitze, Dean Achenson, and Walter Krock took part in a psycho-political operation forcing the Marshall Plan on the American public. The PSYOP included a "anonymous" letter credited to a Mr. X, which appeared in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The letter opened the door for the CFR controlled Truman administration to take a hard line against the threat of Soviet expansion. George Kennan was the author of the letter. The Marshall Plan should have been called the Council on Foreign Relations Plan. The so-called Marshall Plan and the ensuing North Atlantic Treaty Organization defined the role of the United States in world politics for the rest of the century. (* http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/emhist.html*<http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/emhist.html>) In his article The Future Is Calling: War on Terror, Ed Griffin gives us insight into the nature of the CFR Secretary of State : “In 1996, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl interviewed the American ambassador to the UN, Madeline Albright (a member of the CFR ). In the course of the interview, Stahl asked this question: “We have heard that a half-million children have died [as a result of this policy]. Is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “We think the price is worth it.” That interview was widely circulated in the Middle East. It was not merely an unfortunate choice of words. It was a forthright statement of collectivist morality: The sacrifice of a half-million children *is *acceptable because of the greater good of supposedly de-stabilizing Hussein’s regime, the greater good of world peace, the greater good of the New World Order. Remember, in the collectivist mind, anything can be justified by theorizing a greater good for a greater number, and a half-million children is a small number compared to the population of the world. In any event, these policies are well designed to aggravate whole populations into becoming enemies of America, and some of them will be willing to sacrifice their lives in revenge.” Watch the interview ( *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4*<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4>). Slaughter’s article follows, it has been edited to identify members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Isn’t it time for Professors of Journalism and honest journalists to stand up and point out that articles like Slaughter’s are not journalism, but propaganda and disinformation used to sway public opinion to further Council on Foreign Relations goals and keep the Council on Foreign Relations in the shadows so they can continue to control the United States and keep the world in a state of endless unwinnable wars from which their Military Industrial Complex profits from death and destruction? *By Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dec 08, 2012 02:07 AM EST The Washington Post Published: December 7 **Anne-Marie Slaughter, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, served as director of policy planning for the State Department from 2009 to 2011.* * Feeling typecast, Madam Secretary?* [CFR member] Madeleine Albright broke the State Department’s glass ceiling to become the first female secretary in 1997. [CFR member] Condoleeza Rice was the first female national security adviser before she headed to State. And Hillary Rodham Clinton [CFR member William Clinton’s wife] has prioneered “soft power,” using diplomatic tools beyond guns and money. My 14-year-old son and I were watching the Democratic National Convention this past summer when [CFR member] John Kerry came on. My son asked who he was; I responded that he had run for president in 2004, that he was an important senator and that if President Obama were reelected, [CFR member] Kerry might become secretary of state. “You mean a man can be secretary of state?” my son said, sounding genuinely surprised. It makes sense that he assumed that men didn’t have a shot at the job. Three of the past four secretaries of state have been women, and that trend could continue if Obama nominates and the Senate confirms U.N. Ambassador [CFR member] *Susan Rice*<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-29/lifestyle/35585626_1_sticky-rice-russian-ambassador-president-obama-talks>to replace [CFR wife] Hillary Rodham Clinton. In fact, I’ve been asked recently whether we are turning secretary of state into a woman’s job. Women of my generation remember well how big a step it was for [CFR member] Madeleine Albright to break the secretary of state glass ceiling in 1997. Just a decade later, by 2008, Carol Jenkins, then president of the Women’s Media Center, was noting that “secretary of state has become the women’s spot — a safe expected place for women to be.” I’m not so sure about that. A recent news report quoted a “longtime foreign-policy expert who has worked for Democratic administrations” as saying that [CFR member] Rice’s voice “is always *right on the edge of a screech*<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2012/12/04/for-state-job-susan-rice-or-john-kerry/>,” reminding us that sexist caricatures of strong women as witches — or a word that rhymes with that — still abound. As someone who worked in [CFR wife] Clinton’s State Department — and has written frequently about the importance of having more women in high foreign policy positions and the difference that can make to the substance as well as the style of U.S. foreign policy — I think the question of whether women are particularly well-suited to nurturing relationships, marshaling cooperation and conducting tough negotiations around the world is worth asking. In some ways the answer is yes. Back in the 1980s, [CFR member] Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power,” meaning the power of attraction rather than the power of coercion. (And by attraction, I mean the lure of a nation’s culture and values, not its diplomats’ looks.) But soft power really took off when he argued in 2005 that it was the means to success in world politics. He argued that the United States succeeds when we can persuade the rest of the world to want what we want, rather than imposing our will. Given that women are far less likely to be able to use coercive power than men are, we have been skilled for centuries at getting others to want what we want. Moreover, I think many women take more readily to the “smart power” approach to foreign policy that [CFR wife] Clinton has pioneered. In a nutshell, this approach entails using a wide spectrum of tools in addition to the hard power of military and economic might to address global problems. International relations traditionally divides national security (guns and bombs) and international political economy (money) [* http://www.zcommunications.org/finance-capitalists-the-cfr-and-the-obama-administration-by-laurence-h-shoup *<http://www.zcommunications.org/finance-capitalists-the-cfr-and-the-obama-administration-by-laurence-h-shoup> * ]*. These are the arenas of “high politics” — the diplomatic and financial crises that produce high-stakes poker games. [CFR wife] Clinton and her [CFR member] female predecessors proved repeatedly that they could manage high politics with ease. [CFR wife] Clinton’s handling of *the Chen Guangcheng crisis*<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-19/world/35455319_1_chen-guangcheng-fang-lizhi-negotiations>with China, the Libya intervention and *the recent Gaza cease-fire*<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-21/world/35511477_1_gaza-cease-fire-iron-dome-palestinian-rockets>proves that she can deal with such situations with aplomb and a spine of steel. And remember Albright during the wars in the Balkans, asking [CFR member] Colin Powell what the point was of having such a great military if we were not willing to use it? As has often been noted, [CFR wife] Clinton is equally enthusiastic about a range of broader issues: food security, water management, global health, climate, energy security, technology, and empowering women and girls. These have traditionally been relegated to the catch-all basket of “global issues,” decidedly lower on the foreign policy hierarchy than guns, bombs and money. Indeed, for a long time they were not considered part of foreign policy but instead the province of development. As[CFR wife] Clinton said at her Senate confirmation hearing, she came into office determined to elevate development to an equal pillar of our foreign policy, alongside diplomacy and defense. And a critical part of her legacy will be that, when she and her deputies talked to foreign governments, they raised health, water, food, women’s rights and other issues to the level of high politics. Focusing on these concerns before they reach a crisis point is smart long-term policy, the proverbial ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. But what does all of this have to do with gender? It is an open secret in Washington that national security meetings in government or think tanks are overwhelmingly male; development meetings are at least 50 percent female. For whatever reasons, men focus more on state-to-state issues, while women pay a great deal of attention to broader social matters. It is thus not unreasonable to think that a female secretary of state would be more adept at handling the full portfolio. Call it multitasking foreign policy: the ability to look at what is happening across the Middle East, for example, and to recognize that addressing unemployment, resource scarcity and the oppression of women is just as important for the safeguarding of U.S. interests as monitoring geopolitical rivalries between Shiite and Sunni states. Moreover, as long as the White House remains the foreign policy boys’ club that it has been during the first Obama administration, it is all the more important to have a woman (and many women beneath her) at the State Department. The men in the president’s inner foreign policy circle [ * http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80686/* <http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80686/>* ]*are certainly talented and qualified; many are friends of mine. But consider Foreign Policy magazine’s recent list of *the 50 most important Democrats in foreign policy*<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/03/the_fp_50>. The top 20 include four men from the White House: national security adviser [CFR member] Tom Donilon, his deputies Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes, and Vice President Biden’s chief foreign policy adviser, [CFR member] Tony Blinken. The rest of the list includes two more male White House insiders, deputy national security adviser [CFR member] Mike Froman and National Security Council Chief of Staff Brian McKeon. The only woman from the White House was National Security Council senior director Samantha Power, who came in at No. 44. However, the answer to whether secretary of state is a “woman’s job” has to be no. To begin with, plenty of men, even if not a majority, care deeply about the many issues that[CFRwife] Clinton has prioritized. If a male secretary of state built on her development legacy (and that of Condoleezza Rice before her), he could make an important move toward taking “softer” issues out of the gender ghetto once and for all. To take one example, when men focus on women’s empowerment, as USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah and his deputy, Donald Steinberg, have done, these issues gain more legitimacy as part of a mainstream foreign policy agenda. And why not shuffle the deck and put the first female Democrat at the president’s right hand as national security adviser, a position that has hard power and high politics built into its very name? The last thing we need is to typecast Cabinet members the way law partners used to be. When I interviewed at Wall Street firms in the 1980s, they always trotted out two female partners, one of whom was always in trusts and estates — the theory was that they were good at holding widows’ hands — and the other often in family law. And for a long time in medicine, women were relegated to pediatrics and gynecology. Let’s simply recognize that anyone following[CFR wife] Clinton will have very big pumps to fill, but that a man could fill them just as well, as many great male secretaries of state have proved. Of course, there could be another reason we’ve had a string of female secretaries of state. Shifting cultural expectations and 21st-century politics mean it is important to have a woman in one of the “big three” Cabinet positions: state, defense or Treasury. Perhaps the State Department keeps going to a woman because of a reluctance to appoint a woman as secretary of defense or Treasury. If this is the reason for putting women in this role, it’s a bad one. Interestingly, the French are ahead of us on both counts: [Bilderberg member] *Christine Lagarde*<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-28/business/35266055_1_mexican-central-bank-governor-christine-lagarde-agustin-carstens>was the French finance minister before she became the first female director of the International Monetary Fund, and Michele Alliot-Marie recently finished a term as France’s first foreignminister. Neither Britain nor Germany have had a woman in these positions, but they have both had women in the government’s top job. At least a couple of very talented women are in line for both defense and Treasury; I hope they find their way to the top in the next four years. But all told, I’ve got a radical proposal. Let’s go gender-blind. If that results in three men in these positions, fine. If it results in three women in these positions, so be it. None is inherently a “man’s” or a “woman’s” role. They are all tough jobs, and we need the best people we can find. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/feeling-typecast-madam-secretary/2012/12/07/5029a89c-3fbe-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html }** *Anne-Marie Slaughter*, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, served as director of policy planning for the State Department from 2009 to 2011. You owe it to yourself to learn the truth about the Council on Foreign Relations they control your life : *http://whosin.com/pg/whois/3372555/Tom+Jefferson*<http://whosin.com/pg/whois/3372555/Tom+Jefferson> *http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/index.htm* -- Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political power they wield? There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual leaders/dudes. To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
