Select Page

Why Should Congress be Exempted from ObamaCare and Not You?

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

“If ObamaCare is hurting people, & it is, why shouldn’t it hurt the insurance companies & why should Congress not be paying what the public pays?” tweeted the President. Donald Trump wants to remove privileged taxpayer subsidies to members of Congress, their staffs, and insurance companies, at least until they pass something on healthcare.

On November 8, 2013, each member of Congress, with little media coverage, chose whether they and their staffs accepted the Obama exemption exempting them from having to live under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as did their constituents, they could go elsewhere, costing more, and be subsidized by the taxpayer. And the exemption was made easy to accept. If lawmakers didn’t act, staffers were exempted by default—automatically. Did your two U.S. Senators and member of the House of Representatives choose to exempt themselves from ObamaCare while still pushing it on you?

Most Americans were not supportive of ObamaCare when signed into law March 23, 2010. Today, seven years later, most would vote against it as well, especially in light of its history of rate increases and higher deductibles, although President Barack Obama promised otherwise. And most have not been able to keep their doctors or providers. Big business and unions opted out of it, when possible, as fast as they could.

In what appeared aimed to mute congressional opposition to the forced healthcare law, Obama allowed Congress to opt out, leaving only the American people enslaved by the legislation they created. Last week Congress did not repeal ObamaCare in part because they would loose their ability to choose other plans because of the subsidies. Trump wants them to lose their privileged status.

At first some members of Congress convincingly denied that they had received an exemption but Senator David Vitter published the Obamacare language next to the Obama exemption. The first read in part: “If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes” (See Section 1512, number 3). The second, the Obama Congressional exemption, coming through the Office of Personnel Management, page 6, read in part: “The revisions adopted here have no impact on the availability to Member of Congress and Congressional Staff of the contribution established in 5 USC 8906” (Alex Pappas, “Republican accuses fellow lawmakers of ‘lying’ about Obamacare exemption,” 9/19/2013). Since the federal government was their employer they would not lose the subsidy as would others by not accepting ObamacCare.

Obama, who had no constitutional authority to make law, unilaterally changed the law in 2013 and voided, otherwise mandatory, congressional participation. This presumably to grease the skids for members of Congress accepting what in any other setting would be called a bribe. They defined their employees as “official” or “not official,” to determine whether or not staff members had to enter the exchanges. Because the exception was not part of the original law and came about thereafter by executive change, Trump can nullify by the same power.

The hypocrisy of forcing the people to live under what they themselves will not is beyond description and at the height of political corruption. If the president is going to lead us into socialized medicine then he must accept it for himself. If the Supreme Court is going to rule it constitutional, they too must live under it. This should be the litmus test for the reelection of every U.S. Senator and member of the House of Representatives for the next several years to flush out of office those who exempt themselves from the laws that they make for others. All members of Congress made this decision on November 8, 2013. Did they choose to live above the law? If so, corruption has never been so clear and stark.

Most House Republicans opted to submit themselves and their staffs to the exemption of the law because they despised the law and played virtually no role in its inception. But Senate Democrats, who all voted for it, appeared hypocritical when they too supported the exemption. We believe that no exemptions should be made for anyone who works in government. How will they govern correctly if they have immunized themselves from the pain they cause others?

We support Senator Rand Paul’s Constitutional Amendment designed to require our government to live under the same laws that they make for us. They are not our masters but our servants.

Insurance companies have been given huge subsidies, taken primarily from the middle class, to entice them to keep prices lower for those with lower incomes. If these are cut this week, as Trump threatens, ObamaCare may collapse even more quickly and Trump and Republicans may be blamed, so cut them gradually beginning now. But there is no sympathy for members of Congress and their staffs—cut them immediately and insurance subsidies 5 or 10% per month until ended. More insurance companies, thus more options and lower prices, will develop quickly as has always been the case under the free market, when truly free.


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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

The North American Union is on the Table, Again

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Those of us who have taught international issues for decades have something to offer those who have not. Internationalism, new world order, world order, and globalism are synonyms for world government. Other terms such as inter-nationalization, multilateral, politicization, integration, free trade, commonality, convergence, unification, harmonization, open borders, are often used in conjunction with these synonyms to make them more fashionable and acceptable.

When these terms become known for what they are they become unpopular because few want the United States to become reduced to a mere state in a world government. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights would be relegated to historical documents without any real basis in a government above our own, or even in our own, if not supported by the higher government.

Once understood as such, proponents simply change to a new synonym and continue their program to elevate all significant decision making from local to national to international with, of course, themselves at the helm. Individualism and nationalism must be destroyed. Free enterprise and limited government are not likely to exist. Those who wish to retain these treasured beliefs are the enemy.

Globalists operate on the theory that man is easily manipulated and can be managed to believe whatever he is fed, even to the point of calling slavery freedom and freedom slavery—even good is bad and bad good. Few really think for themselves and they can be removed in other ways beginning with peer pressure and progressing to more violent ways if need be. Man will even choose to give up his liberty for the mere promise of a better future. Communist forces were called liberation armies.

Lenin, Hitler, and Moa Tse Tung and each preferred force to accomplish their form of world government. Globalists today, notably David Rockefeller (just deceased) and Henry Kissinger, know that these ends can be accomplished more slowly without force through the control of media and education. The rule is to always provide the appearance of controversy and free thought but control what people think about by access to it. Observe that the establishment news sources say nothing about regionalism as it conquers nations without restraint or notice.

As words are used to deceive the masses in the transition to world government so are they also valuable weapons in the transition to regional government. They begin with economic commonality and progress to political unity as was done in Europe. From the European Coal and Steel Community 1951, to the European Economic Community (Common Market) 1958, to the European Community 1993, to the European Union shortly thereafter until the original purpose, regional government, was fait accompli complete with a European Parliament 1979 and common currency, the euro, in 1992.

The unification of Europe as a single government, with each of 27 nations (Great Britain has voted to exit) losing their sovereignty as a separate independent nation, once so highly prized by each, something unobtainable by sword or bombs whether by Napoléon, Hitler or Stalin, has been accomplished without a single shot being fired while the vast majority of citizens were lulled to sleep by mere words. Formerly millions lost their lives to defend their nation’s sovereignty. The globalist conquered Europe establishing regional government (the European Union) in less than 50 years and unless thwarted will conquer all nations in half that time again.

Other regional governments followed the EU. The USSR, after the fall of communism in 1989, transformed itself into the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA)—a regional government of nations still under the control of Russia. The world has since been divided into 22 other regional governments each following the European Union model and each at a different stage in the “politicization” of the countries in their regions and most still saddled by the necessity of using the deceptive “free trade” terminology.   In time the plan is to reduce 206 countries to less than 20 regional governments turning these countries into mere states of regional countries—a much more manageable world for globalists.

Some of these perspective regional governments have progressed beyond the need to keep the “free trade” terminology, as for example, the African Economic Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), both uniting large sections of Africa. The Council of Arab Economic Unity (CAEU) uniting northern Islamic Africa and the Middle East is another. South America is to be united by the Southern Cone Common Market, frequently referred to as Mercosur. It has progressed to the point that it now has a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is a final step toward political unification.

But the “word war” for regional governments first, then the eventual merging of these governments into world government under the United Nations, following the European model, continues. The North American Union essentially began with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiated by George H. W. Bush and signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton. Notice neither party opposed globalization.

President Donald Trump campaigned against NAFTA and poses the first threat to its continued existence. Globalists want it renegotiated in the hopes of enlarging its political functions and combining its geographical area to Central America as well. Trump unfortunately has agreed to renegotiate NAFTA placing it back on the table for possible expansion into the North American Union.

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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

NAFTA, “No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal.”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Much of why Donald Trump is president is because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which always has been disastrous for the trades. Democratically controlled unions and their politicians were for it when signed into law by President Bill Clinton and without union support it would not be law.

Big corporations and globalists (often Republicans) have been for it because through it they could manage the regulations and productions codes thus keeping their monopolistic empires in place—it limited trade. It has never been free trade. Free trade is the absence of production codes, government regulations, and trade boundaries, when the consumer alone picks the winners and losers by the high quality and low cost of their performance or products.

Many union workers knew their party had betrayed them at the time but almost all know it now. When Trump dubbed NAFTA as “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country,” they had experienced it as such and thus his appeal to them. And when he said, “I’m going to tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers…. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal,” they cheered.

He also told them. “I see the carnage that NAFTA has caused, I see the carnage. It’s been horrible. I see upstate New York, I see North Carolina, but I see every state. You look at New England. New England got really whacked. New England got hit.” “NAFTA has been very, very bad,” Trump said in a speech in Kenosha, Wisconsin, speaking of dairy farmers being hurt by recent Canadian price changes that the farmers believed violated trade standards. “The fact is that NAFTA has been a disaster for the United States and a complete and total disaster.”

Union workers saw their jobs lost (six million the first 16 years of NAFTA) and factories moving to Mexico to take advantage of lower-waged workers. Whatever bad things their party and their media said about Trump, they knew he spoke the truth on this issue and that they would have a friend in the White House if he kept his promise. This is a major reason he won the old northwest and the election. And this is why he could lose the next election if he doesn’t return the jobs.

The problem with Trump’s call for renegotiation of NAFTA, rather than just pulling out, is that when the government negotiates regulations, productions codes, and trade areas it is not free trade and is never fair, even if well intentioned. Free trade has no restrictions on transactions, (not 1,000 pages as in NAFTA) and fair trade implies that both trade parties feel justice in the outcome. NAFTA is government-managed trade.

Trump cannot win this argument. Fair for him is if our existing corporations (who fund his next election) retain advantage over competing new entrepreneurs and foreign competitors are disadvantaged. If advantage is determined by natural law, one out performs, gives better service or products at lower cost but with higher quality, as when individuals make selections, it is both free trade and fair trade. Government can never do this because it can never account for all the variables involved and is impacted too much by the use of government to get advantage. Even Trump fell victim to this as a private citizen when he made political contributions to both political parties should he need advantaged in a business deal down the road.

In the renegotiation special interests seek to enhance governmental powers in their behalf. Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, expects the renegotiated NAFTA to include more environmental protections and climate change measures.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, best represents the problem with government deciding winners and losers, “We will do everything we can to make this a good agreement and to hold the president at his word and make sure we get a renegotiation. If it comes out that it is not a good deal, no deal is better than a bad deal,” But what is a “good” deal? With no government intervention both seller and buyer get a “good” deal or a transaction is not processed.

Nancy Pelosi faults President Trump “for all of his rhetoric, President Trump looks to be sorely disappointing American workers on trade.” For Democrats it will never be fair because it is never enough. For Republicans it will never be free because it must be managed. Few from either major political party really believe in limited government or they would adhere to Article I, Section 8 of which most of NAFTA violates.

Congress expects to take up the NAFTA issue mid-August. The fairest and freest trade deal for all Americans is to allow natural law under the free market to rule. If negotiation does not respect these time-tested restraints, and the Constitution, Trump would be best served to work for Article 2205 and withdrawal as suggested by AFL-CIO president Trumka— “no deal is better than a bad deal.” And this, the sooner the better, or, he may pay a heavy price in 2020.


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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Trump May Only Repeal Obamacare

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For eight years Republicans promised to repeal Obamacare when they had the power.  None had voted for it.  The word replace was never used.  Senator Ted Cruz was the only presidential candidate promising to repeal it “day one.” But when Republicans got the power they broke this promise.

Candidate Donald Trump had promised to “repeal and replace” and has tried to keep both promises but Democrats refuse to support anything he does and Republicans are now divided on the topic. The Republican holdouts are rightly doing so on constitutional grounds and they and the Democrats together make it impossible for Trump to get the votes he needs to replace it.  So why not keep half his promise rather than none, repeal and move on to tax reform?  Republicans have the power to repeal now but will never have the power from those loyal to the Constitution to replace it without an amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul is making a similar case, “Repeal now, Replace Later” and is getting the President’s ear in several private meetings. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promises to hold the Senate hostage by delaying the August recess to further “arm-twist” vulnerable senators but, as was the case with House Speaker Paul Ryan, has been stopped by the constitutionalists of his party, the Freedom Caucus.

The Founders knew that all governments tend to grow in power. To stop this they made a list of the areas of federal jurisdiction with the understanding that all areas not mentioned belonged to the states.  All convention delegates understood this and curiously placed every power in one sentence with 18 paragraphs (Article I, Section 8).  The strange construction was to make it even more difficult for future power grabbers to isolate and enhance a power.  Everything had to be considered in the context of the one sentence.  Probably not one in a thousand knows what you have just learned. To make this interpretation even more powerful they later added the 10th Amendment ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the states respectively….”

Equally unknown, because the document is no longer seriously treated in today’s educational process, is the following.  The Founders gave the federal government only four areas of power: taxes, paying the debts, providing for the general welfare (that’s not the same as providing the general welfare), and providing for the common defense.  That is it my friends.  All of it!  All four powers are identified before the first semi-colon.  That following are simply qualifiers of these four.  “But all Duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the U.S.” These were different types of taxes.  There were no qualifiers on paying our debts.  The Founders rejected the normal practice of just refusing to honor the commitments of the previous government even though it would have been easy to do.

Now to the heart of why Article I, Section 8 is so long and so hated by big government advocates who would do anything to explain away what I now share and why they would rather you not read it.  Please stay with me; this is so critical to your personal liberty.  The Founders did not dare to leave the phrases “general welfare” or  “common defense” for future power grabbers.  No telling what they could do with these vague phases.  They understood that it is the nature of all government to grow.  Notice that clauses 2-9 detail what they meant by general welfare and clauses 10 to 17 what they meant by common defense.

For now let us stay with general welfare.  Listed are 14 powers, five dealing with borrowing money, regulating its value, and dealing with counterfeiting.  The other nine included naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.”

Who decided the division of powers—the states?  They forfeited only specific powers and only those they could not reasonably do as states as, for example a common currency.  Why would they give any more?  They had just rejected the flow of power from the Colonies to Parliament and the resultant avalanche of rules descending from them in return. After all, the cause of the American Revolution was excessive government.  Their intent was to handcuff the federal government so that such could never happen again, not give it free reign.  In fact, our first national government, The Articles of Confederation, was left so weak that it could not function properly, thus the Constitutional Convention.

My point!!  National health care is not on the list, in fact, it is a million miles from any of the 14 powers detailing general welfare.  Now you know why so many use the word unconstitutional in the same sentence with national healthcare.  If national healthcare can be prostituted from this list anything can and any pretense of a government with limited powers ends.  If the people really want the government to control healthcare and 1/6th of the economy, they must get an amendment to the Constitution ratified by the states as outlined in Article V of the Constitution.  Hopefully Trump, under the tutelage of Senator Rand Paul, is catching on.  Presently Congress has only the power to repeal that which has never been constitutional.

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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

When Patriotism Becomes Mostly Seasonal

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Following our annual celebration of the 4th of July, sometimes reflection is helpful. A week before this holiday everyone dons a patriotic tie. A week later few do. This is when patriotism is seasonal. The event comes and goes; essentially colors red, white, and blue are popular for a day, and then out. You might even be viewed as “super patriotic” (as though this were bad) were one to wear the tie a second week.

The evening is filled with fireworks (the bigger the better) but few know why. When asked, the most common response is freedom. “Freedom from what or whom?” I ask. If a stare could kill, I’d be dead. There is no real understanding behind the expression. It is rare when anyone answers correctly, “Freedom from excessive government.”

The cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. Some say, “taxation without representation” but this is only a part of excessive government. Every U.S. History text has a chapter dealing with the Revolution. It is filled with the rules and regulations that were most oppressive to the colonists: the Stamp Act, Tea Act, Currency Act, Iron Act, Molasses Act, Sugar Act, even the Hat Act. Such acts were viewed by the colonist as restrictive to their freedom to act independent of governmental permission. Essentially when they came down like rain, as they did just prior to the Revolution, the colonists said why, grieved the rulings without success, then, “Where is my rifle?”

For one day of the year there is peace between liberals and conservatives. Each wears the emblems of the Revolution and demonstrates their patriotism by rising bigger flags, exploding bigger fireworks, eating bigger steaks and guzzling more alcohol. Parades too are non-contentious and show patriotism, but for what? The next day we ask the federal government to manage one-seventh of the economy, whether Obamacare or Trumpcare, totally ignoring the Constitution and the reason for the Revolution.

Few share with their children the reasons behind these symbols and still fewer tie the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution which essentially ended the need for a second revolution by restricting the federal government to a handful of areas in which they can constitutionally restrict our behavior (Article I, Sec. 8), freezing forever, if we adhere to the Constitution as designed, our legislative branch doing the same thing to us as had parliament to the colonists. If the two are not tied together then the American Revolution was just a revolution, rightly commemorated by having a longer weekend and an excuse to get drunk. It is okay then if patriotism becomes mostly seasonal.

Lost in the translation and replaced by the blank stare, previously mentioned, is your right to do most everything you wish without permission from a government located hundreds, often thousands, of miles away. Outside the short list in Article I, Section 8, which, incidentally, has no restrictions on the individual himself, the Constitution left the individual to manage himself. When his behavior offended the right of others to also self-manage, his community, starting at the lowest level (cities, counties, and finally his state government), may regulate his behavior protecting the right of self-managing for others as well.

This is called freedom. And this is the end result of a 13-year transformative period from the Declaration of Independence through the Articles of Federation to the Constitution, which included the Bill of Rights. The federal government constitutionally could only increase its power through Article V, which required the permission of the states.

The collective view of the Founders was to never elevate to a higher level that which could be resolved at a lessor level. Resolvement at the lowest level, the city for example, allows the individual unable to self-manage, to access his elected representatives for redress. He also answers to those he has most directly offended. A more just outcome is likely. Imagine resolvement issues if he had to answer to someone in Washington D. C.

The 4th of July and Constitution Week in September are our best opportunities to share the message of why the Revolution and the Constitution interconnect and are among the more important events in U.S., even world, history. When patriotism is largely seasonal, as it has become, what I have just explained loses its best chance of being remembered and retained when we do not gather our family, church and civic organizations around us using every means to enlightening others.

We are grateful to those who know the real meaning and significance of this event in history and are willing to share it with others. We remain grateful for the bigger fireworks, lights shows, and parades just as long as we do not forget that most of us remain opposed to excessive government, as were those who gave their lives for this cause in the Revolutionary War, whether it comes, as it did for them, from a parliament, or a Congress.

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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Getting Out of the United Nations

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

I remember when grade schools promoted UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) by asking students to raise money while Trick-or-Treating every Halloween. In fact, looking back the UN was always treated favorably in school. I never heard a negative comment in my university experience either. Out of school, when I controlled what I read, the literature on the subject was quite different—even opposite. I came to realize that I had to undo some serious programing.

But getting kids to deny themselves candy for UNICEF programing was universal. Prior to 2012, U. S. Trick-or-Treaters had contributed $157 million and Canadians $91 million. If parents, or bullies, took candy from children it would be frowned upon but if the UN does it, approved—even commended. If an organization targeted children for a political outcome it would be unacceptable. Apparently UNICEF money was also used to produce cartoons promoting children’s rights, so political is the organization.

U.N. involvement in education, especially espousing globalism, world government if you prefer, is not new. Even last year their “Global Education Monitoring Report” dubbed “Policy Paper 28,” called for textbooks to include heavier doses of “global citizenship,” and the viewing of environmental problems as global issues requiring global solutions requiring global government. It also wanted textbooks to increase favorable coverage of sexual diversity including: homosexuality, homosexual parenting, bisexuality, and transgenderism.

In a UN summit for youth, held January 30, 2017, UN General Assembly President Peter Thomson, referred to the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals,” as the “master plan for humanity.” But the master plan presented to the youth always leaves problem solving with the UN and increases planetary economic controls and wealth redistribution, each of which eventually destroys national sovereignty and liberty.

But amid these efforts to radicalize our youth in favor of globalism emerges the evidence that the UN is also the world’s leading governmental sexual abuser of children, its peacekeepers repeatedly raping children, some as young as ten. In an Associated Press Report, April 13, 2017, U. S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, gave a graphic depiction of U.N. peacekeepers sexually abusing homeless children. She disclosed one boy, in 2011, being “raped by peacekeepers who disgustingly filmed it on a cell phone.” UN Sri Lankan troops raped a 15-year-old boy over 100 times. One girl was raped, sharing later, “I did not even have breasts.” Between ages 12 and 15 “she was raped by almost 50 UN peace troops.”

But it is not just an occasional rape. The Report alleged some 2,000 allegations of rape, pedophilia, and sexual abuse of civilians in a little over a decade and it is assumed that the number is vastly under-reported.

But even this is not new. The United Nations has a long history of the same. Prostitution almost always increases wherever UN peacekeeping troops are stationed. Such was so in Cambodia, Mozambique, Central Africa, Sudan, “Bosnia, and Kosovo after UN, and in the case of the latter two, when NATO peacekeeping forces moved in.” Amnesty International disclosed, “A Kosovo victims support group reported that of the local prostitutes, a third were under 14, and 80% were under 18. The victims were routinely “raped ‘as a means of control and coercion’ and kept in terrible conditions as slaves by their ‘owners’; sometimes kept in darkened rooms unable to go out.”   In 2004, they reported, “that under-age girls were being kidnapped, tortured and forced into prostitution in Kosovo with U.N. and NATO personnel being the customers driving the demand for the sex slaves.” A simple reference to Wikipedia documents these and similar reports

Much of the information on corruption in the UN (child sexual rings and etc.) come from whistleblowers such as Povl Bang-Jensen, Anders Kompass, and Rasna Warah who appear to have no other motive than to right wrongs against humanity. The latest book on the subject is by Rasna Warah, “UNsilenced: Unmasking the United Nations’ Culture of Cover-ups, Corruption and Impunity.” As the title indicates, along with the revelation of sexual exploitation of children, it reveals corruption, abuse of power, and criminal activity for the last 15 years.

The revelations of this column are important. Globalism is the process of transcending into a world government with the United Nations, created by the globalists, to be the new government and in time the only “real” power on earth. The United States would be as a state, like South Carolina, in a bigger union. Government schools have propagandized for it since my youth. Innocently I was conned into helping them by raising money while Trick-or-Treating. There was never another side presented. But the real history of the United Nations, where they have power, is that of indoctrination, corruption, cover-ups and sexual abuse of children. Why should I expect it to be any different in this country when world government is in place and they have all the power?

I support current House bill, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, bipartisan legislation to remove the United States from the UN. Proposed every year, it has more support now than ever. I find no good reason to continue Trick-or-Treating, or anything else, for an organization that undermines our sovereignty, the Constitution, and molests children.

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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit