Jan 4, 2012 | Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
The day before the Iowa primary the Des Moines Register reported that 41% of Iowans still remained undecided with respect to their choice for president which strongly indicates that no one has yet “touched” a majority of the Republican Party—far from it! Nor did Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum together, each with 25% of the vote, capture even a simple majority. Third place went to Ron Paul with 22%, who was short only 4,000 votes from taking first place. So, it appears the Republicans are not enthused by anyone. This aside, let us look at the race from another perspective, what I call the negative index. Who was the most negatively targeted presidential candidate, but still had good numbers, perhaps the “real” winner?
To the question, “Who is least likely to win the Republican Party nomination and defeat President Barack Obama? The answer was, and is, always Congressman Ron Paul. “Ron Paul is OK but he is not electable.” Who said so! Virtually every radio or television commentator or pundit from MSNBC to Fox News has so said. The chorus includes virtually every columnist and major newspaper in the country as well. Probably no presidential candidate in our history has had more organized opposition. Whether you like Ron Paul or not the fact remains that despite the intensity of this opposition, over one in five Iowans voted for him. Moreover, a vast majority of the funding from Super PACs was targeted against Paul and Newt Gingrich. Newt tumbled to fourth place and Paul to third but one wonders what might have happened if Romney or Santorum had received similar negative—even hostile—coverage.
As a presidential candidate four years ago Paul was treated dismissively, ignored or undermined. Such is still so, supporters maintain, but his ranks increased and showed themselves to be exceptionally loyal none-the-less and less tolerant of this treatment. Still victories, like coming in second to Michele Bachmann by less than a hundred votes in the Iowa Straw Vote several months ago, were ignored by the establishment press. More recently others noticed that he received only 90 seconds out of an hour and a half debate several weeks ago and began to ask why. Such slights were subtle but numerous. Prior to the Caucus it was indeed difficult to find any favorable commentary by any major news source outside Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Channel.
Recently when polls showed the possibility of a Ron Paul victory in Iowa fellow candidates and political pundits collectively intensified their negative treatment, all accused him of being out of step with Republican foreign policy. One commentator went so far as to say that if Paul won the Iowa Caucus, the Caucus should not be treated as seriously in the future. Newt Gingrich took time to call Ron Paul “a dangerous man” in a speech attempting to explain his poor showing of only 13% in the Caucus, nine percentage points under that of Paul.
Why the almost universal opposition? Perhaps in part it comes from the Council on Foreign Relations, the most influential special interest group in the United States. It’s magazine Foreign Affairs, advertised as “the most influential periodical in print,” is considered direction for its over 2100 members and thousands more readers. What suggestions are published in this publication become U.S. foreign policy. The April 2011 edition housed an article “The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism” an article essentially defining The Tea Party movement as dangerous and a threat to world governance. In that article it acknowledged having to deal with the movement but concluded that, at the time it had two arms, one represented by Sara Palin, the other by Ron Paul. Of the two they felt that the “Palinites” could be molded properly in foreign policy, which they dominate regardless of which party comes to power, but under the “Paulites” they would have no voice thus he had to be resisted at all costs. In other words, they could not control Ron Paul. With a majority of the key media players being CFR members and falling in line, opposition to Presidential Candidate Paul is more understandable.
Whether one loves or hates Paul, probably no presidential candidate in our history has had more long term organized opposition than he and with such he still was able to garner 22% of the Iowa vote with no one receiving more than 3 percentage points higher than he. Given the negative index it is amazing that he is still a viable candidate (probably anyone else would have been crushed into nonexistence) and perhaps with such opposition factored in, the actual winner of the Iowa Caucus.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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.
Nov 12, 2011 | Economy, Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Some protesters say the Occupy Wall Street mother city should move to Oakland, California as the New York branch has not shown the “stomach” needed for the more violent form of confrontation necessary for “real” change and the weather is better for maintaining the movement through the winter months. Others say that a move to Washington D. C. is critical as the Congress is the only real agent of change, and Occupy should assemble, like everybody else, in front of the capital, as did the Tea Party with their million July 4th 2010. “President Obama, Can you hear us now?” repeated three times with added emphasis each time.
But those who study special interest groups know that Occupy Wall Street needs to stay right where it is, as within blocks of Zuccotti Park, where they are assembled, is the most powerful special interest group in the United States. Unbeknown to the protesters, they are located near the nerve center of U.S. foreign policy. Important visitors to the U.S. usually make at least two scheduled visits while in the United States, one to 58 East 68th Street, New York City, the other to the White House. Yes, this one organization (which I will not identify just yet) provides at least a third of all cabinet members and the Secretary of State of every administration since the 1930s. It has, and always will, until known more fully to the American people for its vast influence over both major political parties, provided all ambassadors to Russia, China and the United Nations as well. Its members fill most of the seats on the Federal Reserve Board, from whom most of our fiscal policy is determined.
My Occupy friends, you have the power to bring attention and exposure to this semi- secret governance. You already want an audit of the Federal Reserve, and these members come from the organization just down the street. This organization in question cares nothing about you or your causes, and they are more responsible for your anger than any other single organization. Can you at least schedule a march to the address cited above and have discussion about this influence in your meetings? In your attempt to occupy colleges and cities throughout the land, would you please check out the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), not just from its sources, which you would expect to be favorable, but from the very numerous other sources fully documenting the power they hold over our media and government?
Start with conclusions three and four of the three-year, 1954 Reece Congressional Committee Report issued by the House of Representatives that identified the CFR as the special interest group of large foundations, specifically the Carnage Endowment, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rhodes Scholarship Trust (p. 169 and p. 176). “The power of the individual large foundation,” they wrote, was “enormous.” “It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them elements of thought control. It can exert immense influence on educational institutions, upon the educational processes, and upon educators. It is capable of invisible coercion through the power of its purse. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts and courses of action through the process of granting and withholding foundation awards upon a selective basis, and by designing and promulgating projects which propel researchers in selected directions.”
After noting the power of just one large foundation such as those cited above, the House report continued, “This power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in the social sciences and education… It has ramifications in almost every phase of research and education, in communications and even in government” (p. 16).
They noted that the productions, of what has become Wall Street’s special interest group, the Council on Foreign Relations, “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).
So my young friends, consider the possibility that you might just be a ploy to help these folks further some globalistic objective—perhaps the collapse of the economy in preparation for some world currency more easily managed by them. Extreme? Perhaps! But you are good at thinking out of the box so don’t move your headquarter and do make a visit just down the street to the real source of your concerns.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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.
Nov 4, 2011 | Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
In October Presidential contender Mitt Romney released the 20 names of those he had selected to advise him in foreign policy and national security matters, more than half of whom, eleven to be exact, are members of the elite, semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations. It isn’t that most of these persons are not qualified to advise, nor is it that very few of the twenty can be said to be conservative, even in a stretch, but it is the fact that for decades the CFR has been the special interest group, Think Tank if you prefer, that provided a majority of the “experts” in every administration, Democrat or Republican.
No special interest group has had more impact than the CFR over foreign policy in the 20th Century, leading many to question if we have but one political party in the United States with two arms. Indeed, many see no significant difference in foreign policy between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Nor was there between George Bush and Bill Clinton. CFR candidate 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 in Pakistan, Syria, and Somali. History will view him as having been as pro-war as his predecessor.
Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, probably admitted more than she was supposed to in her address at the recent dedication of a branch CFR in Washington D. C. when she said that her source of direction was the CFR sub-center down the street. “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.” See audio capture of these remarks below.
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 25 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 their 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 who ever becomes the republican presidential candidate. Such has been the case since the Council on Foreign Relations was founded by its Wall Street creators J.P. Morgan and all in 1921. 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.”
But what is the Romney CFR connection? The current CFR membership roster does not list him as a member. In 2007, he also denied such. That said, the CFR website does have a very comprehensive and favorable outline of his policies on 22 foreign policy areas seemingly to invite support for him. They cite him as having published in their July/August 2007 magazine Foreign Affairs. Long-time readers know that no one gets published unless seen favorably by them. His selection of their organization as the source for a majority of his foreign policy and national security advisors suggests that a Romney Presidency will be managed by the CFR as with his predecessors. In fact, I can almost see the face and voice of George W. Bush as I read through Romney’s 22 foreign policy areas—a comparison that Bush would not find objectionable. No wonder the Tea Party movement, which opposes elitist semi-secret government and Bush, because such too surrounded him, is unenthused.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7WMTedOyZI&w=560&h=315]
Apr 6, 2011 | Globalism
By Dr. Harold W. Pease
The name George Soros is popping up everywhere as being perhaps the most influential man on earth. Certainly not the richest, that honor goes to Mexico’s telecom magnate Carlos Slim with 74 billion dollars, but he is one of the richest at 32 billion dollars. It is the use of that money that is so frightening. His giving is not like that of Sandra Bullock who recently gave a million to the earthquake and tsunami victims in Japan, nor is it like the billion dollars given several years ago by Bill Gates to help eradicate AIDS in Africa. Their money does not buy power or amplify wealth. Mr. Soros’ money is targeted for influence and political power over this nation and the world—all directed to the far left side of the political spectrum and the globalization of the world.
Prominent among his myriad of well-funded socialist organizations are: ACORN, the Tides Foundation, Sojourners, The Quantum Fund, and Media Matters. Some of these organizations operate in other countries, as for example Open Society Institute (spends 425million a year on socialist causes) and Friends of the Earth, designed to build support for an international network of organizations dedicated to the environment. The Center for American Progress schedules their “experts” for talk show events even developing talking points for them. The Apollo Alliance played a major role in the development of the Stimulus Bill now incorporated into law. The American Constitution Society defends far-left interpretations of the Constitution. And, MoveOn.org organizes action alerts to followers via the Internet.
Not that the far right does not have such organizations as well, but likely no other one person has as many organizations as combat ready and as highly financed as does George Soros. Most recently he has declared war on Fox News because they criticized him. Presumably they can hold their own but certainly they have a worthy opponent. Human Events recently identified George Soros, “as the most dangerous and destructive leftish demagogue in the country. (Human Events, 3/28/11, Cover Story).”
Should he be taken seriously? Well, the Bank of England did not do so and he “shorted the British pound in 1992, wagering $10 billion on a drop in its value. In a desperate bid to keep its currency afloat, the Bank of England tried to buy up pounds as fast as Soros could dump them. However, as more and more investors followed Soros’ lead and joined his efforts, the Bank of England eventually gave up. The British pound was devalued, launching a tsunami of financial turmoil from Tokyo to Rome. When it was over, millions of hardworking Britons confronted their diminished savings, while Soros counted his gains. He had personally made nearly $2 billion on the catastrophe,” he caused (The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, David Horowitz and Richard Poe, Nelson Communication, 2006, pg. 4).
Two things, in particular, bother opponents. First, could his propaganda machine have undue influence in the government—especially given his frequent and friendly contacts with President Barack Obama? Soros has hosted fundraisers for Obama and made at least four visits to the White House. There is reason to believe that Soros has influenced the president on: The Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade, opposition to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and banking reform.
Second, Soros’ strong and frequent advocacy of global government is especially frightening. He once wrote: “To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy… the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. Interestingly, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States (The Crisis of Global Capitalism, George Soros, 7 Dec. 1998, Newsweek).”
In any case, there is enough evidence to keep close watch on the man and his numerous and well-funded organizations designed to lead this nation into socialism and the world into world government. If he is not the most influential man on earth, he is close.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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.
Feb 9, 2011 | Globalism
By Dr. Harold W. Pease
Why is it that both Republican and Democrat administrations always favor tyrannical non-democratic regimes in times of revolution? Time and time again whether in Iran in 1979, under Jimmy Carter, Tiananmen Square in China under George Bush, Iran again less then two years ago, under Barack Obama, or now in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, it is the same. We want guaranteed stability from known murderous dictators rather than risk the unknown by supporting pro-democracy governments. We alone are capable of individual liberty, a position somewhat insulting to other people. The fallout is always the same; we only preach freedom but do not support it in practice. We consistently let the people seeking their own liberation down then wonder why they fall to more radical preachments and end up hating us. We play these people for our own benefit.
President Carter, in 1976, openly supported the Shaw of Iran, as had his predecessors, a brutal dictator against the will of his people demonstrating for freedom. I had several Iranian students in my classes at the time and they could not understand such friendship. They said, almost in unison, “We don’t hate America!” “Your media lie to you!” “We hate—how you say his name—‘Roc-ke-fell-er’.” “You know about him?” History does show David Rockefeller as having played a major role in bringing the Shaw to power in Iran. When the hated Shaw was finally forced out we brought him to Panama for medical treatment despite intelligence reports that the Iranians would retaliate. Iranians were, in part, driven to accept a far more radical leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, by linking their hated leader with America who sustained him in power. The more extreme element expressed their anger by taking U.S. embassy personnel hostage.
In Tiananmen Square university students built a statue of liberty modeled after our own then paraded it about with slogans asking for freedom as expressed in America. The government, caught totally off guard, finally brought in tanks to encircle the thousands of dissenting students. One student stood in front of incoming tanks. They unsuccessfully tried to move around him. Friends finally removed him but his “Patrick Henry type” body statement, ”Give me liberty or give me death,” resounded throughout the world. This promising bid for liberty ended when in the middle of the night tanks savagely raced in crushing hundreds of sleeping demonstrators. The U.S. reprimand was mild and short lived as George Bush awarded the Chinese most favored trade status within a month of this horrifying event.
Less than two years ago the Iranian people begged America to help them depose their fanatical religious dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. President Obama, with absolute knowledge of this tyrant, who soon will have nuclear power, found it prudent not to get involved. Video coverage released to the Internet, by the victims themselves, shared the sounds of Iranian paramilitary forces entering the homes of dissidents. Their last cries for help were heard worldwide as they were savagely beaten. When we had the power to usher in a far more friendly government our silence only strengthened the repression. Why would any Iranian thereafter have faith in our words of freedom? We are hypocrites.
For many years Hosni Mubarak has been the second major recipient of our foreign aid. Just sixteen months ago President Obama spoke in Egypt calling upon the Arab world to respect the “will of the people.” The Egyptian people loved him and now wonder where he is when they want it. They are finding his silence a form of betrayal just as have other protesters in other lands. One protester’s sign in English, obviously for the West to see, said it all, “Foreign Governments Stop Hypocrisy and Stand For Egyptian Freedom.” Perhaps President Obama will surprise us and it won’t be too little too late as in the case of Iran.
If our foreign policy were not always based upon what is only good for us and we gave some attention to what is good for them also, we would not be consistently linked to the hatred they have for their abusive leaders. We would not play a part in driving them to the more extreme elements that gain power by that connection, as for example, the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, we would then have many real friends.
Dec 27, 2010 | Globalism
A reporter asks Senator Obama about his Council on Foreign Relations membership and his position on the North American Union . He admits possible membership and that he has spoken there before proving its existence and importance but basically waves the issue aside with humor. He also makes fun of the idea of a political union for North America.
The Council on Foreign Relations is the most powerful special interest group in the United States and has been for the last 80 years. No one becomes president without their sanction and there members have and will comprise at least a third of all presidential cabinets regardless of which party is in office. Some call it the shadow government.
The North American Union was created by the two volume North American Free Trade Agreement which begins the union of Canada, Mexico and The United States first economically then politically as patterned after the European Union. Dismissing either by humor does not reduce their power and influence over us increasingly recognized by more everyday.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W75zn6_33YQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
