Aug 27, 2018 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The world’s global power brokers—each by invitation only—met again June 7-10, as they have sixty-six times before in their annual Bilderberg assemblages since their birth in 1954. This time they met in Turin, Italy. This is the most exclusive globalist group in Western Europe and North America and said to be the power brokers of the West. Their primary objective is world government—the end of national sovereignty. President Donald J. Trump was not invited.
At these meetings no minutes are taken and no opening or closing press releases made. Participants may use the information received but may not disclose the identify or affiliations of the speakers or any other participant. Only a few trusted media mongrels are allowed, such as Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, making it even more amazing the “establishment” press, which supports world government by failing to report the half-century attack of this secret society on national sovereignty, does not cover it. Their press is controlled.
Still, there exists some local news coverage of the Bilderberg annual events. All coverage is consistent in that such meetings are held, are highly secretive, have huge police protection, and attendees are seen as the “power brokers” of Europe and North America.
The Bilderberg website listed the topics of discussion for 2018 but they seem purposely vague. The first six of the twelve for this year were: Populism in Europe, The inequality challenge, The future of work, Artificial intelligence, The US before midterms, and Free trade. The second six: US world leadership, Russia, Quantum computing, Saudi Arabia and Iran, The “post-truth” world, and Current Events. Why would the elite gather for such nondescript discussions if they were not far more detailed and had no real purpose?
In their 2016 meeting in Dresden, Germany rumor had it that lead topics included blocking Donald Trump’s election in the United States, retaining Great Britain in the European Union, and pushing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Each of these was a prominent globalist objective (“Bilderberg Seen Through the Looking Glass,” Strategic Culture Foundation, Pepe Escobar). None materialized. Trump is not under their influence, as were his predecessors, and Great Britain voted to exit their European Union.
No doubt stopping President Trump’s efforts to undermine or destroy their world government objectives was the underlining topic behind all the discussion topics. His withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate, and the UN Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization (UNECSO) made him their mortal enemy. Every globalist in the world and in the United States, Democrat or Republican, is against him. But for freedom lovers he has become their only hope in breaking the secret combination’s “choke-hold” on the planet. For both sides, those for keeping our Declaration of Independence and Constitution in tact, and those for eventual world government by the elite of the planet, this is total war.
Past meeting attendees included politicians, top business executives, bankers and often some academics, royalty and, more recently, technology gurus. This year the invited guests list was 131 of these people. The most famous U.S. attendees of the past have included: Henry Kissinger (who attends annually), David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Hillary and Bill Clinton, John Kerry, David Petraeus, Chuck Hagel, Paul Volcker, George Stephanopoulos, Timothy Geithner, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Gerald Ford and Lindsey Graham.
There are attendees who do not wish to be named because of the Logan Act (18 U.S. Code 953) that makes it “a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States without authorization.”
Security is intense with so many prominent people present. Security costs approached $2 million in 2013 for the Bilderberg meeting in Great Britain, not including the costs of a no-fly zone protection. No cost figures were given for this year. This is no little meeting!!!
What do they do there? David Rockefeller, a Bilderberger, founder of the Trilateral Commission, and past president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations (the three leading world government organizations), told a Bilderberg conference in Germany in 1991, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright light of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government” (Bilderberg: Brexit, Borders, Banksters—and Billary,” New American, July 4, 2016).
No wonder critics see the Bilderberg meetings as a shadow world government and a bid for total control of everyone on earth. World leaders attend and they talk about government issues. The organization establishes the issues and builds consensus toward their conclusion and they do all this in secret.
So why do any prominent high profile U.S. citizens attend these secret combination meetings? And why does the establishment press ignore it and protect attendees? It is time attendees answer these questions beginning with Hillary Clinton and Lindsey Graham. Some of us are happy Trump wasn’t invited.
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 U.S. 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.
Aug 17, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Conservative outlets are aflame with what appears to be Internet giants Facebook, Google and Twitter’s intentional move to closeout conservative viewpoints on their platforms. This is significant because the big five Internet companies collective worth is estimated to be about $4 Trillion, a total that places them above the GDP of nearly all countries. Since they are the major vehicles through which all information is disseminated globally, should they succumb to a collective political view they could control the world. If conservatives are correct this may be in progress.
We show we are free to the extent we tolerate opposing viewpoints. How does one know he is free unless everyone is free to express himself?
In July Facebook suddenly dropped a campaign ad from California Republican congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng claiming the ad, showing scenes of Cambodian genocide experienced by her family, was “disrespectful” content. No such barometer is used on left of center outlets. Something similar happened, conservatives argue, to other conservatives this year notably Diamond and Silk (said to be “unsafe to the community”), Ben Shapiro, Dave Ruben and Dennis Fraser.
But the incident bringing this to a head nationally last week was when Internet giants ganged-up on Alex Jones. Apple pulled several of his podcasts from the ITunes store, Facebook unpublished four of his pages, and YouTube “suspended the Alex Jones channel with its $4 million subscribers,” all charging that he violated their “hate speech” policies (Laura Ingraham, The Ingraham Angle, August 7, 2018). Hate speech has become synonymous with opposition speech. All this begs the question, “Is the next move of the globalist to close out all opposition media?”
Ingraham told her audience that this Internet heavy handedness began in earnest last February when “Facebook launched a new algorithm that would cause top conservative pages to see a dramatic drop in traffic and this included personal pages by the way. President Trump‘s Facebook page saw a 45% drop.” She asked, “Why do leftist… always seem to escape big tech censures? “
“But this isn’t about Alex Jones,” she argued, “This is about freedom and our access to information from the sources we as individuals trust and like. If big tech can control the information flow then they can also perhaps even influence the outcome of the midterms and even future presidential elections… And that is the point! Controlling who has a voice and who doesn’t on these monster platforms is tantamount to limiting speech.”
In the national media war it is increasingly obvious that the Establishment Media, mostly the over 300 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members who have dominant power in it, seriously threaten the 15% (as reported on The Tucker Carlson Show Aug. 8) that is not yet controlled by them. The fact that still half of Americans have not heard of this ever growing influence over the last nearly 100 years, because they are already hooked on only Establishment News sources is evidence of its power expansion. A very real possibility exists that those who do not already know of CFR control over the media and government never will, allowing a future existence of no opposition media. We would have entered an Orwellian society from which there exists no exit.
But when this dominance moves to Internet giants Facebook, Google and Twitter this threat becomes global. The conservative panic watching their diminished ability to resist the “secret combination” chorus of the globalist, the Deep State, and the Establishment media for ending free speech opposing them is not new to those who read or view more than just Establishment sources.
Internet bias against alternative news has been going on for more than a decade. Matt Drudge, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon of Breitbart and Mike Adams of Natural News have all talked about it. Over a year ago The New American reported: “Breitbart News, the Drudge Report, InfoWars, Natural News, and dozens of other Internet-based news providers have already been targeted and are feeling the impact of the corporate-government jackbooted heel on their jugulars” (News: Alternative, Real, Fake, May 8, 2017, p. 11).
But bias against alternative news sources was not enough. A second tier of the attack has been to cut off conservative advertisers. Each has complained about this—even Rush Limbaugh. AppNexus, who specializes in Internet ad delivery and handles about $2.5 billion in ad spending, has also adopted the “ideological squeeze play” as have Omnicom and AdRoll “two additional huge advertisement buying networks that have joined the thought police.”
Over a year ago ADRoll informed InfoWars that their advertising campaigns were suspended. “All content on your website should be relevant, accurate, informative, and up to date. Any claims should be easily verifiable” (Ibid.). Using this criteria anything could be excluded. Since so much of MSNBC, NBC, CNN and other news cites dominated by CFR globalists is not accurate or verifiable, as per the Trump Russian Collusion story, why should they get a pass? That is the point.
As reported the latest ploy in the “ideological squeeze play” is the current practice of Internet giants Facebook, Google and Twitter’s intentional move to closeout conservative viewpoints on their platforms by removing their pages or even, in the case of Alex Jones, suspending his channel. It does appear that the present move of the globalist is to close out all opposition media?
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.
Aug 13, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The DOJ’s IG Report, released a few weeks ago, did not mention the place played by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful special interest group in the country, in their now documented coup to oust President Trump from office. It, with its 5,038 highly influential members, teamed up with the DOJ and FBI and, in fact, the whole intelligence community (CIA NSA, DNI, and etc.) in this effort.
Senator Ted Cruz called the CFR “a pit of vipers” and a “pernicious nest of snakes” in the 2016 presidential election. The vipers, slithering–up from the pit to save THEIR empire from Trump, are primarily its members and globalism (world government) is its threatened agenda.
Seemingly the pit of Hell opened and out came every viper. No presidential candidate: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Herbert Hoover or even Barry Goldwater, who last threatened the globalists monopoly on national or international power, put together, could measure up to what the vipers, from both parties, gave and are giving Donald Trump.
This should not surprise our readers as we have covered the CFR in numerous previous columns, as have other non-partisan journalists over the last 100 years. Some may recall Woodrow Wilson as the first U.S. President to speak of their power even before they formally organized as the CFR in 1921. In his book, The New Freedom (1913), he wrote of his experience with this hidden force. “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.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of perpetual war through the “industrial military complex” as he left office. Some say that John F. Kennedy was the first to contend with what we now refer to as globalist. If so, that documentation is locked in CIA files that the intelligence community refuses to declassify—even at the request of President Trump. Certainly his assassination ended opposition. But in election resistance no one, prior to Trump, felt “viper power” more than Barry Goldwater.
Hundreds of books and articles have documented this power to the extent that two conclusions cannot be overstated. The CFR is the lead organization in the U.S. promoting globalism, and they control both mainstream political parties, Democrat and Republican and have done so for most of 100 years. The New American identifies their members as having held, through May 2017, “24 secretaries of state, 20 national security advisors, 20 secretaries of defense, 22 secretaries of the treasury—and thousands of additional Cabinet secretaries, under-secretaries, deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries, etc.” Moreover, the CFR has provided the last 14 CIA directors as well (Deep State & Fake News, May 8, 2017).
They were the government of the United States until President Donald J. Trump; hence all vipers are committed to remove him by any means. This is total war! The most powerful special interest group in US History has teamed with the Deep State—all 16 agencies—to create the Russian Collusion Story with no “real” documentation to drive one man, President Trump, out of office.
Why are so many Americans, perhaps half, still so ignorant of CFR control? They do not read or watch news outside the Establishment Press and the darker the story becomes it is increasingly difficult to believe and to get non-controlled information. They would have to admit that they were duped by some of their favorite politicians and reporters.
Enter the CFR again. The Establishment press is their press. The CFR admits in their 2016 annual report that “334 of its 5,038 members are listed as employed in ‘Media and News Services,’ “ The siren call for what they want, or do not want, is a deafening chorus. Consider the following favorite CFR household reporters, or anchors: “Peter Bergen (CNN), Erin Burnett (CNN), Tom Brokaw (NBC), Ethan Bronner (New York Times) Juju Chang (ABC), Katie Couric (CBS, NBC), Thomas Friedman (New York Times), Charles Krauthammer [recently deceased] (Washington Post, Fox), Paul Krugman (New York Times), Jim Lehrer (PBS), Bill Moyers (PBS, CBS), Heather Nauert (Fox), Kitty Pilgrim (CNN), Dan Rather (CBS), Charlie Rose (PBS, CBS), Diane Sawyer (ABC), Andrew Ross Sorkin (New York Times), Lesley Stahl (CBS), Barbara Walters (ABC), and Paula Zahn (Fox, CNN),” to name but a few (Ibid).
The CFR corporate media conglomerate includes influential members in the following Internet outlets: Twitter, Facebook, and Google, as well as televised news MSNBC CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. Newsweek and Time are their magazines and their newspapers, The New York Times and Washington Post, from which hundreds of outlets copy or paraphrase CFR messaging.
Senator Chuck Schumer apparently knows something about taking on the CFR Deep State and its media outlets when he called Trump dumb for doing so. He said, “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you. So, even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he is being really dumb to do this.” (Ibid.). Many believe Trump a patriot instead.
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.
Jul 9, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Four years ago I awoke on a Sunday morning where I was visiting family, a ray of light coming through the window. The window view showed side-by-side symbols; one of liberty, as represented by a small community of multi-colored and multi-shaped living structures with residents going about their business oblivious to the second symbol, represented by large, gray, ugly, windowless government buildings spying on and recording everyone’s communication. The contrast of liberty and totalitarian intent was startling and breathtaking. I was in Bluffdale, Utah viewing the NSA’s top spy facility in the world called the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center.
To the far left of the window view was a new housing development intruding into largely undeveloped land, like an extending finger, with brown hills above it and a large hay farm in front and below stretching far forward and to the right of my view. Here residents made choices that enhanced the quality and comfort of their lives largely free from total government spying and restriction—or so they thought.
The number of churches to the population seemed unusually high, five church steeples reaching skyward, as if begging for the influence of God in their community, in what looked to be no more than 300 structures, mostly apartments, as seen from my window—all within a mile of where I was. I attended one of the churches and was greeted with the opening song “America the Beautiful,” the classic patriotic tune words written by Katherine Lee Bates and music by Samuel A. Ward. It housed the favorite words “America! America!” followed by four phrases in four verses “God shed his grace on thee,” and, “God mend thine every flaw,” and, “May God thy gold refine,” and again, “God shed his grace on thee.” Obviously, these Christians loved their liberty. A similar tune representing a relationship between God, country and liberty could have been found throughout most of the country this Sunday before the 4th of July.
In stark contrast off in the distance about two miles, but still clearly visible from the left side of the same window, was the most profound symbol of big government ever—the new NSA spy center, the largest in the world, capable of holding a yottabyte of information collected from every person on earth, with space enough for generations to come. These enormous, ugly, gray, windowless, buildings perched on a hill with intimidating guard-houses restricting entrance, represented potential total control of the actions and thoughts of every human.
Much was published on NSA government spying of its own people including LibertyUnderFire.org columns, so nothing new is found in this one. A project began under George W. Bush and accelerated under Barack Obama, Bluffdale “is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade and a half. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks… Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter” (“The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center. Watch What You Say.”) The project was code named “Stellar Wind.”
Fortunately the public has known about their government spying on them for over five years. Even the less informed made government surveillance jokes, but still the collection continues although limited somewhat by the 2015 USA Freedom Act with respect to telephone conversations requiring telephone companies to collect the metadata instead and store it at their expense. Then silence. Even the Democratic Party, once the great defender of civil liberties, is largely silent posed now as the defenders of the Deep State. It is as though everyone is in denial, as though these revelations could not really be that bad.
No one is being arrested or punished for his or her thoughts. Yet! The noose is not tight. And what is a yottabyte of information anyway? The size is incomprehensible adding to brain overload. A yottabyte is 1,000 zettabytes (the number 1 followed by 24 zeros — 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). That “318 scientists, computer engineers, and other staff work in secret on the cryptanalytic applications of high-speed computing and other classified projects” (Cryptome, March 16, 2012, “NSA Decryption Multipurpose Research Facility”), making what is now happening possible, merely adds to the incomprehensiveness of the subject.
Monday morning the same light flooded the room. The same symbols of liberty and oppression lay in stark contrast below. The same five church steeples reach for the sky as though to appeal to God for His influence. The same residents drive by, perhaps the greatest symbol of totalitarianism of all time, on their way to work, as though it does not exist. Some may even work at this place to help give the government details on their neighbor. Everything about these ugly, windowless, gray structures violates the Constitution. Chances are those of the community next door that sing of freedom will reelect the same Democrats and Republicans that authorized and funded their surveillance. I closed the window. If I too ignore what it shows, it will go away. Right?
Apr 23, 2018 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Syrian civilians were reportedly gassed in April 2017, killing 80, and again April 2018, killing 70. President Trump responded to the first with 60 Tomahawk missiles on one location and to the second bombing three separate locations said to have been development or storage sites. In neither are we indisputably certain that Assad did the gassing.
Protecting our “national security interests” (wordage not found in the Constitution) is the phrase most used to justify both US attacks. Side-stepped entirely is the fact that only Congress, under Article I, Section 8, has the constitutional authority to “declare War” but globalists argue that these bombings are not “real war,” only limited war, which the president possesses under Article II as “commander and chief.” But bombing a sovereign nation twice without provocation to us is an act of war. No such argument could be made were Moscow or Beijing bombed. So, an act of war is now constitutional if the victim country is too weak to defend itself.
Unfortunately this interpretation can only come from intentionally misrepresenting Article II: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States,” but only Congress has the power to call the military into actual service.
Other than conducting the war once declared, all military powers are housed as common defense under the legislative branch of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 9-17). These include all power to declare and finance war, raise armies, “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,” and even determine the land that the military may use for training purposes. Nothing was omitted.
Under the Constitution there can never be an unpopular war as the peoples’ representative (The House of Representatives) has total power over raising and funding the army. They must consent to the war by declaration (because they provide blood and brawn for it) and they alone authorize the treasure for it. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate” with them (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Cla. 1).
Moreover, Congress was to monitor the war at two-year intervals through its power of the purse just described. “But no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years” (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cla. 12). If Congress is not happy with the progress of the war it can require the generals and the president to account for why total victory has not yet been obtained and reduce or enlarge funding, with time restraints, to keep them on a short lease with respect to the war declared.
Why did the president get none of these powers? Because he “had the most propensity for war,” James Madison argued in the Constitutional Convention. Kings traditionally had sole war power. Not so under the Constitution. One man would never have such power. A declaration of war gave clarity to a wars beginning and victory or defeat its only ending. It could never be a casual thing as it has become.
Both major architects of the Constitution, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were clear on this subject. Madison wrote Hamilton, “the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #69 that the president’s powers are confined to “the direction of war when authorized or begun.”
Constitutionally the military functions under Congress, not the president. The president’s power to make war (outside immediate self-defense as in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) can only follow the legislature’s power to authorize war. Congress declared war on Japan the following day.
World War II was the last declared war so how did we lose such constitutional clarity allowing us to denigrate from invasion to justify war to “national interests,” which could be almost anything. They did so incrementally. It is the old adage one perversion justifies another. Both the Korean and Vietnam wars were United Nation’s Wars wherein the globalists argued we needed no declarations, being a part of a higher authority, the UN.
When the UN was not the major justification for war, globalists next favored working through coalition forces, which inferred that agreement among participating nations that a country was deserving of punishment justified acts of war. Requiring congressional approval for limited war would stifle flexibility. This could be made constitutional in public perception provided they enlarged the concept of “commander and chief” well beyond original intent, while simultaneously excluding constitutional wordage “when called into the actual service” and dismissing entirely all the war powers listed for Congress. Who really reads the Constitution anyway, the few who do could be “drummed” out by the ill-informed majority?
Coalition forces were employed in Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf Wars, then ISSIS, but coalition countries too eventually grew tired of perpetual war and began declining participating to the point that only Great Britain and France were willing to provide warplanes against Syria. War technology also advanced sufficient to administer punishment without boots on the ground. Such was the case with Syria last weekend. None of this changes the fact that there exists no constitutional authority for the president to bomb another country without congressional approval.
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 16, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The 2016 presidential election was the greatest political revolution in a century leaving no globalist-supported president occupying the White House since Herbert Hoover. But the mostly “secret combination” is poised to return.
Previously we identified the “real” establishment as those rooted in the international banking fraternity, powerful multinational corporations and media elites who support globalism. Those who have been bold enough to identify it publically fear to be more specific preferring to use generic names globalists, the establishment, money trust, and the Washington cartel. Their most visible and largest organization is the 97-year old Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). These people have power.
Probably the most descriptive voice of this influence came from Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State under Barack Obama. Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, then dedicating a branch CFR sub-center in Washington D. C., she said. “Thank you very much Richard. I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Notice that she was on a first name basis with Richard Haass, president of the CFR, and admits having been guided by him over the years. While a presidential candidate she addressed the CFR in New York City on January 19, 2015, and November 19, 2015. Hillary is also a Bilderberger as is Bill Clinton but he adds the Trilateral Commission to his list of globalist organizations. Indeed, there exists few persons more establishment than she, yet when asked as a candidate if she was a part of the establishment she answered; “I don’t know what the establishment means.” Her opponent, Bernie Sanders, was not part of the establishment.
Like Hillary, Jeb Bush was the designated CFR Republican candidate years before the election. As in every presidential election for most of 100 years we were to get only establishment approved presidential candidates. Typically we have at least twenty political parties offering presidential candidates but the establishment press covers only two of these. All other choices are gradually phased out. But in 2016 the Democrats preferred Sanders with three times the crowd size as Hillary and the Republicans did not want another Bush. Both major political parties appeared poised to reject the globalists.
With this rejection the establishment media was baffled. They had influenced/controlled presidential elections since Woodrow Wilson by how they covered candidates—even more so with the advent of television—first by limiting coverage to only their two political parties. Essentially, if not covered by them you were not a serious candidate. Second, the media demonstrated 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. Globalist interests get attention no matter which political party is elected. Control of foreign policy is never out of their hands.
Historically presidents got their advisers from the same Wall Street special interest group, the CFR. They all supported extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 800 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. They all supported international trade agreements (NAFTA, GATT, and most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership) that enhanced the power of the United Nations over the U.S. and exported jobs formerly held by Americans. They all supported the bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers private Federal Reserve Bank and opposed its being audited. They all preferred problem solving on the federal or international level rather than the state or county levels. Until now neither party supported a southern border wall enough to have one.
In these items the major political parties mirror the other as did Clinton and Bush. Either, once president, would have filled their administrations with Council of Foreign Relations members. In either case the next UN Ambassador, Secretary of State, Ambassadors to both Russia and China would come from this organization, as would a third of his/her cabinet, as has been the case for most of the last 97 years.
Such has been the case since the Council on Foreign Relations was founded by its international banker creators J.P. Morgan and et 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.” The CFR promotes sovereignty transfers from all nations to the United Nations; indeed its end goal is world government.
Donald Trump’s surfacing as the Republican nominee for president despite universal globalist hatred from his own party and Hillary’s rejection at the polls left the globalist without an approved president occupying the White House since Herbert Hoover. It was the most profound political revolution in the last 100 years.
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.
