Select Page

5th Anniversary of NDAA “Indefinite Detention” Law

Harold Pease, Ph. D

On December 31, 2011, New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama signed into law the most constitutionally damaging law in American history, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This New Year’s Eve we note its 5th Anniversary. Previous annual appropriations bills funding national defense were mostly procedural but it was the addition of two sections, buried deep within the over 600 page document, that potentially gutted the Bill of Rights for American citizens thought by the President to be assisting the enemy, that so upset constitutionalists and libertarians.

Subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” authorized the president to apply the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the 2001 congressional document used to justify war on Iraq, now broadly to all thought to be terrorists—including Americans living in the states far from any battlefield. The military would be used to find, arrest and “detain covered persons…pending disposition under the law of war.” Translated, this means military tribunals and prisons and no Bill of Rights. U.S. law; local law enforcement agents, juries, courts and judges would be excluded, all on the whim of but one man—the president. Moreover there exists no requirement to notify local authority when one is “kidnaped” (captured and detained), or transferred out of the country, as for example to Guantanamo Bay, or detained indefinitely. President Obama did promise that he would not use it against US citizens. This power will be transferred to Donald Trump January 20, 2017.

Constitutionalists and libertarians, notably Senator Rand Paul and Dianne Feinstein, have worked hard to at least modify these two sections. Newer versions do have Sections 1031-1033 that portend to affirm the rights of due process and habeas corpus but opponents of newer NDAA’s are certain that it is not enough to get back to pre 2011 constitutional protections. Senator Feinstein noted that her goal “was to ensure the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists.”

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, following the Civil War, forbade the U.S. military from performing law enforcement functions on American soil. The American Civil Liberties Union warned in 2011, “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.” When asked if it were possible for an American to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, Senator John McCain said yes. Senator Lindsey Graham was more blunt. “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

With at least three generals in the Trump cabinet it is questionable whether they will advise Trump to return to the constitutional protections heretofore in place. But it will be a major test of his sincerity respecting separating himself from the establishment, both Republican and Democratic, who together, have imposed this upon all Americans. Cosponsors of the disturbing changes were Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, the latter Trump deeply offended in his presidential campaign. Neither is likely to abandon what they created without a serious fight.

Some things are very clear in the sections disputed. The terms “terrorists” and “affiliates” are not adequately defined, the President is given too much power, and they violate the U.S. Constitution, which everyone voting affirmatively swore to uphold. It is hard to trust the government’s definition of terrorist when Vice President Joe Biden, once referred to Tea Partiers as terrorists and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as mobsters (a term also implying a threat to society). What guarantee do we have that the “new” enemy does not simply rotate to anyone defined as “anti-government,” citizen or not?

Presidents have not proved particularly trustworthy in the past with respect to the Constitution and civil liberty. Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the stroke of a pen, detained over 110,000 Japanese Americans in “relocation camps” (Japanese-Americans called them concentration camps) in World War II on the basis of race and potential terrorism. Why should we have confidence in any president to not use this power as “seemeth” him good?

The Writ of Habeas Corpus found in Article I, Section 9 recognized that some day war might exist on our soil and that the accused had rights that might have to be momentarily delayed until recognized civilian authority could reasonably attend to them. It allowed this delay in only two circumstances “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Section 9 provides a list of powers specifically denied Congress; nor were they given to the President in Article II. This strongly suggests no federal role outside the two parameters, rebellion or invasion. The removal of any civilian role and the carting off of U.S. citizens to a foreign place without benefit of civilian judge or jury obliterates this right.

The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duties previously rendered by civil authorities is unconscionable in a free society. Ninety-three senators voted for this bill. Only seven understood the Constitution well enough to defend it and vote no. These were Democrats Tom Harkin, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden and Republicans Rand Paul, Thomas Coburn, Mike Lee.

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

Is the 2016 Presidential Election Rigged? They all are!

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For some time Donald Trump has said that this election is “rigged” in favor of Hillary Clinton. He talks about the “pile on” against him by the establishment media, establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans, establishment bankers and corporations. He could have added the globalist establishment special interest groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers. There has been collusion amongst all these groups for decades more easily seen now than at anytime since Barry Goldwater. This is evidenced most clearly by the establishment media’s reluctance to cover Wikileaks released emails so devastating to Clinton and the Republican establishments hostility to their own candidate, as for example, George H. Bush’s vow to vote for Hillary.

Remember, Trump is the only “outsider” still in the race. From the onset non-establishment candidates Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump collectively had at least 60% of primary voters. Most Americans have felt something amiss in Washington DC in both major political parties for some time. We have mentioned in previous columns that Wall Street “elites” have, by their funding, owned both political parties and the mainstream media for most of a century and Trump threatens their continued power.

But most Americans do not understand that presidential elections have been “rigged” for decades by deliberate media exclusion of other political party candidates. I write the Federal Elections Commission every October of every election year to find out who is running for president as the establishment media has not told me. Yes, I know the candidates of the two favored political parties, but little else. I wish not to have my choices limited by the managed media.

The Federal Elections Commission requires that anyone running for president that spends or collects $5,000 or more on his/her candidacy for president file with them. My students are surprised to learn that there are always over 200 persons who do so, often many more. In every presidential election there are at least 20 political parties offering a presidential candidate. Part of the “rigged” system is the agreement among the mainstream media to cover only Republicans and Democrats.

The Libertarian Party has offered a presidential candidate in every election for decades and are on the ballot in over 45 states in every election but are seldom mentioned and never invited to the “big debates.” Certainly they feel excluded. One may argue, “but they do not have enough voter strength to warrant inclusion,” but in fact, they do not have sufficient voter strength because the establishment media does not cover them.

When the establishment press wishes to advantage a candidate it suddenly allows inclusion, such as when Ross Perot was “allowed” real participation in 1992 because he would take more votes from George H. W. Bush than Bill Clinton giving Clinton, the then media favorite, the White House. Ross Perot was on the ballot in every state in the Union because he received sufficient media attention to be there.

Such would be the case today for anyone else getting media attention. The media get to vote first by its collective exclusion of those not registered with the Democrat or Republican Party. In political science we learn that the first election is theirs. We get to choose from those the media have not excluded. The wisest, most experienced, most gifted and most honest person in America could not be president of the United States unless he/she were a Democrat or Republican.

Media corporate owners have allowed media collusion and, as we have said in other columns, they are overwhelmingly also globalist. Trump survived this media filter by running as a Republican, and vaulted over the establishment by funding his own primary campaign enabling him to say it as he saw it and win over the majority of Americans who have also felt something amiss in Washington DC.

So what other political parties offer choices for president on the ballot this year? They follow: Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), Darrell Castle (Constitution Party of the U.S.), Gloria LaRiva (Party of Socialism and Liberation), Rocky de la Fuente (Reform Party USA), Emidio Soltysik (Socialist Party USA), Alyson Kennedy (Socialist Workers Party), Evan McMullin (Better For American Party), Frank Atwood (Approval Voting Party-Colorado), Scott Copeland (Constitution Party of Idaho-Texas), Princess Khadijah Jacob Fambro (Revolutionary Party-California), Jim Hedges (Prohibition Party-Pennsylvania), Mike Maturen (American Solidarity Party-Michigan), Monica Moorhead (Workers World Party-New York), Rod Silva (Nutrition Party-New Jersey), Peter Skewes (American Party of SC-South Carolina), Tom Hoefling (America’s Party-Iowa), Chris Keniston (Veterans Party of America-Texas), Kyle Kopitke (Independent American Party-Michigan), Bradford Lyttle (US Pacifist Party-Illinois), Dan Vacek (Legal Marijuana Now Party- Minesota), Jerry White (Socialist Equality Par-Michigan). These persons were able to go through the different state hurdles to get on the ballot without significant media coverage. The list ends with another 550 running for president as write-in candidates.

In this election many wish to know of options other than Clinton and Trump. The establishment media reluctantly noted the Libertarian and Green Party candidates, but unless voters do their own research they are not well informed on either and are totally ignorant on the other political parties running candidates. Obviously Trump is mostly arguing that elections are “rigged” because of the “pile on” against him, but it can also be argued that they were “rigged” long before him.

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

The Lesser of Two Evils

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

I have not endorsed a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan because in every election in my lifetime, the prevailing argument has always been the lesser of two evils. But if you are voting for the lesser of two evils aren’t you still voting for evil? As a devout Christian I do not wish to vote for any evil. Outside basic Christian values, I have gravitated to two things that dominate my political loyalty; the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, and opposition to what is now called globalism, the transfer of power from nations to regional governments and then to a world government. Political party is not my base for determining truth.

I have never supported the lesser of two evils voting practice because both candidates were “evil” using these barometers. But what if one candidate is many times more “evil” using these criteria than the other? Historically, lying or abuse of power concerns could be exposed in a free press and perpetrators could be removed either by impeachment or in a subsequent election. The nation could recover. But what if we no longer have a “real” free press and one side clearly dominates and excludes information? What if we reached a point in “evilness” that recovery is very unlikely, and a president uses the power of government to punish or silence political opposition, as did Richard Nixon with the IRS?

What if our outgoing president, Barack Obama, already defies the Constitution with executive orders circumventing the law-making powers of Congress and is already using the IRS against Tea Party groups? What if he has politicized the Department of Justice (DOJ) allowing it to overlook irregularities such as the secret tarmac meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on an airport runway in Phoenix Arizona over DOJ’s possible prosecution of Hillary. This, and the politicization of the FBI resulting in its subsequent failure to recommend prosecuting Hillary on her 33,000 national security bleach-bit deleted emails as it would have anyone else doing the same thing and giving all those pleading the Fifth Amendment on the email scandal immunity from prosecution. Political corruption is obviously at its highest level in U.S. History. What if justice in this country has already been politicized?

What if the establishment media is also politicized to the point that it is just an extension of the Clinton campaign and only Fox News and talk radio are willing to share the Wikileaks emails, what would be, in any other election, devastating to Clinton? Her voters may never know of these scandals. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe are openly Clinton advocates and important feeds to many smaller newspapers as well. The following televised news sources are openly favoring Hillary Clinton for president: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC. Could not an election be managed by such media exclusions?

The Obama Administration attempted to silence the email disclosures. Secretary of State John Kerry, on October 18, unsuccessfully used his influence to get the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to cut off Julian Assange’s Internet access putting an end to the transfer of the Clinton incriminating emails flowing therefrom.

If the Obama Administration has corrupted and politicized the IRS, DOJ and FBI and Hillary is his designated replacement, what hope do we have that she will correct these present examples of misuse of power and not continue to use these agencies, and the politicized media, to further defy the Constitution and punish her enemies? None. She benefited from these tyrannies. More likely she will continue their use adding dozens more agencies to the list as evidenced by her assistance in the scandals of the nineties, the last time the Clintons occupied the White House. Millenials have been largely denied coverage on these scandals: Whitewater, Filegate, Cattle Futures, Travelgate, profiting from the Lincoln Bedroom, Chinagate, White House Looting, Pardongate, and using the IRS on adversaries.

No person in America’s political history has had more scandals attributed to him/her than Hillary Rodham Clinton. WND TV, in May 2015, listed the number of passed scandals at 22. Right now there is Benghazi, the 33,000 bleach-bitted security emails, DNC attempts to derail Bernie Sanders, and the Clinton Foundation plus a half dozen others stemming from the WikiLeaks revelations. Scandals follow her like flees on a dog, often two or three simultaneously. There exists nothing that suggests that such will not continue. She has always ridden the fine line between legal and illegal.

Now Trump has many “warts,” is not a particularly religious man, is not politically polished or verbally refined, and is sometimes offensive to those around him, but there lacks concrete evidence that he is any more “evil” than any of his predecessors. So the real issue is not the lesser of two evils but one “evil” verses many “evils” and we cannot assume that we could recover from the damage to the Constitution, the dive into world government, and the resultant compromised Christian ethics that would result in the next four years from a Hillary victory. The disparity of evil between candidates is greater than ever before, which now necessitates our choosing the “evil” of one over the “evils” of the other. In this sense every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary. This election may be a matter of saving the Constitution and our national survival. Are non-Trump voters willing to accept responsibility for damage to these entities?

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

The Real Issue, Trump Threatens The Globalist

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Not since Barry Goldwater in 1964 have I seen the establishment turn on one man with a unity and vehemence, as though from the very bowels of Hell, as it has Donald Trump. It’s a full court press consisting of big governments types from both political parties, the establishment press (all networks except Fox), Hollywood moguls such as Steven Spielberg, and the billionaire club notably: David Rockefeller, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this alliance, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another and destroy anyone who threatens this money and power flow, thus their warfare on Trump.

They are not all that concerned about the character of Trump—not even his disgusting video—as the character of Hillary, the one they do support, is far more flawed; nor do they particularly care about his sometimes hurtful comments. Bill Clinton is accused of having sexually assaulted women; even raping Juanita Broaddrick, while his wife used her power to punish his victims. As a defense attorney Hillary defended the rapist of a twelve-year-old child, even knowing the perpetrator was guilty, and we all saw the video of her laughing about her success in doing so. With a President Hillary the elite will stay in power so they use their power to minimize her many scandals and maximize Trump’s character flaws. It is as simple as this. They have even allowed her to garner perhaps $300 million after leaving broke from the Whitehouse. She is one of them.

So-called conservatives, like former president George H. Bush, plan to vote for so-called liberals (actually socialists) like Hillary Clinton in this election. Loyalty to this semi-secret combination is very strong.

Virtually all of these elites mentioned can be described as “globalists” or friendly to globalism, a term that emphasizes transferring power from nations to an international body such as the U.N. If successful the Constitution will not be the ruling document and the United States will not be a separate, independent, and sovereign nation. Such eventually spells the end of the United States and liberty as we know it. Even the phrase “open borders,” as used by Hillary (revealed in Wikileak’s October dump), calls for an “open border hemisphere,” implies the same.

What happened to political opposition to globalism? In fact, there never really was much after J.P. Morgan purchased the 25 largest newspapers in 1917 and personally placed an editor at each “paper to insure that all published information was in keeping with the new policy” determined by a new organization that he cofounded with John D. Rockefeller, The Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is the most powerful special interest group working for world government in the U.S. The New York Times, now leading the charge against Trump, was the most powerful newspaper purchased.

The financial elite have always had consensus on preserving their power and wealth and have always owned most of the mainstream media and both major political parties. The big government, big business, and big media forces that now wish to drop an atomic bomb on Trump because he is opposing them on free trade, open borders, and America first, each sacred to them, are exposing themselves as having always been on the same side. As with Hillary and George H. Bush, they always have had a private message that differed from their public message.

This is why there is so little difference in foreign policy between Democrat and Republican presidents. They get their advisors from the same Wall Street special interest group, The CFR. They all support extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 900 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. They all support international trade agreements that undermine the interests of our country and export jobs formerly held by Americans. Despite Republican opposition to open borders such was never effectively stopped when they were in power; the flood of illegals never ended. Finally, the establishment despises nationalism.

On domestic policy the elites all supported the bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers private Federal Reserve Bank, which they manage. Despite Republicans having the purse power they have allowed Barack Obama to double the national debt. None problem solve with the Constitution as first consideration. They all support problem solving on the federal or international level rather than the state level. Nor do they talk about limited government.

The establishment opposition to Trump certifies that he is not one of them. He will not be controlled by them, as have his predecessors from both parties. Nor will any special interest group control him. This may be the first time in 100 years that this is the case.

Now Trump has many “warts,” is not a particularly righteous man, is not politically polished or verbally refined and is sometimes offensive to those around him, but he still represents the best chance to break free from the 100-year-old elitist secret combination which now has a choke-hold on our government, the Constitution, and liberty itself. Certainly he has a much better chance of doing so than Barry Goldwater, the last presidential candidate that really tried. If he does not score a win this time there may not be another chance.
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

Trump Revolution More Profound than Realized

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

World’s most Powerful Flock to Annual Secret Meeting

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