Jul 24, 2016 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Something of a mega earthquake happened when Donald Trump selected Governor Mike Pence as his vice presidential running mate over my predicted long-term Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, and former distinguished Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. I was wrong and delightfully so. Pence has no known establishment connections and has praiseworthy constitutionally centered credentials.
I have studied special interest groups all my adult life and for at least 70 years either the president or his vice president has been a member of this globalist organization. In fact I have said that one cannot be president without their permission. Membership also belonged to his secretary of state, a third of his cabinet, and his ambassador to Russia and China, whether Democrat or Republican. The Trump presidency, as now constituted, is the only exception, making his election the most “establishment free” and historic in modern U.S. History, thus the earthquake. The Trump revolution is more profound than realized.
Had Trump selected Gingrich I would have seen this election in the same light as that of Ronald Reagan when we last had the best chance of throwing the globalists (the establishment) out of power. I would have joined the “Never Trump” movement. Reagan, like Trump today, had/has no globalist connections.
At the Republican National Convention in 1980 Reagan promised a small group of delegates led by Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, that he would not, “under any circumstance, have that man,” George Bush, as his running mate. The next day Reagan announced Bush as his vice presidential selection. The small group confronted Reagan with the contradictions to which Reagan responded before walking away, “Had one Hell of a night with David and Henry.”
I reasoned that the establishment found it necessary to work with Reagan because of unplanned popular support and could drop their intense opposition to him if he would accept their man, a former CFR director, as his vice president. The CFR could still govern indirectly through Vice President George Bush on the things that mattered most to them.
Both David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, now old men 101 and 92 respectively, were known then as leading architects of world government and were managing the CFR. They created the Trilateral Commission (TC) in 1973 to work a similar influence on the world level. This organization worked to influence three geographical regions, Japan, North American and Western Europe and divided its then 270 members of preselected industrialists, bankers and politicians among these regions. The view was that if consensus could be obtained between these powerful regions those involved essentially economically managed the world. The Jimmy Carter Administration had the largest number of TC members 16, and fewer numbers have served in every presidential administration since.
Trump left me feeling as though I was watching the Reagan movie again when he made two announcements. Pressed for a list of advisors on March 3rd he offered three names, two of which were CFR members. First on the list was Richard Haass, the same advisor as Hillary Clinton, who is presently serving his 13th year as president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also a member of the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission, two other globalist organizations. The second announcement, made May 18, revealed that Trump met with Henry Kissinger after disclosing that they had had several prior phone conversations.
The people have clearly rejected the “establishment,” whether they fully understood what it was or its impact over previous administrations, they knew something was wrong when those sent to change Washington DC became Washington DC. Nobody in America is more globalist and establishment than Haass and Kissinger. There should be nothing that Donald Trump should wish to emulate from either man, so why the meetings with a Secretary of State seven presidents ago? Nothing more was made public.
That Trump would select Mike Pence, far to the right of what he himself has been in the past, suggests sincerity to better govern. Pence even endorsed for president political rival Ted Cruz, so he is not being rewarded for loyalty.
The presidency of Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885), the most corrupt candidate for the office of vice president in the 1800’s, comes to mind. The assassination of James A. Garfield elevated him to the presidency. Sobered by the importance of the office he implemented Civil Service Reform, which he had previously opposed, and became a very honest and respectable president.
If Trump fails to do the same I am here to write columns exposing the practices of any president outside the Constitution. For now I am giving Trump a grateful node.
By rejecting Gingrich there is no doubt that Trump has upset the CFR, who see the White House as their personal property. Before, they were the president or were one heartbeat from, should he be too independent. I do expect Trump to attempt to placate CFR people in his government, perhaps Gingrich as Secretary of State and Chris Christy, or Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General. I object, but cleaning house immediately of globalists may not be possible, but he has kept the CFR out of the Executive Branch of Government for the first time in at least 70 years.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 17, 2016 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The world’s global power brokers—each by invitation only— met again June 9-12, as they have sixty-four times before in their annual Bilderberg assemblages since their birth in 1954. This time they met in the luxurious 5-star Taschenbergpalais Kempinski Hotel in Dresden, Germany. This is the most exclusive group in the world said to be the power brokers of the West.
At these meetings no minutes are taken. Participants may use the information received at their meeting but may not disclose the identity or affiliations of the speakers or any other participant. No reporters are allowed in but some media mongrels such as The Economist, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal attended making it even more amazing that the “establishment” press does not cover it. At this one, as in the past, “There will be no opening press conference, no closing statement, and participants will be asked not to quote each other,” the UK Independent says of the 64th Bilderberg Conference. Only those invited attend.
Still, there exists some local news coverage of the Bilderberg annual events. All coverage is consistent in that such meetings are held, are highly secretive, have huge police protection, and attendees are seen as the “power brokers” of Europe and North America. Even Wikipedia noted these elements in its coverage.
Foreign coverage is also very limited but exists. Al Jazeera reported with respect to the Bilderbergers. “It’s one of the most secretive and powerful organizations you’ve probably never heard of.”
The Bilderberg website lists the topics for discussion but they seem purposely vague. The first five of the ten for this year were: current events, China, Europe, Middle East and Russia. But why would the elite of the planet gather for such nondescript discussions if they were not far more detailed and had no real purpose? The organization sees value in these “off the record” discussions but it is this secrecy that feeds conspiracy theories the worst, and most unlikely, being that they hide “initiation rights and dark rituals.”
But rumor has it that lead topics included: items on the New World Order agenda, blocking Donald Trumps election in the United States, retaining Great Britain in the European Union, and pushing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Each of these is a prominent globalist objective (“Bilderberg Seen Through the Looking Glass,” Strategic Culture Foundation, Pepe Escobar).
Past attendees included politicians, top business executives, bankers and often some academics, royalty and, more recently, technology gurus. This year the invited guest list was 130 of these people. The most famous attendees have included: Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Hillary and Bill Clinton, John Kerry, David Petraeus. Chuck Hagel, Paul Volcker, George Stephanopoulos, Timothy Geithner, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Gerald Ford and Lindsey Graham.
There are attendees who do not wish to be named because of the Logan Act (18 U.S. Code § 953) that makes it “a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.”
Security is intense. “With so many politicians present, including three members of the German cabinet, the German military has been drafted in to oversee security,” reported the Guardian newspaper. Three years ago it was in Great Britain and security costs approached $2 million, not including the costs of a no-fly zone protection. No cost figures were given for this year. This is no little meeting.
What do they do there? Michael Meacher, a lawmaker from Britain’s Labour Party, reasoned: “When 130 of the leaders from all across the West get together, and many of these are billionaires, they are people who are immensely wealthy and immensely powerful. And when they all get together, it’s not just to have a chat about the latest problem; it is a concert plans for the future of capitalism in the West. That is on a very different scale” (“Bilderberg 2013: Secretive Meeting of Western Power Brokers Begins Near London,” Jill Lawless, 06/07/13, Huff Post).
David Rockefeller was far more candid. In a Bilderberg conference in Germany in 1991, he said: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright light of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government” (“Bilderberg: Brexit, Borders, Banksters—and Billary” New American, July 4, 2016).
No wonder critics see the Bilderberg meetings as a shadow world government and a bid for total control of everyone on earth. World leaders attend and they talk about government issues. The organization establishes the issues and builds consensus toward their conclusion and they do all this in secret.
So why do any prominent high profile U. S. citizens attend these “secret combination” meetings? And why do the vast majority of the establishment press ignore it? It is time attendees answer these questions beginning with Hillary Clinton and Lindsey Graham.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 11, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Although the Preamble to the Constitution is a statement of intent, not a codification of law, the Founders hoped to work toward cited objectives, one of which was to “establish Justice.” Perhaps at no time in U.S. History have more people felt the effects of corruption of government and lack of established justice more than now. Some in high place act as though rules/laws are for others and that they can lie and potentially damage our national security without consequence, such appears demonstrated now.
On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced the conclusion of a yearlong investigation of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He made it clear that she was guilty of potentially handing classified top-secret information to our enemies but strangely refused to recommend indictment, as would happen to any other citizen having done the same thing. He said as much. “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”
Instead of merely citing the evidence and turning it over to the Justice Department, he exceeded his authority by recommending that Clinton not be indicted. This made it easy for the Democratic Party to ignore the long list of evidence he had just cited, essentially undoing a year of intense FBI work. It freed Attorney General Loretta Lynch from having to do anything other than support the FBI recommendation and saved President Barack Obama from having to retract his former endorsement of Hillary based upon her willful defiance of existing law. He campaigned with her just hours after Comey’s announcement. Many openly believed that “the fix was in.” With all that evidence how could they not indict her?”
Lynch was further relieved from the embarrassing appearance of impropriety having met in Phoenix the week before with Bill Clinton, the husband of the accused, in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, although Lynch denies that they addressed her role in Hillary’s possible indictment. Attorney generals purposely avoid being anywhere near the accused to avoid even the appearance of conspiracy.
With this recommendation nobody now expects legal action against Hillary. Certainly the Democrats in charge are not going to render it, proving for most that justice for all is no longer established or even necessarily a constitutional goal.
Comey said, with respect to the 30,000 emails they reviewed, that “110 e-mails sent or received on Clinton’s server contained classified information.” Classified documents are marked as such. These contained information that was classified at the time the messages were sent. Eight contained “top-secret” information, the highest level of government classification for material that could harm national security. These, you may recall, the FBI themselves did not initially have clearance to view because they were so sensitive.
Thousands of emails wiped clean, several classified, were never turned over to the State Department as Hillary claimed. Comely did not address her attempt to suppress evidence by wiping her server clean. No one else could escape this charge.
Comey continued, “She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” It is possible “hostile actors” gained access to her email account. Moreover he admitted that, “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information” and that they were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Again the classified material was clearly marked and Hillary Clinton is an astute lawyer by profession. Such neglect is inexcusable and intentional. US Code 18 defines “criminal gross negligence” as “careless to the extreme” which Comey admitted that she was, but he still refused to recommend indictment.
General David Petraeus, who pled guilty to the mishandling of classified information, was sentenced to two years probation and fined $100,000 for leaking classified information to his biographer and mistress. Certainly justice for Hillary having potentially leaked to every enemy nation 110 classified documents, many far more sensitive than that of Petraeus, should be at least 110 times greater than his— but instead a violation charge of “gross criminal neglect” could make her president.
Comey seems sincere when he said, “What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently.” This may be so but his refusal to recommend indictment smells bad and reeks of injustice. Democrats will say, “There was not enough evidence to indict.” Republicans will say, “The fix was in, someone got to Comey.” Both will switch their positions should a Republican next do precisely the same thing. But Constitutionalists see long-term damage to the Constitution and wonder if anyone in the future can be prosecuted for “gross criminal negligence” if Hillary couldn’t.
This is a dark day for the Constitution and for established justice. It will be a much darker day if Americans choose to elect to office, and place in charge of national security, someone who, at the very least, has proven unworthy to hold a security pass.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 3, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr Harold Pease
The Declaration of Independence ends with one of the most passionate appeals ever put to words and memorized by yesterday’s grade school child. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
This document would bring on war against the then greatest power on earth, and no European strategist gave the Patriots a ghost of a chance of winning—yet they stood. Signers would be seen as traitors to the mother country and could expect the harshest treatment when caught. They could count on no one but God and themselves.
And, of course, a goodly number did suffer loss of life and property as a result. Most paid a remarkably high price for taking their stand. In a wrathful spirit of revenge, the enemy singled them out for harsh vengeance. Five were captured and imprisoned and two others barely escaped captivity. Richard Stockton, one of those captured after his whereabouts was betrayed by a loyalist informer, was “dragged from bed in the middle of the night, severely beaten and thrown into prison” where he underwent continual abuse and also suffered malnourishment. By the time the Congress arranged for his exchange, he was broken physically and never recovered. He had also lost almost all his property.
Unable to capture Abraham Clark, another signatory, the British took their wrath out on his two sons, who were imprisoned on the notorious prison ship Jersey. “Word was sent to Clark that his boys would be freed if he would disown the revolutionary cause and praise the British Crown. At his refusal, his sons were singled out for cruel treatment. One was placed in a tiny cell and given no food. Fellow prisoners kept him alive by laboriously pushing tiny bits of food through a keyhole. Both sons somehow survived their ordeal.”
The British had a particular zeal for destroying the homes and property of the signers. Those suffering this fate included Benjamin Harrison, George Clymer, Dr. John Witherspoon, Philip Livingston, William Hooper, and William Floyd. The sacrifices of John Hart and Francis Lewis are particularly noteworthy. “While his wife lay gravely ill, Redcoats destroyed Hart’s growing crops and ripped his many grist mills to pieces. Bent on taking him, they chased him for several days. They almost nabbed him in a wooded area, but he hid in a cave. When he returned home with his health broken, he found his wife dead and their 13 children scattered.”
The story of Francis Lewis was equally tragic. “When the British plundered and burned his home at Whitestone on Long Island, they took his wife prisoner. She was thrown into a foul barracks and treated cruelly. For several months she had to sleep on the floor and was given no change of clothing. George Washington was able eventually to arrange for her exchange for two wives of British officers the Continental Arm was holding prisoner. Her health was so undermined that she died two years later.”
Thomas Nelson Jr., another signatory, made one of the most unusual sacrifices of the war. At Yorktown the British had selected his residence as headquarters. Washington, reluctant to destroy his compatriots beautiful home, was directed to do so by Nelson himself.
Probably John Quincy Adams, a son of one of the 55 patriots making the above pledge and later a president of the United States, said it best. “Posterity—You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” Let us never forget that liberty is not free. It was purchased and maintained by the blood of those before us.
Today many believe that the biggest enemy to our liberty is from within. Certainly we have let the Constitution dwindle in its ability to protect us from federal overreach. If the cause of the American Revolution was excessive government, as historians say, and school children once memorized all the offending new rules and regulations documenting such, what can we say today when the rules are multiplied by perhaps a thousand? For most of us it is hard to argue that we are more free than they under British tyranny when our government tells us with whom we must share a bathroom or shower.
Let this be a warning to those who would take freedom from us now. We too are standing “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” mutually pledging “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
