Author Topic: Candidates for the important Secretary of State post  (Read 1126 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ThomasPaine2008

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Candidates for the important Secretary of State post
« on: December 09, 2016, 12:27:53 pm »
What does everyone think of Trump's Sec. of State candidates?  Please post your replies.  They seem to be all over the board.  A recent article from Politico serves as a decent starting point:

The 10 names being floated for the Foggy Bottom position are: former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton; Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.); former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman; Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia; retired Army Gen. David Petraeus; GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis; and Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp.

“The fact that Trump is auditioning uber-hawks and tempered internationalists, flamethrowers, statesmen and oilmen shows how much of the style and substance of Trump’s foreign policy remain up for grabs,” said Daniel Benaim, a former adviser to outgoing Vice President Joe Biden."

That remains to be seen, I'd say.  Who he interviews isn't by any means who he nominates.  Perhaps he is from the "You can learn something from everybody" school.

Here some politico thoughts (in quotes), and a few of my emendations, about these guys:

John Bolton: "The most obvious flash point is the nuclear deal that the Obama administration and several other governments struck with Tehran in July 2015. The would-be secretaries of state who spoke out about the deal either denounced or expressed reservations about it; even Manchin bucked Obama, a fellow Democrat, and opposed the deal. (Just a few months before the deal was announced, Bolton argued that the best way to stop Iran's nuclear program was to bomb the country.)"  This guy has been a jingoist war-hawk, no matter what the war, from way back - sometimes on what seem to be pretty thin grounds.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.): "Corker, for instance, helped author a law that allows for the U.S. to give Ukraine lethal military aid and expand sanctions on Moscow."  The guys who took over the Ukraine do seem rather vicious, and at least a touch neo-Fascist; IMHO.  Corker voted against an audit of the Fed, and for :
"Is there any further Tennessee connection to a globalist organization and agenda? Let’s see. The junior senator from Tennessee is Bob Corker, who was mentored by CFR members Frist and Alexander. (This writer personally spoke with Alexander at a fund-raiser for Corker.) Upon his inauguration, Corker was sworn in by CFR member Vice President Dick Cheney. There certainly seems to be a pattern."
from WND:

New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani: see my posts on him elsewhere in this forum.  The best place he could be is giving the FBI his story as a first-hand witness to many events in the 9/11 plot; and probably as a co-conspirator, in exchange for a plea bargain.

Jon Huntsman: "former ambassador to China".  - That would be Obama's ambassador to China.  I thought we trying to move away from trade policies so free they don't protect our industries.  From Newsweek:

"Warning that the party was losing young voters, he argued that Republicans would need to tack to the middle on three hot-button issues if they were to maintain national relevance: immigration, gay rights, and the environment."

From Wikipedia: "In June 2008 Corker was among the 36 senators who voted against a cloture motion needed to allow the further progress of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, a measure to set up a 'cap-and-trade' framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States."  Corker is a Global Warming Scam buyer.  It also seems like he's wrong on immigration.

Sen. Joe Manchin, "a conservative Democrat from West Virginia;" "Manchin, meanwhile, has been extremely wary of Chinese economic competition; he's among a group of senators trying to block the takeover of a U.S. aluminum products company by a Chinese firm."  Sounds encouraging, to me.

Gen. David Petraeus: "Stavridis and Petraeus, both military men, have come out against the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture that Trump has said he'd like to bring back."  That sounds like a good thing, to me.

GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California: "Rohrabacher is considered Putin’s biggest ally in Congress, and his office has made a point to get Russia’s perspective on human rights into the record."  Let's not forget that he's CEO of Exxon Mobil. 

former Massachusetts  Gov. Mitt Romney: Lessee: In the republican primary debate in 2012, I believe it was, where McCain was singing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran!", Romney was every bit as much for doing the same - in both cases with Nukes.  Remember when Hillary said, "When I am president, I want the people of Iran to know we will destroy them."?

retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis: "Stavridis and Petraeus, both military men, have come out against the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture that Trump has said he'd like to bring back."  That sounds like a good thing, to me.  Non-psychopathic, and all that mumbo-jumbo.  "Stavridis has been a particularly strong advocate of the TPP, seeing the agreement as a means to keep China in check."  Not so helpful.

Rex Tillerson: "Tillerson doesn’t have an extensive record on China policy, but he is a staunch proponent of free trade, even serving as a member of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, a group that strongly supports expanding international trade."  Not exactly protectionist trade policy material.  There is:
"Exxon CEO Thinks You're All Overreacting to Climate Change"

Kudos for not believing the scam until scientists can excise the hoax(es) and falsified better from the global climate debate.  I'm not sure if he would be the most objective person to decide the question, however.  He is quoted:

"What do you want to do if we think the future has sea level rising four inches, six inches? Where are the impacted areas, and what do you want to do to adapt to that? And as human beings as a -- as a -- as a species, that's why we're all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around -- we'll adapt to that. It's an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions. And so I don't -- the fear factor that people want to throw out there to say we just have to stop this, I do not accept."

"Exxon CEO Thinks You're All Overreacting to Climate Change"

One person whose name I wish I would see tossed into the mix:

General Wesley Clark: Warned the public of a plan to take out seven Muslim countries in five years, see:

"General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years"

This was about ten days after 9/11, and culpability for all these countries in 9/11 had by no means been established so soon.  This shows he was not part of this plot, was taken aback by it, and wanted to warn the country of it.  That makes him something of a hero for an informed voting public.

Anybody else have anything to contribute on the Sec. Of State nominees, or ones you'd like to see?  Any candidate that isn't CFR or intimately involved with CFR people would be progress.  Alex one day said we haven't had a non-CFR Sec. of State since FDR.  Someone who isn't a puppet of the bankers who pull the strings there would be nice; but Wesley Clark would be a great non-war hawk while yet having a great interest in keeping the US safe.

Offline ThomasPaine2008

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: Candidates for the important Secretary of State post
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2016, 09:40:59 am »
I passed over Rex Tillerson in that post pretty lightly.  I guess things that seem obvious to the long-time conspiracy theory followers are not so obvious to the rest of us.

How much of an insider is Rex Tillerson, anyway?  I don't know much about him, and shouldn't criticize too roundly; aside from his free trade (for those who are running sweatshops for elites) stance.  Still, let's not forget - how far is the probable next Secretary of State from the CFR?  David Rockefeller is the long-time honorary chairman of the CFR.  Chevron was one of the many many firms that was spun off of Standard Oil, and Exxon was their successor.  There are these interesting items about Exxon:

"Exxon Mobil Accuses the Rockefellers of a Climate Conspiracy"

"Rockefeller Family Fund hits Exxon, divests from fossil fuels"

That last headline doesn't mean much.  The article says the Rockefeller Family Fund is "modest $130 million in assets".  That is puny compared to the Rockefeller Foundation, which the  Manly report found to be worth $100,000,000 in 1916!  That was more money than the US Federal Government:

The real question is, has the Rockefeller Foundation really divested itself of Exxon?  Such a superficial article sounds an alarm in my head.  It seems encouraging that the company leadership has taken an anti-carbon tax stance.  It could easily be just so much posturing.  Superficially, this pick looks interesting and hopeful.  The carbon-tax is one of the darling projects of the Rothschild dynasty, and so it is of the Rothschild mafia don in the US: David Rockefeller.  I don't think one of their controlled opposition would be calling the Rockefellers conspirators, but they are "devilishly" clever in putting their agents in places of authority and control.  I'd say he looks hopeful, but watch him carefully.

Putin should be advised that Exxon is descended from a Standard Oil (slap-on-the-wrist) breakup; and thus, Rockefeller affiliated.  The Rockefellers' Chase Bank is the most powerful of the Fed banks; and the Fed probably serves the Rothschilds.  After all, when the first president of the Fed died, they had to send an envoy to Baron Rothschild in England, to see who the next chairman of the Fed should be.  I am not saying Exxon still serves the Rockefellers (probably via majority ownership by the Rockefeller Foundation), or that Rothschild-affiliated parties still control it - but the possibility is still there.  The Russians, after all, have already had a difficult time with the Rothschild's secretly owning one or more of their refineries.

Offline ThomasPaine2008

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: Candidates for the important Secretary of State post
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2016, 10:07:50 am »
It is historic and encouraging that Tillerson has seems to be charting a different path for Exxon/Mobil from the Rockefellers.  He has addressed the CFR:

he said:

"I also feel at home because the Council was founded on a number of beliefs that I share and that I trust most of you do, as well, and that is the belief in the promise of international engagement and in the potential for global approaches to meeting this nation's challenges."

While being isolationist is probably not wise, protecting our industry with a reasonable amount of protectionist trade policy probably is, and not getting stampeded into every NWO war opportunity that comes along probably is not.  We probably should not even be thinking about wage parity with other nations, but whether the workers are being treated humanely by their employers, and whether workers are getting a reasonable percentage of the pie.  That probably lets out Chinese 12 hour/day, six days/week sweatshops.

Anyway, with Tillerson, we also might doubt his real distance from the company's former oil barons' part owners, the Rockefellers, since Exxon is listed as a multiple donor to David Rockefeller's CFR:

Noting that, that would give me grave doubts about trusting his supposed distance from the CFR, or at least, the puppet-masters behind it.

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,758
Re: Candidates for the important Secretary of State post
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2017, 04:45:51 pm »
Exclusive—Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin Backs Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State: Trump’s Pick ‘Honorable and Patriotic’

ExxonMobil CEO: ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?'

The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, May. 30 2013, 7:21 AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, May. 30 2013, 8:39 AM EDT

Here’s what the chief executive officer of ExxonMobil Corp. told shareholders yesterday:
“What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”

Rex Tillerson was responding to issues raised by environmental activists, who, according to reports of the annual meeting, wanted the world’s biggest oil company to establish greenhouse gas emission targets.

Shareholders voted that down, by 3 to 1. They also nixed a proposal to ban discrimination where sexual orientation is concerned.

Mr. Tillerson, according to The Associated Press, said that cutting back on using oil would make it more difficult to help some billions of people living in poverty.

The CEO, according to the Houston Chronicle, agreed climate change is a major issue, but he questioned what activists say should be a goal of carbon in the atmosphere of less than 350 parts per million.

“We do not see a viable pathway with any known technology today to achieve the 350 outcome that is not devastating to economies, societies and peoples’ health and well-being around the world,” he said.

“So the real question is, do you want to keep arguing about that and pursuing something that cannot be achieved at costs that will be detrimental? Or do you want to talk about what’s the path we should be on and how do we mitigate and prepare for the consequences as they present themselves?“
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!