1. Declaration of Independence: Your Right of Revolution
The Declaration of Independence: Your right of Revolution is a 23-minute video of the historical events leading to the necessity of revolution from Great Britain. It identifies “self-evident” truths that justify revolution. Five references to God, or a Supreme Being, as the author of these truths is made in the document. One defines the right of revolution as any time or place when such are not met. It began the philosophical revolution that climaxed thirteen years later with the Bill of Rights which added to the “self-evident” truths noted before. The Constitution cannot be fully understood separate from The Declaration of Independence. It is the first of 17 presentations collectively called “I Want to Be Free.”
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.
As Presidents Day and presidential primaries are upon us one might ponder whom would President George Washington support in the 2016 presidential election? The answer is found in his famous Farewell Address given Sept. 19, 1796, just prior to his leaving the presidency. In his usual stately manner as the father of this great nation he warned posterity of possible pitfalls that could undermine or destroy this great experiment in liberty. His warnings may well be timelier 218 years later as we near his birthday February 22.
In strong terms he asked that we avoid debt. He said: “As a very important source of strength and security cherish public credit… use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasion of expense… [Use the] time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
Today our national debt exceeds $19 trillion—the highest in our history–$9 trillion of which from the Obama Administration alone in seven years. Debt resolvement is the most serious issue of our country today, akin to national survival. Obviously neither party has taken Washington’s advice. Presently the debt per taxpayer is $158,902. We are spending our way into oblivion (See USDebtClock.org). This issue has not been vented in any of the presidential debates thus far. Rand Paul (now withdrawn from the race) sponsored a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, a necessary step in curbing runaway debt. Ted Cruz cosponsored it. Basically Democrats do not consider this a problem and most Republican candidates give but lip service to it.
Washington plead with the nation to keep religion and morality strong. He said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” The Founding Fathers never supported the notion of separation of religion and government—only the separation of an organization of religion from government. Basically both parties work for removal of religion from government but Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee (now withdrawn from the race) and Marco Rubio did work for the evangelical vote in Iowa.
Our first president also had advice with respect to how we should deal with foreign nations. He advised that our commercial policy “should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences…diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing.” This is a far cry from the bullying tactics we’ve too often employed the last 118 years. Today we have troops in over 32 nations deployed in over 900 bases.
But the warning about foreign aid was especially good. Washington basically told us that gift giving in foreign affairs is a good way to be universally hated. He said it placed us “in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.” Today there is hardly a nation in the world that does not have its hand out and when, after once giving, the amount is reduce or terminated we are hated all the more for it. Paul would fade it.
Washington warned against the origin of “combinations and associations” whose intent was to suppress the desires of the majority in favor of the minority. He called them artificial power factions. We call them special interest groups. What would he say upon learning that a third of the cabinet of every president since Herbert Hoover belonged to the semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations as does either the President or Vice President of every administration including Barack Obama’s? No candidate dares speak out against this organization by name, Ted Cruz gets closest, “the Washington Cartel.”
Such factions, he said, “May answer popular ends and become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government….” The antidote for this, Washington explained, was “to resist with care the spirit of innovation” upon basic constitutional principles or premises no matter how flowery, appealing or “specious the pretext.” President Barack Obama is the best example that we have had of “specious the pretext” and Donald Trump the second.
Washington worried about posterity not holding their elected officials strictly to the limits imposed by the Constitution. He knew many would seek to undermine that document by twisting it to give power they could not acquire without the distortion. Sound familiar? He said: “But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Today much of what the federal government does is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Ted Cruz is the “Washington Cartel’s” most hated presidential candidate because he is constitutionally based.
But freedom fighters are not likely to be popular, Washington continues: “Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.” One need not look far for the tools and dupes, they seem to characterize most of the presidential candidates from both parties. Are you voting for one of them or for a real constitutionalist.
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.
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.
The most important question with respect to the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by Oregon ranchers remains unanswered by the press covering the story. Why does the federal government own 52.6 percent of Oregon leaving them owning but 47.4 of themselves? It does not own New York or Virginia or Massachusetts. Those occupying the Refuge say that the state of Oregon rightfully owns the land and federal occupation is unconstitutional. The Bureau of Land Management clearly considers the property the federal governments. Who is right?
The problem isn’t Oregon’s alone the percentage of land owned by the government exceeds fifty percent in Alaska (98.5), Nevada (87.7), Idaho (63.8), and Utah (63.6). Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10). Government owns almost half of California (47.5 %). Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.
States wanting their confiscated land returned, so as to be on equal footing with 19 sister states who actually own their land, call their long-term bid to do so the Sage Brush Rebellion. Equality between states was established by giving them equal representation in the U.S. Senate, thus the assumption of the Founders was that property would follow. Without it they are not on equal footing and instead may be more servile to the federal government than states that own themselves. This could negatively affect our system of government known as federalism as states collectively serve as a check on federal overreach. This check is impaired when the federal government owns part or most of their land.
But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the states cited above although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.
Again, in the case of the Oregon ranchers occupying Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Oregon State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally the Oregon ranchers have more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management. Still, the rancher stand is not practical given our long-term departure from the document and to get back to the Constitution some may do jail time, as have others like Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom has never been cheap.
Having someone willing to stand, although in no way do I support forcibly taking over the Refuge, Sage Brush Rebellion states now have the opportunity to seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. The event should, however, start a healthy national conversation and resolution should process through the state legislatures. If states now stand together resolution in their favor is more probable than ever.
One suggestion is for Oregon Governor Kate Brown to declare the contested land under state jurisdiction until the Oregon State Legislature has time to weigh in. Taking back this infinitesimal amount of the whole that is claimed by the federal government will set the stage for more acquisitions by other states later. The governor would become an instant hero in the western states. This solution would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs. Why do citizens have to make the case, which should be made by a state? The governor would give strength to two objectives—returning fraudulently acquired land to the states and getting back to the Constitution.
