While the pro-nationalist, anti-globalist movement has recently scored critical victories with Brexit and Trump’s election, globalists are not just going to walk away from the fight.
To this point: It is highly likely that Mitt Romney is a stealth globalist candidate for the office of Secretary of State.
If Trump is blind to this possibility, the populist foundation on which his presidential campaign was built might well suffer a devastating blow.
The increasingly centralized control that has always been the key component of the globalists’ political and financial power has meant that the party designations Republican and Democrat are no longer meaningful in defining what politicians and political candidates stand for.
The only meaningful way to distinguish one politician from another today is to determine if he or she is a populist or a globalist.
The important thing those designations accomplish is to let us know whether the political figure is in favor of government by and for the people or government by and for the elite.
Given that the words “Republican” and “Democrat” are no longer meaningful, we are now able to see that the 2012 presidential election was not a contest between a Republican and a Democrat, but a contest between two globalist candidates.
Have you ever wondered why, after he had trounced Barack Obama in their first debate, Mitt Romney took his foot off the gas and let Obama make a fool out of him in the final debates?
Is it out of the question to wonder whether Romney might have been told behind the scenes by his globalist handlers to let Barack Obama win a second term, given that Obama was doing such an excellent job of making sure the globalist agenda was being advanced?
In the past 50 years, CFR members have held an overwhelming majority of all appointed U.S. cabinet positions, including Secretaries of State and Defense. In addition, most of the top military officers of the U.S. armed forces have also been CFR members.
In 1950, James Warburg, one of the 5,000 members of the CFR, explained precisely to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee what the CFR’s goal was: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.”
Lifelong globalist David Rockefeller, who joined the CFR in 1949 as a director and was one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission, another key globalist group, clearly articulated the purpose of the globalist movement in his 2002 autobiography, Memoirs:
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have . . . [characterized] my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
It’s no coincidence that U.S. Senator Barack Obama, then a political unknown, was invited to give a speech at a CFR meeting in 2005.
It’s highly likely that globalists already had him in their sights as a possible presidential candidate.
Could there have been any other reason a freshman senator would have been asked to speak to the CFR other than the fact that he would rubber-stamp the group’s pro-globalist policies if elected president?
The question about Mitt Romney can be put in much the same way: Can there be any question whatsoever whether Mitt Romney would rubber-stamp the globalists’ anti-populist policies if Trump selects him for Secretary of State?
The answer to that question is an emphatic no, and for that reason, Romney must be taken out of consideration.