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.
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.
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
There exists some confusion as to what is the establishment, more so in the 2016 election than at any time before. Republican presidential contenders are divided into two groups, those who are said to be a part of the establishment and those who are not. For the general Republican population the distinction is simple. They keep electing more Republicans to undo the blunders of primarily the Barack Obama administration but nothing changes. They had a long list of things that should have been corrected as Republicans retook, first the House of Representatives and then the U.S. Senate, but weren’t.
The Republican base felt betrayed and career politicians, justly blamed, became toxic to voters. This is why Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee, all past or present governors, have not been able to get traction despite vastly outspending those not considered the establishment. They are viewed as the problem.
Immediately outsiders, those said not to be the establishment, skyrocketed in the polls, notably Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, each a Tea Party sponsored first term U.S. Senator, did not escape the blame game. Only one of these, Ted Cruz, was able to survive and rise because the establishment hated him even more than Trump and he was seen by the Republican base as having stayed loyal to his campaign promises. Rubio was seen as having sold his soul to the establishment and Democrats on immigration as a member of the so-called “gang of eight” and thereafter could not be trusted. Polls soon showed Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, collectively holding almost 60% of the expected voters, as they were seen as the most believable and likely to make the changes demanded by the Republican base. Carson and Carly Fiorina (also an outsider) began to fade.
But longevity in public office is not the real definition of the establishment and scholars, and those well connected politically, understand this very well. The establishment is content to let the definition as described above remain in place as it deflects the angry population from them as being most responsible for selecting our presidents.
The real 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. This is where the term “establishment media” originates. They only cover two of the more than 20 political parties in existence in any presidential election, many of which offer presidential candidates. Informed voters must get the names of other party candidates from the Federal Election Commission directly. In every presidential election I provide this list to my students and will do so this November for my column readers. The establishment picks winners and losers long before public exposure and guide them through the election process to victory by the money and exposure they allocate.
They have been the most powerful force in elections since Mark Hanna financed William McKinley for president 120 years ago. Payback for them is their ability to guide the nation as they see the need, immunity from any negative influences on their financial empires, and market favoritism should they need it. Benefits include being well connected and the largely secret power that they hold over the government and their crowned candidate.
The crowned Democratic candidate is Hillary Clinton and has been since 2008. For the Republicans it has been Jeb Bush for the last three years. Millions went into his coffers. Both the establishment and Bush were shocked when Trump entered the race and Bush could not ignite a movement for the reasons cited above. He spent millions to change this. Nobody in recent presidential elections has spent the kind of money this early as he. Nobody is more establishment than Bush and Clinton.
By early November the moneyed establishment abandoned Bush and coroneted Marco Rubio. He too flooded the airways with millions in attack ads to raise his poll numbers and has, thus far, placed himself in third position. Still, Trump dwarfs his numbers and the establishment knew that they had to destroy Trump. Virtually everything was tried and failed. They conceded that, barring a major misstep by Trump, one of two men Trump or Cruz (neither owned by them), was going to be the next president.
The establishment hates Trump but they despise Cruz. But there is a big difference Trump, although formerly not a team player for them, and a bit of a rogue, could be counted on to make deals to get things done, Cruz could not. For the first time in a century they would have to work with someone not fully in their camp. But Trump is of the wealthy class so some of their goals he could be counted on to support.
By mid January 2016, Trump was publicly noting that the establishment was beginning to like him. They had to have loved his unmerciful attacks on Cruz prior to the Iowa primary. The former friendship between the two collapsed overnight. Cruz noticed the new alliance and began speaking of it as well.
I suppose that either definition of the establishment has its place but the general one will be short termed. Unless more voters pay attention to the moneyed establishment, and it is curbed in its power to control elections, it will be doing so again within eight years.
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Liberty Under Fire has examined the candidates for president as to their intention to give first consideration in problem solving to the Constitution. Many of the problems now facing this nation and the expensive, time-consuming lawsuits to bring the Barack Obama administration in line with it, are due to his not following the Constitution. Our current constitutional crisis is more serious than any other concern, including ISIS.
Our readers in Iowa and New Hampshire, who will be expressing themselves very soon in the first two presidential primaries, should know that defending the Constitution must be first priority in this Presidential election. Constitutional integrity will solve our problems very nicely. Another four years without such may leave the Constitution so defiled as to not be recoverable.
To our many Democrat friends, your party has provided much historical strength especially in upholding Amendments 1, 4, 5, and 8 of the Bill of Rights. In the 20th Century your greatest contribution was in extending equality to blacks. Today most blacks support your party in appreciation. But in four Democratic sponsored presidential debates not one of your candidates (Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley) even spoke of our present constitutional crisis. Not one of them gave any indication that it would be considered in problem solving. Indeed, more taxes and more government—even government by decree—was always their remedy.
Unfortunately, the Republican solution to problem solving is only mildly better. They too problem solve with high taxes and unlimited government. They too abandoned the concepts of a republic and federalism years ago. They too pay no attention to the list of appropriate areas of legislation in Article I, Section 8 and Amendments 9 and 10 that gives all power not identified in the Constitution to the states. Republican presidents too, with their executive orders, usurp the powers of Congress as the only lawmaking body. A President Trump’s executive orders would differ from a President Hillary Clinton’s only in that his would be “good ones rather than bad ones,” as Trump explained.
On Second Amendment issues all the Republicans candidates are better than any of the Democratic candidates. Remember, Amendments cannot constitutionally be changed by warping its original meaning or by any law made by Congress or by executive order. If it needs to be changed that can only happen by another amendment and that requires 3/4th of the states to approve as per Article V.
On abortion issues Carly Fiorina has the most constitutional response, it should be returned to the states. There exists no language in the Constitution giving the practice national authority and as such constitutionally falls under the 10th Amendment. Ted Cruz, however, has the most actual experience in court with respect to preserving constitutional integrity on the subject. All others say that they are pro-life but would use national power to enforce that view.
With respect to the management of our currency, constitutionally given only to Congress with no authority for them to hand it off to the banking elite who most benefit by its management, most republican candidates are critical but in favor of the Federal Reserve. Only Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio demand that the books be opened to Congress, Cruz and Rubio cosponsoring Paul’s legislation to do just this.
There exists no constitutional language whatever giving the federal government any say in health issues. As such it is a state issue as per Amendment 10. All Republican presidential candidates say that they oppose Obamacare but what they would do about it as president differs. Least likely to do anything about it is Jeb Bush. Most likely to work to have it totally repealed is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Trump and Rubio would repeal and replace. Replace means a Republican version of the same thing, which would be just as unconstitutional as that of Obama’s healthcare.
Candidates most likely to reverse Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty order are Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Candidates least likely to do so are Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie. Only Cruz and Trump have the correct constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment dealing with immigration.
On the Trans- Pacific Partnership Treaty most Republican Presidential candidates are in favor with Marco Rubio referring to it as being “a pillar of his presidency.”
Trump calls it as a “disaster” and “pathetic.” Rand Paul opposes it because it was done in secret and was unavailable to the people. Only Ted Cruz talks about opposition to it on constitutional grounds.
With respect to 4th Amendment issues of privacy and NSA surveillance on Americans, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz each sponsored legislation in opposition to it or limiting of its practice. Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee think spying on our own citizens without a warrant is unconstitutional. Others support or at least do not voice opposition to the practice.
In these instances, and many more, the presidential candidate presently defending the Constitution, and most likely to use the Constitution in problem solving as president, is clearly Ted Cruz, with Rand Paul a close second. Least likely include Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Marco Rubio.
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The establishment media is baffled. They have influenced presidential elections since Woodrow Wilson by how they cover candidates—even more so with the advent of television. First, by limiting coverage to but two political parties of normally many offering presidential candidates in every contest. Essentially, if they do not give coverage you or your party does not exist. Second, the media shows preference by time given, comments supporting or not, questions asked or not, and placement in debates (whomever gets coveted center stage automatically gets more spotlight coverage) and etc. The first election is always the medias as they alone define serious candidates.
Collectively the establishment media has attempted to show Donald Trump as, a joke—certainly not a serious candidate, not a real conservative, a flip-flopper on the issues, anti-women, anti-immigration, insulting to everyone, a braggart, only into himself, least likely to beat Hillary Clinton, only attractive to white males, and not in touch with reality with respect to the Middle East, and more. They may be correct in some or all of these assumptions, and the constant barrage of but a third of these charges would have easily destroyed previous candidates. So why not Trump?
The establishment (sometimes prefaced by money or eastern) is likewise baffled. For over a hundred years, since William McKinley they, with the help of the media that they largely own, have propelled into power politicians sympathetic to their interests in both parties so that their interests get attention no matter which of their two political parties, Democrat or Republican, gets elected. Control of foreign policy is never out of their hands.
They oppose nationalism favoring coalition governance. Problem solving is much preferred on the world level, as in the UN, or in regional governments, NATO, the European Union and eventually the American Union. They push for international trade agreements that reduce U.S. sovereignty (NAFT, GATT, and most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership). Perpetual war feeds the “Industrial Military Complex” President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us to avoid. They benefit from increased power and money. They universally oppose an audit of the Federal Reserve, which they have controlled since 1913, and their support for foreign aid has never faltered, regardless of which party is in power. They destroy anyone not supportive of these things. So again, why not Trump?
The answer to why not Trump is almost too obvious. In the items mentioned above both parties look too much alike. Most Americans know that something is wrong—really wrong. Today Independents, those refusing to align Democrat or Republican, is about 40%, stronger than either party. Most Americans feel lied to by both parties and the media. Presidents from either party are strongly disliked by the time they finish their second term. The people feel deceived when they elect politicians to restore the Constitution and the economy and these same politicians appeared to join the other side as soon as they arrived in Washington D.C. Many have wondered the value of their vote outside “the lesser of two evils” philosophy.
Enter Donald Trump who mostly says what others were afraid to say, beginning with illegal immigration. Our Mexican friends have indeed invaded our country and taken, not just the jobs Americans did not want, but the ones that they do want as well. They have entered every field and their illegal children, being bilingual, are now favored in most other jobs. When a politician says that he will build a fence to help preserve their jobs almost no one believes him. Trump is a builder, has built magnificent structures, and is believed.
Simply put the media, the establishment, and the political parties have lost their credibility. The more the establishment or media gang up on Trump the more his following grows. He even tells off the media. His bravado is even somewhat refreshing from the Bush’s, Clinton’s, Boehner’s and McConnell’s. To return to yet another Bush, even though he is loaded with establishment money and has placed more television ads with that money than all others of both parties put together, is not going to happen. Nor is it likely for others favored by the establishment like Chris Christie, or John Kasich. The establishment has recently switched from Jeb Bush to Marco Rubio but even he, having run the second most number of television ads, has not gained the trust and traction equal to the money spent.
The establishment opposition to Trump certifies another factor in his favor. He is not one of them. He will not be control by them, as have his predecessors from both parties. Nor will any special interest group control him, as he takes no money from them. This may be the first time in 120 years that this is the case. Only the Constitution should guide and restrain him—not the moneyed establishment.
This brings up another factor in his favor, also not mentioned by the press. Most Americans believe that the economy is on a crash course. No country can long endure when more money is spent than taken in. No candidate understands the economy better than Trump having worked successfully with it for decades. He has the most incentive to get it back to a sound base than any other candidate, or even you or I; we lose hundreds when it goes, he loses billions.
The Trump phenomenon is essentially a rebellion against the media and the establishment by a population tired of being manipulated every four years into staying with the same failed internationalist foreign policy presented by establishment candidates of both parties.
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Thank goodness for traditional Democrats with wisdom and experience from a previous trade deal that badly hurt the American worker. They are, for the second time in a generation, opposing their own president for selling them out.
Three weeks ago Democratic lawmakers joined union leaders and hundreds of other Democrats in a rally on Capitol Hill to express their outrage with the request of President Barack Obama, to extend fast-track status to what is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All speakers were angry, one referring to the White House, “We don’t trust you.” Rep. Alan Grayson called the Administration a “sellout government,” and suggested that it did not seem to matter “who’s in charge, Democrats or Republicans.” He wanted to “take back our government from the political acrobats and the corporate aristocrats.” The crowd cheered. Still others wanted to know what Obama was hiding in the 27 chapter agreement between the Pacific Rim countries, reportedly only five having anything to do with trade itself, since they were asked to approve fast track-status, basically an up or down vote without changes, and without being able to read it. Senator Elizabeth Warren yelled “No more secret trade deals!” And, “No more special deals for multinational corporations!!” Again, these are Democrats accusing Obama of selling them out.
Traditional Democrats feel that they are watching the same movie as provided by President Bill Clinton when he shoved the over 3,755 page North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (two volume copy of treaty and supporting documentation in my possession) down their throats, similarly on a fast-track approval process, some twenty-two years ago with precisely the same arguments, that it would expand American jobs. It didn’t!! They were then; as now, overwhelmingly opposed to it, but he was their president so enough supported him to get the deal through. Most democrats with union membership understandably felt betrayed.
The process then and now is the up or down vote without debate and a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress—a process not in the Constitution. Constitutionally the House of Representatives has no treaty-making function. Solely the Senate possesses this power. Clinton, realizing that he could not get a two-thirds vote for treaty confirmation in the Senate as required, purposely used the word agreement rather than treaty, thus treating it as a law, which then required only a simple majority of both houses of Congress for confirmation. He used the same unconstitutional technique on his second major treaty of his two terms in office, GATT—General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Obama seeks the same unconstitutional process for his treaty; presenting it to both houses for a simple majority rather than to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally required. If not stopped now this will be the trend for future presidents as well. No member of Congress should participate in this constitutional distortion or ever vote affirmatively on any measure that they have not fully read and been thoroughly vetted with colleagues and the public.
Even Obama in 2009, seeking union votes in Ohio, described NAFTA as having been devastating to the working class. He claimed in the Bloomberg News that it had cost 1 million American jobs and led to “entire cities” being “devastated.” Yet it is he that now betrays his base support as had Clinton in 1993, the father of NAFTA.
Last week Democrats courageously prevented an affirmative vote for the hated fast-tracked secret treaty but enough were swayed by personal phone calls from the President to get committee passage. In the Senate it now goes to the full body.
The Republican base is generally supportive minus the Tea Party contingent. Patriots worry not only over the loss of American jobs that will result, but also about expanded corporate international control of every person on earth (formerly referred to as world government). They also view corporate management of the economy as not the free market and they have problems with the distortions to the Constitution to achieve it. They are also troubled by the secrecy surrounding the whole agreement. Secrecy and liberty are rarely compatible.
Thus far Senator Rand Paul is the only prominent presidential candidate from either major party expressing the belief that the treaty should be made public immediately before any vote is taken on it. At present Senators are only allowed to read the 800-page document (probably treaty only without supporting documentation) in a room with signs on the door, “No Public Or Media Beyond This Point.” No private copies are allowed to Senators and they are not to disclose its contents—thus the charge secret agreement. Paul plans to oppose it but his Kentucky counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, promises to run it through as quickly as possible. We soon will know the position of the remaining presidential contenders. Freedom advocates are advised to reject from further office any member voting for fast-tract consideration or any measure without full disclosure, public vetting, and congressional debate.
Again, thanks to the Democratic Party faithful that have been bold enough to resist the intrigues of their own president to abandon the American worker and instead to protect him. Hopefully constitutionalist will join them in their efforts. It will take more than party to reclaim our liberties and our jobs.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.