Select Page

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Ted Cruz also to take Establishment Advice

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

No one is informed enough to do it all. “So tell us who will tell you what to do.” Ted Cruz did just this March 17, submitting a list of 23 persons as his national security team to advise him giving some preference to Elliott Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State, Andrew McCarthy, former U. S. Attorney, and Jim Talent, former Missouri Senator. Problem is, Elliott Abrams is a Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a high profile position in the organization, and is as “establishment” as it is possible to be. Insider Elliott Abrams was an assistant secretary of state to Ronald Reagan and a deputy national security advisor to George W. Bush. So much for Cruz not using the “Washington Cartel.”

Cruz went on to announce the rest of his team, 20 others to advise him, two of which, Stewart R. Baker and Michael Pillsbury, are also Council on Foreign Relations members. Baker served as assistant secretary for policy at Department of Human Services and as general counsel of NSA. Pillsbury was a Reagan campaign advisor in 1980 and served as assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning. He is also author of three books on China.

Cruz said of the 23 proposed advisors, three of which are CFR members (13%), “I am honored and humbled to have a range of respected voices willing to offer their best advice. These are trusted friends who will form a core of our broader national security team.”

All this after Donald Trump admitted two weeks previously that he too had selected the most establishment group in America to advise him. It appears now that all three of those who would advise him, Richard Haass, John M. “Jack” Keane and Jack Howard Jacobs are CFR members. Insider Haass has been CFR president the past 13 years. Trump did release five additional names on March 21, of which only Carter Page is CFR.

Thus far Trump’s CFR advisors are four of eight or 50%, with the organization president involved personally. So far the establishment group least influences Cruz at 13%, all specializing in foreign policy. Hillary Clinton’s long standing affection for the organization, and her husband and daughter’s membership in, plus her previously stated admission of having Haass as a key adviser as Secretary of State, show us that the “establishment” would retain strong influence in her administration. None of these candidates are non-establishment.

Notable political scientist Lester Milbraith observed in his work Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, page 247, that “the influence of the CFR throughout government is so pervasive that it is difficult to distinguish the CFR from government programs.” Prominent political scientist Thomas R. Dye in his textbook Who’s Running America? The Bush Restoration, page 188, wrote “The history of CFR policy accomplishments is dazzling” then traced in detail their dominating role in foreign policy accomplishment from the 1920’s through the George Bush Administration from their own boasts of success in Council on Foreign Relations Annual Reports.

I have told my students for over 30 years that the next UN Ambassador, Secretary of State, Ambassadors to both Russia and China will be from this organization, as will a third of his/her cabinet. Not might be!! Will be!! Also no one gets to be president without CFR approval. No exception!! We get to choose which one of their approved party finalists we want, but the first election is theirs. I make the same prediction today for whoever replaces Barack Obama as president.

Such has been the case since its Wall Street creators J.P. Morgan, Colonel Edward M. House, Elihu Root and other internationalists in 1921, founded the Council on Foreign Relations. It is the special interest group of Wall Street, supported by grants from the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford foundations. Its journal, Foreign Affairs, is “considered throughout the world to be the unofficial mouthpiece of U.S. foreign policy. Few important initiatives in U.S. policy have not been first outlined in articles in this publication,” says political scientist Thomas R. Dye.

So why support a Cruz presidency if he too has establishment influence? He is the only presidential candidate in this election year cycle that has publicly condemned the CFR. He recently called it “a pit of vipers” and a “pernicious nest of snakes.”

It might be useful to compare his CFR influence (13%) against that of 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney whose 20 person pre-election advisory list, more than half of whom, eleven to be exact, were members of the elite, semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations—the most establishment organization in American history. For decades the CFR has been the special interest group, “think tank” if you prefer, that provides a majority of the “experts” in every administration, Democrat or Republican. It is our shadow government.

Perhaps we have reached the time when the cancer cannot be fully removed from the body and Cruz is attempting to minimize the “pit of vipers” as much as is possible. Certainly the CFR is most passionate about foreign policy than any other policy area. Cruz may see flexibility in the other areas if he gives on this one. Two factors remain in his favor. The dislike between he and the establishment is real and he remains the most likely to problem solve with the Constitution.

Trump is with the Establishment After all

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

I am so sorry to have to report that Trump is with the establishment after all. What I share below may be evidence of one of the biggest con games on the American people in decades. The anger against the establishment is real and voting in virtually every state whether for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders clearly demonstrates that a revolution from the establishment is under way. But what if one of the biggest leaders of this revolution against is, in fact, an establishment candidate? Remember, it is the establishment’s press that says Trump is non-establishment and has given him many times more press than anyone else.

Trump skirted the question as to who would be his key advisers as president once before by saying that he would select the best minds. In the March 3rd Presidential Debate he was asked by Chris Wallace, “Who are the best people?” “Can you reveal two or three names for national security?” Trump answered, “I think Richard Haas is excellent.” “I have a lot of respect for him.” “General Kane is excellent.” “I like Colonel Jacobs very much.” “I see him.” “I know him.”

Richard Haass is in his thirteenth year as president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He is also a member of the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission, two other groups long accused of working for globalization (code for world government). No one in America is more establishment than he and his organization, and he is the first name on the lips of Donald Trump as an advisor. The CFR has been the most powerful special interest group in the media and politics for the last 90 years. It is the establishment!

Ironically Richard Haass is the same advisor to Hillary Clinton who, while Secretary of State speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, then dedicating a branch CFR sub-center in Washington D. C., said. “Thank you very much Richard. I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Notice that she was on a first name basis with Richard Haass and admits having been guided over the years by him. More recently she has addressed the CFR in New York City on January 19, 2015, and November 19, 2015. Hillary is also a Bilderberger as is Bill Clinton but he adds the Trilateral Commission to his list of globalist organizations. Daughter Chelsea is also CFR.

General Kane, presumably retired Major General Robert C. Kane, Trump’s second named advisor, has considerable Iraqi War experience and as such should be a strong source of advice. He is not presently listed on the CFR membership list but could be among many, including Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, whom have a warm relationship with the “mother ship” of the establishment without published membership.

Colonel Jacobs, presumably Colonel Jack Howard Jacobs, now retired, recipient of the Medal of Honor for bravery in the Vietnam War, was Trump’s third identified source of advisement. He currently serves as a military analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. Jack H. Jacobs, is a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member.

For those unacquainted with the nearly 100 year old Council on Foreign Relations centered in New York City, it has provided virtually all our Secretaries of State, UN ambassadors, ambassadors to Russia and China and at least a third of all cabinet members of all presidents, whether Democrat or Republican, since its inception in 1921. The establishment press is largely their press. The CFR has never denied this influence and, in fact, boast of it.

Longtime CFR chairman, and now chairman emeritus of the organization, David Rockefeller, in his 2002 book, Memoirs, admitted. “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum… attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a of a secret cabal working against the best interest of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

As indicated in other recent columns the establishment Republican choices of Chris Christie, then Jeb Bush, then Marco Rubio (all rejected by the voters) were whom they much preferred. To them Trump is a “bull in a china closet,” but still a deal maker, a compromiser that will listen to them. The Trump list of three to advise him, two of whom are CFR members, one the CFR Chairman, reveals that if he is elected they remain in charge and the American voter, totally betrayed, will believe that the establishment has been eliminated from control over the process. Ted Cruz who calls them a “pit of vipers” is totally unacceptable to them and thus is the only Republican choice left that removes them from power.

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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Only Sanders, Cruz, Carson and Trump are Establishment Clean

By Harold W. Pease

Formally we have identified what is the “real” establishment. It has nothing to do with longevity in elected office, as portrayed by the establishment media, and everything to do with Wall Street connections. It is rooted in the international banking fraternity, powerful multinational corporations and media elites. Those who have been bold enough to identify it publically fear to be more specific preferring to use generic names, the eastern establishment, money trust, and Washington cartel. Their most visible and largest organization is the 97-year old Council on Foreign Relations. These people have power.

President Woodrow Wilson in his book, The New Freedom (1913), wrote of his experience with this hidden force. He wrote: “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

A subject of great student interest in my classes has been Special Interest Politics. Over the years the voices identifying this hidden power have been many. Perhaps the most prominent of these emanated from presidential candidates Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul.

Probably the most descriptive voice came from Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State. Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, then dedicating a branch CFR sub-center in Washington D. C., she said. “I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” More recently she has addressed the CFR in New York City on January 19, 2015, and November 19, 2015.

Hillary is the only Democrat presidential candidate presently supported by the establishment. She has membership with other establishment organizations, in particular, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers. Indeed, there exists no person more establishment than she, yet when asked recently if she was a part of the establishment she answered; “I don’t know what the establishment means.” There exists no evidence that her Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, is a part of the establishment.

Like Hillary, Jeb Bush was the crowned Republican candidate years before. We were to get the same two establishment approved presidential candidates as offered in every election for most of 100 years. Both political parties belong to the establishment. We were to elect one of their guys as before and believe that this was our choice. All other choices were to gradually be eliminated. The establishment press covers no other political party, of which there always exist at least 20 in every presidential election. It was as simple as that except that the Democrats do not want Hillary Clinton and the Republicans do not want another Bush. Over $100 million dollars was used up to entice us to him, to no avail. Jeb appeared to the CFR again January 19, 2016 but could not get additional traction.

The establishment left Bush in early November favoring a new candidate Marco Rubio now pouring millions into his coffers. Rubio had spoken at CFR headquarters May 13, 2015. This explains why two previous friends turned on each other so viciously in December. Bush did not like being replaced as “heir apparent” and Marco had to attempt to destroy his former friend to take his place. Still, Marco Rubio was not rising fast enough to stop the two candidates most hated by the establishment, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Governors Chris Christy and John Kasich also know that the first election in this country is always the establishments. They each made their bid to, “the mother ship” as Hillary called it, Christy November 24, 2015 and Kasich December 9, 2015. I might add that no one speaks at CFR meetings unless favored and invited. When asked if he were a part of the establishment, John Kasich answered, “I can get along with the establishment but I am not part of it.”

For the Republican presidential candidates still in the race only Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump are establishment clean. Ben Carson they can ease out by giving minimal coverage. Ted Cruz is by far the most hated. He recently called the CFR “a pit of vipers” and a “pernicious nest of snakes.” Long time CFR member Rudy Giuliani probably best expressed how the establishment feels about both. Ted Cruz is “Too ridged, too right wing, not tarred by the long connection with the Republican Party.” His favorites in order were Christy, Bush and Rubio. But “Donald’s been a friend for 25 years.”

Therein lies the situation. If no establishment candidate can get traction they could hold their nose and settle on Trump because he is not “too ridged,” meaning constitutional, “he has been a friend,” and he could be expected to negotiate with them. But there is no way that they are going to let Cruz near “THEIR” White House. Yet this is the best chance in my lifetime, perhaps ever, to remove the “pit of vipers” and return truly free elections to this country.

The Semi-Secret Establishment Rejected—for the Moment

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Americans feel deceived and betrayed by the establishment in virtually every election. Thus far the establishment is toxic in the 2016 presidential election. In the Iowa Caucus non-establishment Republican candidates garnered a total of 68% (Caucus victor Ted Cruz 28%, Donald Trump 24%, and Ben Carson 9%, Rand Paul 5% and Carli Fiorina 2%). Democrats are flocking to Bernie Sanders 50% from long-term establishment candidate Hillary Clinton with whom he shared a tie in Iowa.

The more secret establishment is the moneyed elite capable of bringing to candidates the millions of dollars that are needed to win. They are in both political parties and they own the major media outlets. Thus their influence over presidential candidates for over a hundred years is never really covered, but all candidates know of their influence and power. No candidate for president gets to office without their approval.

All presidents from Herbert Hoover on have either been members of, or had a close relationship with, the Council on Foreign Relations (hereafter referred to as CFR) in New York City. This is the semi-secret establishment. When a president is not a member himself, his vice president is. Today Barack Obama, although supported by the CFR isn’t on their published membership list, but Joe Biden is. Since the late 1920’s virtually all of our secretaries of state, United Nations ambassadors, and ambassadors to Russia and China have been members of this Wall Street special interest group. Moreover, CFR members largely fill the majority of presidential cabinets.

No special interest group has had more impact than the CFR over foreign policy the last 100 years, leading many to question if we have but one political party in the United States with two arms. Indeed, until the last couple of years many saw no significant difference in foreign policy between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Nor was there between George Bush and Bill Clinton. CFR supported Barack Obama, probably the most anti-war candidate in a couple of decades, and so condemnatory of his predecessor in this area, as president not only continued the Bush wars but added Libya and central Africa to the list while sponsoring drone killings (acts of war) in Pakistan, Syria, and Somali. Outside his obvious fondness for the Islamic religion and failure to protect America from radical Islamic terrorism—even refusing to call it the enemy—history will view him as having been primarily pro-war.

This is why there is so little difference in foreign policy between Democrat and Republican presidents. They get their advisers from the same Wall Street special interest group. 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 enhance the power of the United Nations and export jobs formerly held by Americans. On domestic policy they all supported the bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers private Federal Reserve Bank. None talk about returning a third of the United States (sometimes called government land) to the states from which it was taken. None problem solve with the Constitution as first consideration. Nor do they talk about limited government. They all support problem solving on the federal or international level rather than the state level.

Notable political scientist Lester Milbraith observed in his work Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, p. 247, that “the influence of the CFR throughout government is so pervasive that it is difficult to distinguish the CFR from government programs.” Prominent political scientist Thomas R. Dye in his textbook Who’s Running America? The Bush Restoration, p. 188, wrote, “The history of CFR policy accomplishments is dazzling” then traced in detail their dominating role in foreign policy accomplishment from the 1920’s through the George Bush Administration from their own boasts of success in Council on Foreign Relations Annual Reports.

What is wrong with this mostly “secret society?” In 1954, The Reece Congressional Committee noted that its productions “are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalism concept.” How powerful was it by the time Congress first discovered its influence? It had come, they wrote, “to be in essence an agency of the United States government, no doubt carrying its internationalist bias with it” (Pp. 176-177).

Politics appears to be divided between two warring ideologies liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, but because of the same-shared source of direction and pool of advisers, it is hard to believe that at the top we are really divided at all. Presidents have far more commonality and bipartisanship than has been portrayed in the establishment’s own media.

Again, the principle organization of the moneyed establishment, the CFR, is deeply embedded in both political parties and they own the major media outlets, which denies coverage to competing political parties and elevates “their” sympathetic candidates through the nominating process of each party. Americans then get to choose which of their two approved candidates they prefer. It may be the greatest show in America. We call it a free election but the options they manage. For a hundred years no candidate for president obtained office without CFR approval. For the moment their power seems to be rejected—for the moment.