The 2016 presidential election was the greatest political revolution in a century, leaving no globalist-supported president occupying the White House for the first time 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 like globalists, the establishment, money trust and the Washington cartel. Their most visible and largest organization is the 97-year old Council on Foreign Relations. 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 Jan. 19, 2015, and Nov. 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 exist 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 20 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 and 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 the establishment, 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 (whoever gets coveted center stage automatically gets more spotlight coverage). The first election is always the medias because it alone defines serious candidates. Globalist interests get attention no matter which political party is elected. Control of foreign policy is never out of its 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 United Nations ambassador, secretary of state, ambassadors to both Russia and China would come from this organization, as would a third of the president's 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 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." 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 globalists without an approved president occupying the White House for the first time since Herbert Hoover. It was the most profound political revolution in the last 100 years.
Harold W. Pease, Ph.D., 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 more than 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 04/18/2018