Glob­al­ists con­trol our elec­tions

Westside Eagle-Observer - - OPINION - By Harold Pease, Ph.D.

As es­tab­lished in pre­vi­ous col­umns, the glob­al­ists man­aged to place peo­ple sym­pa­thetic to their world-do­min­ion view as pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nees of both ma­jor po­lit­i­cal par­ties for most of the last 100 years, al­low­ing them to win the pres­i­dency no mat­ter who was elected. This has re­sulted in our hav­ing over 800 mil­i­tary bases to man­age the globe and the Coun­cil on For­eign Re­la­tions, the lead­ing globalist or­ga­ni­za­tion in the U.S., to place 190 of their jour­nal­ists in top po­si­tions in the lead­ing me­dia or­ga­ni­za­tions in Amer­ica, re­sult­ing in cit­i­zens be­ing largely un­aware of this con­trol­ling in­flu­ence.

Donald Trump said that the 2016 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion was “rigged” in fa­vor of Hil­lary Clin­ton. A strong case can be made for the elim­i­na­tion of Bernie San­ders, who gar­nered half the Democrats in the Iowa Cau­cus from longterm es­tab­lish­ment can­di­date Hil­lary Clin­ton and whose crowds tripled hers.

But po­lit­i­cal sci­en­tists know that they have been me­di­ated for decades by de­lib­er­ate me­dia ex­clu­sion of other po­lit­i­cal party can­di­dates. The 1 per­cent rich­est Amer­i­cans heav­ily fi­nance both ma­jor po­lit­i­cal par­ties. Some re­al­ize that nei­ther rep­re­sent, as first con­sid­er­a­tion, the poor or the mid­dle class.

I write the Fed­eral Elec­tions Com­mis­sion ev­ery Oc­to­ber of ev­ery elec­tion year to find out who is run­ning for pres­i­dent as the es­tab­lish­ment me­dia has largely not told me of con­tenders other than in its two po­lit­i­cal par­ties. The FEC re­quires that any­one run­ning for pres­i­dent spend­ing or col­lect­ing $5,000 or more on his or her can­di­dacy for pres­i­dent file with the agency. There are al­ways more than 200 peo­ple who do so. And, in ev­ery pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, there are at least 20 po­lit­i­cal par­ties of­fer­ing a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date.

Part of the me­di­ated sys­tem is the agree­ment among the main­stream me­dia to cover only Repub­li­cans and Democrats and only those fa­vor­able to glob­al­ism. I have al­ways pro­vided this list to my stu­dents. The real es­tab­lish­ment is the mon­eyed elite ca­pa­ble of bring­ing to can­di­dates the mil­lions of dol­lars needed to win. They pick win­ners and losers long be­fore pub­lic ex­po­sure and guide them through the elec­tion process to vic­tory by the money and ex­po­sure they al­lo­cate. Vot­ers sali­vate on cue over their party’s nom­i­na­tion with no idea how they were man­aged.

The Lib­er­tar­ian Party, for ex­am­ple, has of­fered a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date in ev­ery elec­tion for decades and is on the bal­lot in more than

45 states in ev­ery elec­tion but is sel­dom men­tioned and never in­vited to the “big de­bates.” They hold their own, never cov­ered by the es­tab­lish­ment press. One may ar­gue, “but they do not have enough voter strength to war­rant in­clu­sion,” but in fact, they do not have suf­fi­cient voter strength be­cause the es­tab­lish­ment me­dia does not cover them.

When the es­tab­lish­ment press wishes to ad­van­tage a can­di­date, it sud­denly al­lows in­clu­sion, such as when Ross Perot was “al­lowed” real par­tic­i­pa­tion in 1992 be­cause he would take more votes from Ge­orge H. W. Bush than Bill Clin­ton, giv­ing Clin­ton, the then me­dia fa­vorite, the White House. Ross Perot was on the bal­lot in ev­ery state only be­cause he re­ceived suf­fi­cient me­dia at­ten­tion by the me­dia to be there.

Such would be the case to­day for any­one else run­ning. The me­dia vote first by col­lec­tive ex­clu­sion of those not reg­is­tered as Democrats or Repub­li­cans. In po­lit­i­cal sci­ence, we learn that the first elec­tion is theirs. We get to choose from those they have not ex­cluded. The wis­est, most ex­pe­ri­enced, most gifted and most hon­est per­son in Amer­ica could not be pres­i­dent of the United States un­less he or she was a Demo­crat or Repub­li­can.

Me­dia cor­po­rate own­ers have al­lowed me­dia col­lu­sion and, as we have said in other col­umns, they are over­whelm­ingly also globalist. Trump sur­vived this me­dia fil­ter by run­ning as a Repub­li­can and vault­ing over the es­tab­lish­ment by fund­ing his own pri­mary cam­paign, en­abling him to call it as he saw it and win over the ma­jor­ity of Amer­i­cans who also felt ex­cluded by Wash­ing­ton D.C.

So what other po­lit­i­cal par­ties nor­mally of­fer can­di­dates for pres­i­dent on the bal­lot? They follow: Lib­er­tar­ian Party, Green Party, Con­sti­tu­tion Party of the U.S., Party of So­cial­ism and Lib­er­a­tion, Re­form Party USA, So­cial­ist Party USA, and So­cial­ist Work­ers Party. Th­ese po­lit­i­cal par­ties, with far less me­dia cov­er­age, still were able to get through the dif­fer­ent state hur­dles de­signed to re­duce choices on the bal­lot. No one wants forty names to choose from.

Other po­lit­i­cal par­ties with no na­tional me­dia cov­er­age of­fer­ing a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date on the bal­lot vary from elec­tion to elec­tion. Th­ese of­ten limit them­selves to a state or an is­sue. They were: Ap­proval Vot­ing Party-Colorado, Con­sti­tu­tion Party of Idaho-Texas, Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Party-Cal­i­for­nia, Pro­hi­bi­tion Party-Penn­syl­va­nia, Amer­i­can Sol­i­dar­ity Party-Michi­gan, Work­ers World Party-New York, Nu­tri­tion Party-New Jersey, Amer­i­can Party of SC-South Carolina, Amer­ica’s Party-Iowa, Vet­er­ans Party of Amer­ica-Texas, In­de­pen­dent Amer­i­can Party-Michi­gan, US Paci­fist Party-Illi­nois, Le­gal Mar­i­juana Now Party- Min­nesota, and So­cial­ist Equal­ity Par-Michi­gan.

Most Amer­i­cans know that some­thing is wrong — re­ally wrong. To­day In­de­pen­dents, those re­fus­ing to align Demo­crat or Repub­li­can, are about 40 per­cent, stronger than ei­ther party. Most Amer­i­cans feel lied to by both par­ties and the me­dia. Pres­i­dents from ei­ther party are strongly dis­liked by the time they fin­ish their sec­ond term. The peo­ple feel de­ceived when they elect politi­cians to re­store the Con­sti­tu­tion and the econ­omy and th­ese same politi­cians ap­pear to join the glob­al­ists as soon as they ar­rive in Wash­ing­ton D.C.

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.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.