Jun 24, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, P.h. D.
Since World War II America’s wars have never stopped. Why? We have become the policemen of the world with over 800 military bases world wide. Right now we have warships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Iran from sinking more oil vessels. President Trump opposes world government and campaigned against “nation building” and “regime change.” He wants to bring our troops home.
In a recent interview with FOX’s Steve Hilton, Trump gave a remarkably clear and honest answer to the above question. “Don’t kid yourself,” he said, “You do have a Military-Industrial Complex. They do like war!” And he expressed his dilemma with this “complex” in Syria. “So I wipe out a hundred percent of the caliphate. I say I want to bring my troops back home. The place went crazy!! You have people here, in Washington, they never want to leave.”
Although Trump is not a globalist he is unduly influenced by them. Colonel Douglas Macgregor, author of Margin of Victory, essentially said as much when interviewed on Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 20, 2019. “The president by now understands that he is surrounded inside the White House and within the administration by people who are part of this bi-partisan globalist elite. In other words, the inner circle of advisors whether it is John Bolton or Mr. Pompeo from the State Department or any number of other people. Along with the general officers, the four stars and the senior intelligence operatives and officers, all of whom have risen to great rank over the last 20 years as a result of their participation in these strategic failures… are absolutely committed to stopping any change.” “They like war,” as Trump said.
So Trump wipes out the caliphate in the Middle East, the reason for our military presence there, and the “military industrial complex” goes nuts when he wants to bring home his troops. So we remain.
But fear of the “military-industrial complex” ( a marriage between globalist politicians, the military and the industry making war materials—each profiting from war) is not new. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of its danger in his farewell address. January 17, 1961. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
How powerful was it in 1961? Eisenhower continued, “We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations — corporations …. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. … we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications” (https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html).
Do “grave implications” mean that once in a region like Europe, Japan, South Korea, or the Middle East our military never leaves. That is what Trump learned, “You have people here, in Washington, they never want to leave.”
Today Wikipedia documents US troops in “more than 150 countries” (The New York Times says 172—we have “troops in nearly every country”) around the world with thousands of military personnel still in many of the above named regions/countries 74 years later. Approximately a third of our troops serve outside the US in places most Americans have never heard of such as Aruba, Bahrain, Kenya, and Qatar. As noted, we have over 800 military bases encircling the globe all in the name of “our” national security.
Who are these people who never want to leave? No special interest group has had more impact over foreign policy the last 100 years than the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), leading many to question if we have but one political party in the United States with two arms. This is why, until Trump, there has been little difference in foreign policy between Democrat and Republican presidents.
They obtained their advisers, especially Secretaries of State, from the same globalist special interest group, the CFR. They all supported extensive foreign aid, policing the world, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. All supported international trade agreements that enhanced the power of the United Nations over the U.S. and exported jobs formerly held by Americans. All supported the bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers private Federal Reserve Bank and opposed its being audited. All supported problem solving on the federal or international level rather than the state or county levels. Presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are CFR supported so these policies are not likely to change should they win the presidency.
So why do America’s wars never really stop, even when the enemy has been totally decimated as in the ISIS caliphate in the Middle East, even when President Trump wants them to stop? Because the military industrial complex (consisting of the military, war industries, and globalist politicians) profit or benefit from war as they have for nearly a century. Despite Eisenhower’s advice they remain a powerful secret combination in our government.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 1, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph,.D.
This column is my 500th published column on liberty and the Constitution. I taught the Constitution and Current Events for forty years at the college level and therefore am qualified to pose the following question. “What if fake news is not the only thing that is fake?”
What if things are not as they seem, that we not only have fake news but fake history, education, science, and more? That our world is far more Orwellian than presumed.
Let’s begin with a not so fake history. What if after the Civil War certain enterprising and gifted men, such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J. P. Morgan, used the free market philosophy to gain great wealth and monopolistic power over oil, steel, railroads and banking. These men then funding the politicians that would protect their interests from “real” legislative control over their monopolies.
What if they saw even greater wealth and power in expanding their influence to the world arena and financed a president, William McKinley, who with a little help from “yellow journalism,” enticed the United States into war against Spain, which win, netted America rich, lush, and lavish colonial colonies? These possessions never benefited average America who had to provide the brawn, blood and money to keep the Philippines under subjection while the capitalists reaped huge benefits and profits.
What if these moneyed elite saw the need to create an influence organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), to make certain that they never lost their new found power to guide foreign policy and future presidents? For almost a hundred years this organization seated a third of the cabinets of all presidents yet it is never mentioned on globalist media outlets. This they did by infiltrating with CFR members the Republican and Democratic Parties and ignoring all other parties. J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller purchased all major media streams of news (information) so that the internationalist view alone dominated. Some form of managed news, fake news, has existed since 1921.
What if these moneyed interests came to the conclusion that to properly manage the world a type of world governance needed to be created which resulted in the League of Nations? But the Constitution, if interpreted as written, would allow no government over it and their efforts, accepted and implemented by internationalists in Europe, was rejected in the United States. Our failure to join eventually ended the League.
What if the globalists used World War II to reignite their world government effort with a United Nations, the Rockefeller’s even providing the property for it? Its function and purpose they knew would be enlarged with time until it would be the only real government. U.S. wars thereafter, the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, were UN—not U.S.—initiated wars. But America was still resisting allowing the UN total government.
Failing this, what if the new plan became to instead unite nations of Europe into the European Union and the nations of North American (Canada, Mexico and the U.S.), using the model of the EU, into the North American Union and likewise for 20 other regions of the globe into what is called regional government? Nationalism would be destroyed and these regions later would surrender sovereignty to the world government of the United Nations.
The plan required fake history, or at least history that did not link the above. Textbooks and history classes must be made to show the benefits of global union and the UN as a benevolent organization. No one should ever accept that we had been led by the moneyed elite to lose our Constitution as the supreme document of the land, as well as our freedom, sovereignty and independence, for a global government that guaranteed none of these things.
What if the plan required fake science, first global warming, which could not be confirmed over time, and thus was changed by advocates to climate change, which does change seasonally and over time, but still lacks clear documentation that man actually is the agent of that change? What is missed in the argument, and the probable reason it is still seriously discussed, is that it benefits the globalist. If viewed as a globalist problem it therefore requires a world government solution.
The plan required fake education at least in the above categories and peripheral areas of sociology and political science as well. As world government requires total control, first mind control through education then force for those not “properly” educated. A philosophy opposite limited government is the only government that could work. Socialism, which never worked in the USSR, China, North Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela or any other place on earth, must be made to be a part of the intended new world order. World socialism would allow no competing ideologies; no place to flee. This philosophy permeates university campuses today. I had few colleagues who did not advocate it.
The plan required fake news. All the globalist news outlets are owned by the moneyed elite and promote the fake history, fake science, fake education scenario as described above. Today parents send their young adults to college to be educated but instead they are largely propagandized and return home advocates of something their parents oppose. Perhaps it is time to drop the “what if” in the above scenario.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jan 28, 2019 | Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, Ph.D
No one has been more outspoken against the globalist agenda than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the very antithesis of their plans for world government. This is primarily the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, have come out of the closet to oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists are now praising his newly negotiated and rolled out October I, 2018 USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe first economically then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with it. It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…”. Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018)
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism—everything else he has done suggests otherwise But he has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he said was so “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jan 7, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
The United States is quickly becoming divided into the globalists and the patriots. They are at total war against each other. Since they are ideologically incomparable only one side can win. In time all will support one side or the other side. Readers already are, whether they are fully aware of what they support or not.
The globalists, often called the establishment or the deep state, prefer world-wide open borders, the eventual transfer of all political power to international levels, and eventually world government. National sovereignty is their enemy. The patriots prefer freedom from excessive government, independence from any governing entity other than Congress, patriotism, and today, the Constitution as written. The choice is uncannily similar to the choice given Americans in 1776.
The globalists, deeply imbedded in our parties and establishment medias, hated the following address and consequently minimized coverage of it in their print outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post, and network medias. If followed it would shut down their New World Order and world governance aspirations. It would spell a different foreign policy than practiced since World War II but far more in harmony with that of the Founding Fathers.
Chances are very good that readers missed important parts of what President Donald Trump told the United Nations September 25, 2018. It could be summarized in 12 words from it. “We reject the ideology of globalism and accept the doctrine of patriotism.” Adding, “America is governed by Americans.” Directed squarely at the globalists in the room, he effectively said, “We will keep our sovereignty and expect other nations to keep theirs as well.”
He told them. “We are standing up for America and for the American people. And we are also standing up for the world. That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination. I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions.” Then amazingly, in total contrast with every president since World War II, “The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”
Trump rejected one international organization in particular, created by the globalists to undermine our sovereignty, “The United States will provide no support in recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process.” He then added what most patriots wanted their government to say to the United Nations since its inception. “We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” He encouraged other nations to protect their sovereignty as well, “Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination.”
Imagine what the globalists in the room thought. The United States had been the lead founder and funder. Moreover, David Rockefeller donated the property to house the infant world government organization that since increasingly absorbs control over all nations of the earth. The United States is the principle reason the United Nations exists. All presidents have supported it. No president has spoken this way. Ronald Reagan alone opposed its growing power over the sovereignty of nations. He reduced US funding for it from 33% to 25%. Patriots cheered the Reagan move but now want more, which Trump seems ready to give. Most want removal from the organization altogether.
Trump turned to illegal immigration and human trafficking as threats to sovereignty also. “The United States is also working with partners in Latin America to confront threats to sovereignty from uncontrolled migration. Tolerance for human struggling and human smuggling and trafficking is not humane. It’s a horrible thing that’s going on, at levels that nobody has ever seen before. It’s very, very cruel.”
He addressed why the United States refused to participate in the new UN Global Compact on Migration. “We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests, just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same — which we are doing. That is one reason the United States will not participate in the new Global Compact on Migration. Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.”
Finally he spoke of the foundation of freedom as being national sovereignty, which must be preserved . “To unleash this incredible potential in our people, we must defend the foundations that make it all possible. Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.”
Trump ended, “So together, let us choose a future of patriotism, prosperity, and pride. Let us choose peace and freedom over domination and defeat. And let us come here to this place to stand for our people and their nations, forever strong, forever sovereign….”
The UN, the heart of world government and globalism, never had an address delivered like this; certainly the most important address of 2018.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 29, 2018 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Presently money for elections can come from other countries, states, counties, or districts other than from where the candidate will serve allowing outside sources, those of wealth—even billionaires—to buy influence.This often diminishes the power of the citizens themselves to choose their own representatives.
Moreover, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a popular contender, or worse, handoff their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another state to favorably impact elections often adverse to the will of its citizens. These outside influences have to stop.
More funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy your opponent or get your message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. The candidate with the most money and publicity usually wins and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote therefore they dominate the result . In many cases more money originates from outside a voting district than within. If no candidate could receive money or influence from outside their district, it would stop much influence peddling.
LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in our nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the Constitution. “All election funding, outside candidate’s personal wealth, (individuals or organizations), in all federal elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”
Billionaires or organizations could still fund causes but not candidates. Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This would not stop, nor is it intended to stop, the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, funded by perspective voters within the district.
Under this amendment the 1996 Bill Clinton campaign could not have received money from China to influence the election; nor from any individual not eligible to vote for president, nor could Clinton Foundation monies be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Some of us still remember the Bill Clinton Chinese Fundraising Scandal involving DNC finance chairman John Huang and Chinese nationalist Johnny Chung. The DNC was forced to return more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals, largely from China to gain favor in the Clinton Administration.
Neither could the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who fund many Republican Party candidates on the right side of the political spectrum, and George Soros, or Tom Steyer, who fund Democratic Party candidates on the left, influence any federal contest to which they cannot personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only THEIR congressman or senator —not a large group of them.
Both Soros and Steyer bankrolled far left Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor hoping to flip the state from red to blue anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. Gillum “courted Soros’ organizations and spoke at a number of their gatherings. When they met at San Francisco [Steyers home town], he promised to back Gillum’s gubernatorial run.” Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run” (Ingraham Angle, August 29, 2018). An activity that was targeted to get Gillum elected; hence would be denied Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he promised to spend on the midterms.
Congressmen from “safe” districts could not “handoff” their unneeded donations to a like minded candidate in another district. Nor could they holdover funding from previous victories to “nuke” a future opponent. Contributions are a form of voting normally intended for this candidate only and for this election only and they could only be accumulated since the last election for that office. Laws presently limit the amount of individual contributions but the “rich” find loopholes in donating as in the case of Gillum.
The “rich” have been involved in influencing elections at least since the 1896 “giants of the Industrial Revolution” buyout of William McKinley for president when they used their money to bury opponent William Jennings Bryan. This amendment would not have stopped that as all citizens elect the president—only a rigorous enforcement of present law governing individual contributions could do that.
Nor would it have stopped J.P. Morgan’s1915 purchase of the 25 leading newspapers in the United States establishing “Morgan editors” over each, presumably to influence public opinion favorable to his interests ( Oscar Callaway, Congressional Record, February 9, 1917, Vol. 54, pp. 2947-48.). Nor would it have prevented Morgan and David Rockefeller’s 1921creation of The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) organization to steer the country into “Wall Street” dominance and global government, which now is self propelling although its founders are deceased. The CFR has provided much of the leadership of both major political parties and major news outlets.
Nor will it today stop all of George Soros’ 11 major influence groups, some of which sponsor activities that border on treason. Funding Antifa, Kavanaugh “Hearing disruptors,” and those accosting Senate committee members may have to wait for other solutions. But the amendment will prevent most billionaire election buyouts. Expect enormous billionaire opposition.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 23, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In a recent column “Billionaires Battle to Get Your Vote” LibertyUnderFire documented leading funders for the right side of the political spectrum in the 2016 election as the Koch brothers, Charles and David. Those on the left side of the political spectrum were David Rockefeller (recently deceased) and George Soros. A new billionaire, Tom Steyer, has emerged outpacing both the right and the left in funding elections. But influence from the wealthy is nothing new.
The “rich” have been involved in directing public opinion for over a hundred years, first noted in our history textbooks, when Mark Hanna, who made his fortune in the iron business, paid off Congressman William McKinley’s personal indebtedness of $100,000, and elevated him onto the stage for president. He next “shook down” the giants of the Industrial Revolution, banking, oil, steal, railroads, and etc. who wanted markets and “spheres of influence” overseas.
Capitalizing on their fear that they would lose their influence over government and money to someone like William Jennings Bryan, who would actually represent the common people, Hanna raised an enormous slush fund, the largest in U.S. History, of 16 million to Democratic opponent William Jennings Bryan’s mere one million. This enabled the giants of the Industrial Revolution to unite to “buy” the presidency for William McKinley in 1896.
With Mckinley’s successful conquest of much of Spain’s colonial holdings (Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam) colonialism and world influence became the Republican Party’s foreign policy. When it became much less popular due to its needing to be defended by American troops, wall street influence went underground.
President Woodrow Wilson spoke of this hidden force in his book The New Freedom (1913), when 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.”
John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and others later united the class of wealth into the Institute of International Affairs in 1919, then two years later changed the name to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) thereafter providing the leadership and foreign policy of both major political parties and globalism took root in each. Rockefeller nephew David, in 1973 spread the wall street influence over Japan, Western Europe and North America in an effort to unify those three regions in his Trilateral Commission. This was the foreign policy of both major political parties and much of the West and Japan until Donald Trump’s election in 2016.
Although David is recently deceased, his organization, the CFR, is the most influential political organization in the United States and will be for decades to come. Moreover, the leadership of The New York Times and Washington Post, like the government, is filled with its members ensuring a wide dissemination of their globalist messages; a message emulated by hundreds of other newspapers.
Enter CFR member George Soros, the leading funder of far-left causes and elections the past two decades, who is said to have spent $25 million on Hilary Clinton and other democratic candidates in 2016 and so far another $15 million in the present midterms. His specialty is not gradual influence toward the left and world government as has been the influence of the CFR, but hard-core socialism and globalism. No one has as many organizations as combat ready and as highly financed, as does George Soros. These include: ACORN, the Tides Foundation, Sojourners, The Quantum Fund, Media Matters, The Open Society Institute, Friends of the Earth, The Center for American Progress, The Apollo Alliance, The American Constitution Society and, MoveOn.org.
Enter San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer who “promised to spend at least $30 million to elect progressives [popular synonym for socialist] this campaign season” making him the “most important Democratic donor in the United States.” Steyer is openly urging the presidents removal through impeachment, even funding a video to that effect, and has, with Soros, bankrolled far left Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor hoping to flip the state from red to blue anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run” (Ingraham Angle, August 29, 2018).
The 100-plus year generational influence of the Rockefeller’s, John and David, and their organizations, principally the CFR, together with that of Soros money and organizations, and now, Steyer’s money, easily dwarf that of the Koch brothers, said to be funding most of the right side of the political spectrum. The billionaire club easily favors the Democratic Party and the far-left side of the political spectrum. What is far worse is that Soros and Steyer seem not to be promoting rank and file Democrats but instead radicals who want to upend our political system. It appears that the rich who initially controlled the Republican Party, then both major parties for over 100 years, now has much greater dominance over the Democratic Party. Should they succeed, we will become a socialist country.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
