Select Page

The Constitutionality of Escalating War in Afghanistan

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Few presidential candidates in the last seven years have campaigned more for pulling out of Afghanistan then Donald Trump so his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, 16 years after it began, is a shock to many who are tired of the globalist no-win and perpetual warfare, and in part voted for him to end it. His words resonated with most, “Afghanistan is a total and complete disaster.” In another, “Are they going to be there for the next 200 years?” In another, the U.S. had “wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure.” And another, “What are we doing there? These people hate us … We’re a debtor nation. We can’t build our own schools, yet we build schools in Afghanistan.”

All of this remains true and irrefutable, even though Trump said that viewing this war from the Oval Office prompted his reversal. War Hawk Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, former political enemies, now love him as do many globalists. His having surrounded himself with generals, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster and James Mattis (more military influence in the White House than in decades) is said to have influenced this change. Certainly “the industrial military complex,” as warned by Eisenhower before leaving office in 1961, is well in place around him.

The Afghanistan War has cost us over a trillion dollars in treasure and 3,539 coalition soldiers and is now the longest war in U.S. History. Nothing in the Trump Presidential Speech of August 21, 2017, changes any of this. Adding some 4,000 new U.S. soldiers to the 8,400 presently there, together with another 6,000 from NATO countries, is not likely to change what 16 years and two prior presidents could not.

But all of this would change if prior presidents of both political parties, and now Trump, took their oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” seriously (Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cla. 8).  Military powers are housed under the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 9-17). These include all power to declare and finance war, raise armies, “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,” and even determine the land that the military can use for training purposes. Nothing was omitted.

Under the Constitution there can never be an unpopular war as the peoples’ representative (The House of Representatives) have total power over raising and funding the army. They must consent to the war by declaration (because they provide blood and brawn for it) and they alone authorize the treasure for it. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate” with them (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Cla. 1).

Moreover, Congress was to monitor the war at two-year intervals through its power of the purse just described. “But no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years” (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cla. 12). If Congress is not happy with the progress of the war it can require the generals to account for why total victory has not yet been obtained and reduce or enlarge funding, with time restraints, to keep officers focused—even the president—and on a short lease with respect to the war declared.

Why did the president get none of this power? Because he “had the most propensity for war,” James Madison argued in the Constitutional Convention. Kings traditionally had sole power over the lives of their subjects. Not so under the Constitution. One man would never have such power. A declaration of war gave clarity to its beginning with victory or defeat its only ending. It could never be a casual thing as it is now.

In Afghanistan war transcended from attacking, to regime change, to nation-building, to policing their country for them. In fact, today it remains uncertain as to which nation is most responsible for 9 11. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers flying into the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings on that infamous day were Saudi nationals, as was Osama bin Laden. The country of Iraq had nothing to do with the attack, but received the first missiles in retaliation. Certainly Al-Qaeda dominated Afghanistan, but Saudi Arabia, who funded Al-Qaeda, got off scot-free.

The only constitutional power left by our Founders to the president is as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States… ,” notice this, “when called into actual Service of the United States,” which can only be done by Congress(Art. II, Sec. 2, Cla. 1). Otherwise the military functioned under Congress, not the president. The president’s power to make war (outside immediate self-defense as in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) can only follow the legislature’s power to authorize war. Congress declared war on Japan the following day.

There was no declaration of war by Congress on Afghanistan (or any other country since World War II) calling into “actual service” the military. Nor is there a specific two-year funding limitation on war as constitutionally required. Moreover, Congress clearly has been nullified in making the “rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces” in this no-end conflict.

Recent presidents have usurped all of the military powers of Congress unto themselves and Trump is doing the same. It is a dangerous slippery slope and clearly exceeds constitutional authority regardless of who inhabits the White House.

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.

“I Fear Going to College”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Student unrest in many colleges last spring demonstrated what is becoming obvious; institutions of higher learning are becoming radicalized and project intolerance for anything but a liberal view. Too few permit conservative or libertarian speakers and far fewer a constitutional speaker.

I was not surprised, some years ago, to hear a mother share with me her son’s fear that he did not wish to attend college because he did not wish to be politically indoctrinated. Parents increasingly worry about the radicalization of their children as well. As the years go by I hear this more frequently. Often when asked my profession, a political science professor, I get that look, “Oh! You’re one of those.” So, the assumption is that professors, especially those in political science, are socialists or worse. But it is largely true.

College is supposed to be a big tent housing all types of thinking so that the student can gravitate to what he thinks best after all sides are presented. Although everyone gives lip service to this statement, there still exists a preferred philosophy. Most colleges insist that they adhere to the idea of intellectual diversity, but the literature suggest otherwise, that the vast majority of colleges and universities are weighted in favor of one ideology and professors to one political party. This is not hidden. Many political science textbooks acknowledge this.

There exists a consensus of what a “good education” consists. Students are immersed in race consciousness, feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, collectivism, globalism, political activism, class warfare, global warming, acceptance of sexual deviations as normal, and minimization of the importance of Christianity. The end product, the student, must come to accept the above script. It is also in virtually all textbooks. It’s not that any of these notions are bad, in and of themselves, but it is the nearly universal absence of the opposing view that is most troubling parents/students who do not want the indoctrination. All this reminds me of a 1960’s tune with lyrics. “Little boxes on the hillside. Little boxes made of ticky-tacky… And they all look just the same. And the people in the houses, all go to the university… And they all look just the same.”

It’s not fear of political science classes alone in most colleges and universities. Students can escape the indoctrination across the hall in a history or sociology class. Not so! Such bias permeates most academic areas. An English professor from a large Midwestern university, who did not wish to be identified because of possible retribution, spoke of English classes giving less emphasis on grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure and more on the political correctness. “Everything from Theater to Philosophy to History to English has, in effect, become sociology,” he wrote. “Teaching subject matter has become less important than teaching a very political perspective.” In the end, “They get taught the same thing over and over: a radical critique of the entire American social structure, an indictment of capitalism, anti-Christian propaganda, and collectivism over individuality.”

Of course, additional classes reinforce the “good education” and the result is that if students have not learned to think for themselves, or have some opposing information from home or church to think with, they graduate and carry the indoctrination into every segment of society as gospel. New teachers from kindergarten to the universities will pipe the same, or similar, message.

Age and experience may alter the indoctrination but the twig is already bent in a prescribed direction and the student, like the twig, will give first consideration to returning to the indoctrination when confronted with anything in opposition. Colleges have so much power over “right” thinking.

An extreme example of this years ago, was a French Language and Culture class at Penn State University that required students to view the Michael Moore film Sicko, which focused on the inadequacies of the U.S. healthcare system and promoted Obamacare. In a French language class!?!

The indoctrination begins immediately in some colleges, critics say, “with orientation where students begin by learning about the evils of ‘white privilege’ in a program called the ‘tunnel of oppression’ and sit through lectures informing them that they are part of a ‘rape culture’.” University of Delaware forced incoming freshmen to participate in a “treatment” program a part of which informed them that the word racism applies only to “all white people.”  It also “blamed whites for having created the term racism” in the first place “to deny responsibility for systemic racism.” At Hamilton College in New York, fall 2010, male students were required “to attend a ‘She Fears You’ presentation to make them aware of the ‘rape culture’ of which they were allegedly a part and of the need to change their ‘rape supportive’ beliefs and attitudes” (New American, Aug. 5, 2013, pp. 23-27).

No wonder the young man did not wish to be subjected to what he saw as indoctrination. Because he knows that there exist other views there is hope for him, more especially if he selects professors who attempt to give alternative views of which there are still many, he will be fine. This is especially true at the community college level. It is students who have no idea that there exist alternative views that are most in danger. Parents too, realizing the danger to their children, can better prepare them against the indoctrination.

 

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.

The North American Union is on the Table, Again

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Those of us who have taught international issues for decades have something to offer those who have not. Internationalism, new world order, world order, and globalism are synonyms for world government. Other terms such as inter-nationalization, multilateral, politicization, integration, free trade, commonality, convergence, unification, harmonization, open borders, are often used in conjunction with these synonyms to make them more fashionable and acceptable.

When these terms become known for what they are they become unpopular because few want the United States to become reduced to a mere state in a world government. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights would be relegated to historical documents without any real basis in a government above our own, or even in our own, if not supported by the higher government.

Once understood as such, proponents simply change to a new synonym and continue their program to elevate all significant decision making from local to national to international with, of course, themselves at the helm. Individualism and nationalism must be destroyed. Free enterprise and limited government are not likely to exist. Those who wish to retain these treasured beliefs are the enemy.

Globalists operate on the theory that man is easily manipulated and can be managed to believe whatever he is fed, even to the point of calling slavery freedom and freedom slavery—even good is bad and bad good. Few really think for themselves and they can be removed in other ways beginning with peer pressure and progressing to more violent ways if need be. Man will even choose to give up his liberty for the mere promise of a better future. Communist forces were called liberation armies.

Lenin, Hitler, and Moa Tse Tung and each preferred force to accomplish their form of world government. Globalists today, notably David Rockefeller (just deceased) and Henry Kissinger, know that these ends can be accomplished more slowly without force through the control of media and education. The rule is to always provide the appearance of controversy and free thought but control what people think about by access to it. Observe that the establishment news sources say nothing about regionalism as it conquers nations without restraint or notice.

As words are used to deceive the masses in the transition to world government so are they also valuable weapons in the transition to regional government. They begin with economic commonality and progress to political unity as was done in Europe. From the European Coal and Steel Community 1951, to the European Economic Community (Common Market) 1958, to the European Community 1993, to the European Union shortly thereafter until the original purpose, regional government, was fait accompli complete with a European Parliament 1979 and common currency, the euro, in 1992.

The unification of Europe as a single government, with each of 27 nations (Great Britain has voted to exit) losing their sovereignty as a separate independent nation, once so highly prized by each, something unobtainable by sword or bombs whether by Napoléon, Hitler or Stalin, has been accomplished without a single shot being fired while the vast majority of citizens were lulled to sleep by mere words. Formerly millions lost their lives to defend their nation’s sovereignty. The globalist conquered Europe establishing regional government (the European Union) in less than 50 years and unless thwarted will conquer all nations in half that time again.

Other regional governments followed the EU. The USSR, after the fall of communism in 1989, transformed itself into the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA)—a regional government of nations still under the control of Russia. The world has since been divided into 22 other regional governments each following the European Union model and each at a different stage in the “politicization” of the countries in their regions and most still saddled by the necessity of using the deceptive “free trade” terminology.   In time the plan is to reduce 206 countries to less than 20 regional governments turning these countries into mere states of regional countries—a much more manageable world for globalists.

Some of these perspective regional governments have progressed beyond the need to keep the “free trade” terminology, as for example, the African Economic Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), both uniting large sections of Africa. The Council of Arab Economic Unity (CAEU) uniting northern Islamic Africa and the Middle East is another. South America is to be united by the Southern Cone Common Market, frequently referred to as Mercosur. It has progressed to the point that it now has a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is a final step toward political unification.

But the “word war” for regional governments first, then the eventual merging of these governments into world government under the United Nations, following the European model, continues. The North American Union essentially began with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiated by George H. W. Bush and signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton. Notice neither party opposed globalization.

President Donald Trump campaigned against NAFTA and poses the first threat to its continued existence. Globalists want it renegotiated in the hopes of enlarging its political functions and combining its geographical area to Central America as well. Trump unfortunately has agreed to renegotiate NAFTA placing it back on the table for possible expansion into the North American Union.

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.

NAFTA, “No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal.”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Much of why Donald Trump is president is because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which always has been disastrous for the trades. Democratically controlled unions and their politicians were for it when signed into law by President Bill Clinton and without union support it would not be law.

Big corporations and globalists (often Republicans) have been for it because through it they could manage the regulations and productions codes thus keeping their monopolistic empires in place—it limited trade. It has never been free trade. Free trade is the absence of production codes, government regulations, and trade boundaries, when the consumer alone picks the winners and losers by the high quality and low cost of their performance or products.

Many union workers knew their party had betrayed them at the time but almost all know it now. When Trump dubbed NAFTA as “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country,” they had experienced it as such and thus his appeal to them. And when he said, “I’m going to tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers…. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal,” they cheered.

He also told them. “I see the carnage that NAFTA has caused, I see the carnage. It’s been horrible. I see upstate New York, I see North Carolina, but I see every state. You look at New England. New England got really whacked. New England got hit.” “NAFTA has been very, very bad,” Trump said in a speech in Kenosha, Wisconsin, speaking of dairy farmers being hurt by recent Canadian price changes that the farmers believed violated trade standards. “The fact is that NAFTA has been a disaster for the United States and a complete and total disaster.”

Union workers saw their jobs lost (six million the first 16 years of NAFTA) and factories moving to Mexico to take advantage of lower-waged workers. Whatever bad things their party and their media said about Trump, they knew he spoke the truth on this issue and that they would have a friend in the White House if he kept his promise. This is a major reason he won the old northwest and the election. And this is why he could lose the next election if he doesn’t return the jobs.

The problem with Trump’s call for renegotiation of NAFTA, rather than just pulling out, is that when the government negotiates regulations, productions codes, and trade areas it is not free trade and is never fair, even if well intentioned. Free trade has no restrictions on transactions, (not 1,000 pages as in NAFTA) and fair trade implies that both trade parties feel justice in the outcome. NAFTA is government-managed trade.

Trump cannot win this argument. Fair for him is if our existing corporations (who fund his next election) retain advantage over competing new entrepreneurs and foreign competitors are disadvantaged. If advantage is determined by natural law, one out performs, gives better service or products at lower cost but with higher quality, as when individuals make selections, it is both free trade and fair trade. Government can never do this because it can never account for all the variables involved and is impacted too much by the use of government to get advantage. Even Trump fell victim to this as a private citizen when he made political contributions to both political parties should he need advantaged in a business deal down the road.

In the renegotiation special interests seek to enhance governmental powers in their behalf. Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, expects the renegotiated NAFTA to include more environmental protections and climate change measures.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, best represents the problem with government deciding winners and losers, “We will do everything we can to make this a good agreement and to hold the president at his word and make sure we get a renegotiation. If it comes out that it is not a good deal, no deal is better than a bad deal,” But what is a “good” deal? With no government intervention both seller and buyer get a “good” deal or a transaction is not processed.

Nancy Pelosi faults President Trump “for all of his rhetoric, President Trump looks to be sorely disappointing American workers on trade.” For Democrats it will never be fair because it is never enough. For Republicans it will never be free because it must be managed. Few from either major political party really believe in limited government or they would adhere to Article I, Section 8 of which most of NAFTA violates.

Congress expects to take up the NAFTA issue mid-August. The fairest and freest trade deal for all Americans is to allow natural law under the free market to rule. If negotiation does not respect these time-tested restraints, and the Constitution, Trump would be best served to work for Article 2205 and withdrawal as suggested by AFL-CIO president Trumka— “no deal is better than a bad deal.” And this, the sooner the better, or, he may pay a heavy price in 2020.

 

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.

Getting Out of the United Nations

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

I remember when grade schools promoted UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) by asking students to raise money while Trick-or-Treating every Halloween. In fact, looking back the UN was always treated favorably in school. I never heard a negative comment in my university experience either. Out of school, when I controlled what I read, the literature on the subject was quite different—even opposite. I came to realize that I had to undo some serious programing.

But getting kids to deny themselves candy for UNICEF programing was universal. Prior to 2012, U. S. Trick-or-Treaters had contributed $157 million and Canadians $91 million. If parents, or bullies, took candy from children it would be frowned upon but if the UN does it, approved—even commended. If an organization targeted children for a political outcome it would be unacceptable. Apparently UNICEF money was also used to produce cartoons promoting children’s rights, so political is the organization.

U.N. involvement in education, especially espousing globalism, world government if you prefer, is not new. Even last year their “Global Education Monitoring Report” dubbed “Policy Paper 28,” called for textbooks to include heavier doses of “global citizenship,” and the viewing of environmental problems as global issues requiring global solutions requiring global government. It also wanted textbooks to increase favorable coverage of sexual diversity including: homosexuality, homosexual parenting, bisexuality, and transgenderism.

In a UN summit for youth, held January 30, 2017, UN General Assembly President Peter Thomson, referred to the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals,” as the “master plan for humanity.” But the master plan presented to the youth always leaves problem solving with the UN and increases planetary economic controls and wealth redistribution, each of which eventually destroys national sovereignty and liberty.

But amid these efforts to radicalize our youth in favor of globalism emerges the evidence that the UN is also the world’s leading governmental sexual abuser of children, its peacekeepers repeatedly raping children, some as young as ten. In an Associated Press Report, April 13, 2017, U. S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, gave a graphic depiction of U.N. peacekeepers sexually abusing homeless children. She disclosed one boy, in 2011, being “raped by peacekeepers who disgustingly filmed it on a cell phone.” UN Sri Lankan troops raped a 15-year-old boy over 100 times. One girl was raped, sharing later, “I did not even have breasts.” Between ages 12 and 15 “she was raped by almost 50 UN peace troops.”

But it is not just an occasional rape. The Report alleged some 2,000 allegations of rape, pedophilia, and sexual abuse of civilians in a little over a decade and it is assumed that the number is vastly under-reported.

But even this is not new. The United Nations has a long history of the same. Prostitution almost always increases wherever UN peacekeeping troops are stationed. Such was so in Cambodia, Mozambique, Central Africa, Sudan, “Bosnia, and Kosovo after UN, and in the case of the latter two, when NATO peacekeeping forces moved in.” Amnesty International disclosed, “A Kosovo victims support group reported that of the local prostitutes, a third were under 14, and 80% were under 18. The victims were routinely “raped ‘as a means of control and coercion’ and kept in terrible conditions as slaves by their ‘owners’; sometimes kept in darkened rooms unable to go out.”   In 2004, they reported, “that under-age girls were being kidnapped, tortured and forced into prostitution in Kosovo with U.N. and NATO personnel being the customers driving the demand for the sex slaves.” A simple reference to Wikipedia documents these and similar reports

Much of the information on corruption in the UN (child sexual rings and etc.) come from whistleblowers such as Povl Bang-Jensen, Anders Kompass, and Rasna Warah who appear to have no other motive than to right wrongs against humanity. The latest book on the subject is by Rasna Warah, “UNsilenced: Unmasking the United Nations’ Culture of Cover-ups, Corruption and Impunity.” As the title indicates, along with the revelation of sexual exploitation of children, it reveals corruption, abuse of power, and criminal activity for the last 15 years.

The revelations of this column are important. Globalism is the process of transcending into a world government with the United Nations, created by the globalists, to be the new government and in time the only “real” power on earth. The United States would be as a state, like South Carolina, in a bigger union. Government schools have propagandized for it since my youth. Innocently I was conned into helping them by raising money while Trick-or-Treating. There was never another side presented. But the real history of the United Nations, where they have power, is that of indoctrination, corruption, cover-ups and sexual abuse of children. Why should I expect it to be any different in this country when world government is in place and they have all the power?

I support current House bill, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, bipartisan legislation to remove the United States from the UN. Proposed every year, it has more support now than ever. I find no good reason to continue Trick-or-Treating, or anything else, for an organization that undermines our sovereignty, the Constitution, and molests children.

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.

Merging Globalism and Climate Control

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The first billionaire in U.S. History was John D. Rockefeller. He and J. P. Morgan dominated late 19th and early 20th Centuries economic and political history, more especially after they teamed up to create The Council on Foreign Relations in 1921—quickly becoming the most powerful political special interest group in U.S. History. Recently we published a column showing John D. Rockefeller’s grandson David, as the most influential individual in post World War II America and perhaps in the world.

Most U.S. History textbooks show how oil baron John D. Rockefeller worked ruthlessly to monopolize 90% of the oil industry in the United States but few have given focus to David’s working to demonize the fossil fuel industry of his grandfather in favor of alternative energy dominance wherein the Rockefeller family is now heavily vested. But first he had to popularize a myth—fossil fuels change the climate and thus must be managed at the world level. The myth insures their place of wealth with alternative energy and creates a need for a world government that they, because of their wealth, would manage, as they have the U.S. government.

What has been known by those who specialize in special interest group politics, is now more fully explained in a 24 page report by the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute called The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan, released December 2016. They concluded: “Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980s, their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming). Their crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy is well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations—the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol—to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry. Through their Sustainable Development Program, the Rockefellers continue to promote their self-serving ‘clean energy’ policies throughout both the federal government and general public.”

Their point, As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21.”

So how has the public been convinced that global warming is real? This they accomplished, “through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities….” As a result of this web, “they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment. Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources.”

Conditioning Americans to accept their views has progressed through multiple generations affecting most areas. The report continues: “Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980’s their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming).” When global warming could not be proved they changed terminology to climate change that can be shown to change over time somewhere on the globe.

When one side of an issue receives much greater funding than the other the resultant public support or non-support becomes predictable. Catastrophic science (the world is coming to an end) has always been more easily funded. When the Rockefellers want something they fund those “proving” the need, as with Columbia University’s Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project, then Rockefeller media outlets such as The New York Times, the Washington Post and Time magazine publicize the findings of the Rockefeller financed studies. It’s really quite simple.

It is no wonder the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), created in 1940 by John D.’s five grandsons: John, Nelson, Laurence, Winthrop, and finally David, to advance international governing bodies, “boast of being one of the first major global warming activists” institutions. Certainly funding attests to the boast: the formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 and the establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. RBF funded the global adaptation of the Rio Treaty reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 % by 2012 and in 1997 “helped promote and orchestrate the Kyoto Protocol with Japan.” In Europe the RBF “donated $10 million to fund an alliance of local, state, and federal leaders in the United Kingdom and Germany to address the issue.”

Major Rockefeller tax-exempt foundations are The Rockefeller Foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Rockefeller Family Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc. All four have “poured tens of millions into major green activist groups.” Indeed without them the global warming or climate change issue comparatively would be non-existent. For the Rockefellers it does not matter whether true, only that it is the vehicle that sustains their wealth and power over the United States and their best argument to expand that power, through their New World Order, over the whole world. In the late 1800’s John D. Rockefeller did not have the power to veil his influence over America, today the Rockefeller family does.

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.