Clinton Admits Who She Really Takes Instructions From!

[Peter Lemkin]

Here's the uncensored video:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/play...9636586001

Here's the NBC video with the admission cut out
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/...7#31925147

“Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."

So, basically, NBC left out the part where the Secretary of State of The United States kisses the asses of the people (who We don't elect) who tell her what to do.

[Magda Hassan]

Nice demonstration of how the media works also. tupido:

[Peter Lemkin]

Nice demonstration of how the media works also. tupido:

...both just doing their jobs for the same basic bosses. :five:

Secretary of State (and CFR member) Clinton admits in her latest address to the Council on Foreign Relations what Carroll Quigley wrote about in Tragedy and Hope (Chapter 65), Dan Smoot wrote about in The Invisible Government, and Gary Allen wrote about in None Dare Call It Conspiracy. The CFR has lots of other mentions in lots of other books, as well. They are, IMO, but one of the more powerful interlocking 'Councils' and 'Groups' that really run the 'show' of which we see their puppets in government act. Most people don't see the strings or the hand up their rears - and the MSM has strict standing-orders to remove them. Glad to be on this Forum among those who do see the Emperors Old morally threadbare Clothes.

NB - CFR 2004 List of Participants is available online at Namebase and other places.

The Council on Foreign Relations has been one of the most powerful private organization in U.S. foreign policy since it began in 1921. While priding itself on non-partisanship and on recent efforts to recruit minorities, women, and youth (under 35), CFR's 4,200 members mainly reflect the resources needed by the ruling class to maintain their power. Don't call them if you want to join; they call you. And don't wait for a call unless you have big money, national security expertise, CIA experience, a political constituency, or clout with the media. CFR publishes the prestigious journal "Foreign Affairs" as well as a number of books and reports. Another major activity is to organize closed meetings for their members with assorted world leaders. Everyone feels free to share views and information about current world events, primarily because CFR has strict confidentiality rules and keeps its records locked up for 25 years.

[Ed Jewett]

.. don't wait for a call unless you have big money, national security expertise, CIA experience, a political constituency, or clout with the media.

I've grossly enlarged my monthly disability check on the photocopier, played 'Diplomacy' and 'Shogun' more than a few times, help run a small web site with about 30 members, did my senior broadcast news and public affairs class project back in the 70's watching Harry Unreasonable and Av Westin prepare the evening news at ABC (Bill Casey's Capital Cities club and purveyor of that godawful JFK simulation) [and I had clear documentation of interference from DC on Vietnam war coverage], and I have a CIA file.

Should I be checking my answering machine more frequently?

:flybye:

[Peter Lemkin]

.. don't wait for a call unless you have big money, national security expertise, CIA experience, a political constituency, or clout with the media.

I've grossly enlarged my monthly disability check on the photocopier, played 'Diplomacy' and 'Shogun' more than a few times, help run a small web site with about 30 members, did my senior broadcast news and public affairs class project back in the 70's watching Harry Unreasonable and Av Westin prepare the evening news at ABC (Bill Casey's Capital Cities club and purveyor of that godawful JFK simulation) [and I had clear documentation of interference from DC on Vietnam war coverage], and I have a CIA file.

Should I be checking my answering machine more frequently?

:flybye:

..a CIA file...Good for you! - A True Patriot! No, I think they don't leave word on your answering machine....more likely they have a brown-shoed 'square' come up to you at some social function with a brown paper bag and hand it to you, saying you dropped it a moment ago. Inside will be half of a check for a huge sum, an untraceable phone number and a few words you are to mumble when calling, an address out in the woods, and a cryptic message that they'll contact you and you've just joined an group from which you can't un-join.

[Ed Jewett]

.. don't wait for a call unless you have big money, national security expertise, CIA experience, a political constituency, or clout with the media.

I've grossly enlarged my monthly disability check on the photocopier, played 'Diplomacy' and 'Shogun' more than a few times, help run a small web site with about 30 members, did my senior broadcast news and public affairs class project back in the 70's watching Harry Unreasonable and Av Westin prepare the evening news at ABC (Bill Casey's Capital Cities club and purveyor of that godawful JFK simulation) [and I had clear documentation of interference from DC on Vietnam war coverage], and I have a CIA file.

Should I be checking my answering machine more frequently?

:flybye:

..a CIA file...Good for you! - A True Patriot! No, I think they don't leave word on your answering machine....more likely they have a brown-shoed 'square' come up to you at some social function with a brown paper bag and hand it to you, saying you dropped it a moment ago. Inside will be half of a check for a huge sum, an untraceable phone number and a few words you are to mumble when calling, an address out in the woods, and a cryptic message that they'll contact you and you've just joined an group from which you can't un-join.

Sounds like some sort of unrequited rendezvous or one of those "Clue"-like theatrical murder mysteries...

oh, wait ... it is one of those "clue"-like theatrical murder mysteries

[David Guyatt]

I remember a BBC Newsnight programme years ago, during Thatchler's/Major's reign, when Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, made a similar slip of the tongue about Chatham House.

He, however, was quick-witted enough to "ahem", and then modify what he had said. But for anyone watching who knew the history of Chatham House the cat was out of the bag.

For those few who don't know, Chatham House is the founding heart of the CFR - which is nowadays known as it's "sister organization".

[Jan Klimkowski]

I remember a BBC Newsnight programme years ago, during Thatchler's/Major's reign, when Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, made a similar slip of the tongue about Chatham House.

He, however, was quick-witted enough to "ahem", and then modify what he had said. But for anyone watching who knew the history of Chatham House the cat was out of the bag.

For those few who don't know, Chatham House is the founding heart of the CFR - which is nowadays known as it's "sister organization".

Also, creator of the Chatham House Rules, which are not nearly as notorious as they should be.

As a journalist, I would refuse to accept Chatham House Rules. Unfortunately, many so called journalists do, disgracefully, operate under them.

The Chatham House Rule is a rule that governs the confidentiality of the source of information received at a meeting. Since its refinement in 2002, the rule states[1]

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

The rule originated in June, 1927, at what is now best known as Chatham House (formally known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs) with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. The original rule was refined in October 1992 and again in 2002.

Meetings, or parts of meetings, may be held either "on the record" or "under the Chatham House Rule". In the latter case, the participants are understood to have agreed that it would be conducive to free discussion that they should be subject to the rule for the relevant part of the meeting. The success of the rule may depend on it being considered morally binding, particularly in circumstances where a failure to comply with the rule may result in no sanction.

The Rule allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. Speakers are then free to voice their own opinions, without concern for their personal reputation or their official duties and affiliations.

The Chatham House Rule resolves a boundary problem faced by many communities of practice, in that it permits acknowledgment of the community or conversation while protecting the freedom of interaction that is necessary for the community to carry out its conversations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule

[Peter Presland]

Also, creator of the Chatham House Rules, which are not nearly as notorious as they should be.

As a journalist, I would refuse to accept Chatham House Rules. Unfortunately, many so called journalists do, disgracefully, operate under them.

You beat me to it Jan.

They are indeed notorious and IMO totally unacceptable where any matter of public policy journalism is involved.

The thing is that most people when first confronted with them seem to regard it as a kind of flattery. Confirmation that they are being admitted to a privileged, confidential inner sanctum sort of thing - and they go along with it almost as a matter of course. Enables them to look down on the Hoi-Polloy I guess - People like Michael White (Though I'm sure there are far worse) spring to mind

[Jan Klimkowski]

People like Michael White (Though I'm sure there are far worse) spring to mind

Michael White has also operated under the British "lobby" system, whereby the PM's "official spokesman" can feed unattributable lies to a small, select, coterie of "lobby" journalists who lap up this nonsense as if it represents the utterings of an infallible Pope.

Another blatant abuse of the truth tolerated by so-called journalists.

White and Alastair Campbell claim to have once had a "fist-fight".

Smells like spin to me.

However, presumably this occurred after Campbell had switching from writing top shelf pornography to political pornography...