Select Page

“The Constitution is a Shield from the Tyranny of the Majority”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

“The Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,” so said U.S. District Federal Judge, Roger Benitez late last June when he blocked one of the most horrific laws yet to damage the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights—even in California dominated by one political party and one political ideology. A California referendum, potentially making thousands, perhaps millions, felons, was to go into effect July 1, 2017.

In California gun magazine sales have been limited to ten rounds for the last 17 years but persons already in possession of magazines exceeding this number could keep them as grandfathered in. The state reneged on this last November when Prop 63 required owners to get rid of them or the state would seize them and punish owners with fines up to $100 per magazine or up to a year in jail.  Gun owners were given options for disposal: turn them in to law enforcement for destruction, destroy them themselves, remove them from the state and/or sell them to licensed firearms dealers.

Fortunately, Judge Benitez blocked this measure doing so mostly on the basis of three arguments: the Second Amendment, just compensation, and “criminal law trapping.” On the last, he wrote that the new law made it harder “for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law,” to comply. And, it gave “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property… That is a choice they should not have to make.” Moreover, he wrote, it “burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the mere possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.” The Constitution, he said, “is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” Sixty-three percent of Californians had voted for this.

We might emphasize the state cannot confiscate legally purchased property. This constitutes theft when not “for public use,” which thievery is amplified many times when taken without “just compensation,” as when the state mandates taking property “for public use,” as in building roads (Amendment V). This is the only part of the Constitution that permits property confiscation but it houses two qualifiers, it must be “for public use” and it requires “just compensation” to the property owner. Neither condition is met in the case of magazine confiscation.

This referendum on magazines, which, like ammunition, makes the gun operable, has resulted despite the clear language in the Constitution prohibiting government infringement on a citizen’s right to bear arms. The anti-self defense crowd despise the following language found therein, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There exists no sentence in the Bill of Rights, an amendment required by the people/states conditional upon their ratification of the Constitution, which was more understood at the time. A militia then was the people and an armed populace was understood to be necessary for a free country in two ways: an armed populace could assist the military against foreign invasion, and/or would be in place should the biggest enemy to liberty be one’s own government.

Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting the type of firearm, amount of ammunition, or where, or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety, or hunting, these were already assumed. Founding documents show it specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (no pun intended) squarely at the government should it become tyrannical as before under the British. But certainly we need have no fear of the government today? Given California’s new gun laws, perhaps we should.

Imagine how restricting magazines, ammunition and etc., that California has imposed on its people, might emasculate citizens in their ability to assist the military against a foreign invasion (as in the case of citizens stopping the British invasion in the Battle of Saratoga) and/or to oppose our own government (the king and parliament at one time) should it become tyrannical as in the American Revolution. Our Founders did not deny future generations the same means of resisting tyranny that they themselves used.

California’s Prop 63 violates the Second Amendment, which placed bearing arms off-limits to government and used the strongest language possible, “shall not be infringed,” in doing so. Any referendum or legislation, state or federal, cannot constitutionally undermine or destroy an amendment to the Constitution.

So U.S. District Federal Judge, Roger Benitez stopped the latest California assault on 2nd Amendment, for now. Unfortunately the radicalized, infamous 9th Circuit will likely reverse his decision. If the Supreme Court chooses not to take the case its judgment will stand. If they do, Trump’s Supreme Court Appointee Neil Gorsuch, will likely provide the vote to save us from the new idea that confiscation of lawfully purchased items, can be constitutionally used to further damage the 2nd Amendment, but this time for the whole nation, not just California. Thank our Founders that their document shielded us from the tyranny of the majority.

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 Constitutionality of Escalating War in Afghanistan

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Few presidential candidates in the last seven years have campaigned more for pulling out of Afghanistan then Donald Trump so his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, 16 years after it began, is a shock to many who are tired of the globalist no-win and perpetual warfare, and in part voted for him to end it. His words resonated with most, “Afghanistan is a total and complete disaster.” In another, “Are they going to be there for the next 200 years?” In another, the U.S. had “wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure.” And another, “What are we doing there? These people hate us … We’re a debtor nation. We can’t build our own schools, yet we build schools in Afghanistan.”

All of this remains true and irrefutable, even though Trump said that viewing this war from the Oval Office prompted his reversal. War Hawk Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, former political enemies, now love him as do many globalists. His having surrounded himself with generals, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster and James Mattis (more military influence in the White House than in decades) is said to have influenced this change. Certainly “the industrial military complex,” as warned by Eisenhower before leaving office in 1961, is well in place around him.

The Afghanistan War has cost us over a trillion dollars in treasure and 3,539 coalition soldiers and is now the longest war in U.S. History. Nothing in the Trump Presidential Speech of August 21, 2017, changes any of this. Adding some 4,000 new U.S. soldiers to the 8,400 presently there, together with another 6,000 from NATO countries, is not likely to change what 16 years and two prior presidents could not.

But all of this would change if prior presidents of both political parties, and now Trump, took their oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” seriously (Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cla. 8).  Military powers are housed 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 can 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) have 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 to account for why total victory has not yet been obtained and reduce or enlarge funding, with time restraints, to keep officers focused—even the president—and on a short lease with respect to the war declared.

Why did the president get none of this power? Because he “had the most propensity for war,” James Madison argued in the Constitutional Convention. Kings traditionally had sole power over the lives of their subjects. Not so under the Constitution. One man would never have such power. A declaration of war gave clarity to its beginning with victory or defeat its only ending. It could never be a casual thing as it is now.

In Afghanistan war transcended from attacking, to regime change, to nation-building, to policing their country for them. In fact, today it remains uncertain as to which nation is most responsible for 9 11. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers flying into the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings on that infamous day were Saudi nationals, as was Osama bin Laden. The country of Iraq had nothing to do with the attack, but received the first missiles in retaliation. Certainly Al-Qaeda dominated Afghanistan, but Saudi Arabia, who funded Al-Qaeda, got off scot-free.

The only constitutional power left by our Founders to the president is as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States… ,” notice this, “when called into actual Service of the United States,” which can only be done by Congress(Art. II, Sec. 2, Cla. 1). Otherwise the military functioned 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.

There was no declaration of war by Congress on Afghanistan (or any other country since World War II) calling into “actual service” the military. Nor is there a specific two-year funding limitation on war as constitutionally required. Moreover, Congress clearly has been nullified in making the “rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces” in this no-end conflict.

Recent presidents have usurped all of the military powers of Congress unto themselves and Trump is doing the same. It is a dangerous slippery slope and clearly exceeds constitutional authority regardless of who inhabits the White House.

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

“I Fear Going to College”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Student unrest in many colleges last spring demonstrated what is becoming obvious; institutions of higher learning are becoming radicalized and project intolerance for anything but a liberal view. Too few permit conservative or libertarian speakers and far fewer a constitutional speaker.

I was not surprised, some years ago, to hear a mother share with me her son’s fear that he did not wish to attend college because he did not wish to be politically indoctrinated. Parents increasingly worry about the radicalization of their children as well. As the years go by I hear this more frequently. Often when asked my profession, a political science professor, I get that look, “Oh! You’re one of those.” So, the assumption is that professors, especially those in political science, are socialists or worse. But it is largely true.

College is supposed to be a big tent housing all types of thinking so that the student can gravitate to what he thinks best after all sides are presented. Although everyone gives lip service to this statement, there still exists a preferred philosophy. Most colleges insist that they adhere to the idea of intellectual diversity, but the literature suggest otherwise, that the vast majority of colleges and universities are weighted in favor of one ideology and professors to one political party. This is not hidden. Many political science textbooks acknowledge this.

There exists a consensus of what a “good education” consists. Students are immersed in race consciousness, feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, collectivism, globalism, political activism, class warfare, global warming, acceptance of sexual deviations as normal, and minimization of the importance of Christianity. The end product, the student, must come to accept the above script. It is also in virtually all textbooks. It’s not that any of these notions are bad, in and of themselves, but it is the nearly universal absence of the opposing view that is most troubling parents/students who do not want the indoctrination. All this reminds me of a 1960’s tune with lyrics. “Little boxes on the hillside. Little boxes made of ticky-tacky… And they all look just the same. And the people in the houses, all go to the university… And they all look just the same.”

It’s not fear of political science classes alone in most colleges and universities. Students can escape the indoctrination across the hall in a history or sociology class. Not so! Such bias permeates most academic areas. An English professor from a large Midwestern university, who did not wish to be identified because of possible retribution, spoke of English classes giving less emphasis on grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure and more on the political correctness. “Everything from Theater to Philosophy to History to English has, in effect, become sociology,” he wrote. “Teaching subject matter has become less important than teaching a very political perspective.” In the end, “They get taught the same thing over and over: a radical critique of the entire American social structure, an indictment of capitalism, anti-Christian propaganda, and collectivism over individuality.”

Of course, additional classes reinforce the “good education” and the result is that if students have not learned to think for themselves, or have some opposing information from home or church to think with, they graduate and carry the indoctrination into every segment of society as gospel. New teachers from kindergarten to the universities will pipe the same, or similar, message.

Age and experience may alter the indoctrination but the twig is already bent in a prescribed direction and the student, like the twig, will give first consideration to returning to the indoctrination when confronted with anything in opposition. Colleges have so much power over “right” thinking.

An extreme example of this years ago, was a French Language and Culture class at Penn State University that required students to view the Michael Moore film Sicko, which focused on the inadequacies of the U.S. healthcare system and promoted Obamacare. In a French language class!?!

The indoctrination begins immediately in some colleges, critics say, “with orientation where students begin by learning about the evils of ‘white privilege’ in a program called the ‘tunnel of oppression’ and sit through lectures informing them that they are part of a ‘rape culture’.” University of Delaware forced incoming freshmen to participate in a “treatment” program a part of which informed them that the word racism applies only to “all white people.”  It also “blamed whites for having created the term racism” in the first place “to deny responsibility for systemic racism.” At Hamilton College in New York, fall 2010, male students were required “to attend a ‘She Fears You’ presentation to make them aware of the ‘rape culture’ of which they were allegedly a part and of the need to change their ‘rape supportive’ beliefs and attitudes” (New American, Aug. 5, 2013, pp. 23-27).

No wonder the young man did not wish to be subjected to what he saw as indoctrination. Because he knows that there exist other views there is hope for him, more especially if he selects professors who attempt to give alternative views of which there are still many, he will be fine. This is especially true at the community college level. It is students who have no idea that there exist alternative views that are most in danger. Parents too, realizing the danger to their children, can better prepare them against the indoctrination.


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

Constitution Absent for Woman Raped in Sanctuary City

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The recent brutal rape of a 19-year–old woman in Burien, Washington, a Seattle suburb, declared a sanctuary city, has refocused attention on the constitutionality of a city protecting an illegal alien. The Constitution should have protected her.

But the issue is complicated by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created in 2012 by executive order by then President Barack Obama.

Constitutionally only Congress can make law (Article I, Section 1). Executive orders that have the force and effect of law are entirely unconstitutional; otherwise our separation of powers philosophy is seriously damaged.

In response, former Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, merely issued memos to border agents to not enforce immigration law on under-aged illegals crossing the border and those who were under 31 when the memos were sent. DACA allowed deportation to be deferred for two-year intervals, which could be renewed endlessly as long as illegals obeyed the laws of the land. If school aged they were expected to remain in school, if adults they were provided a work permit. Congress passed none of this and thus it encouraged evading existing law. Sanctuary cities help illegal immigrants evade the law by not enforcing it within their jurisdiction.

Those supporting the Constitution must oppose made-up law by a single person regardless of political party or personal agreement with the action. That is how law and order breaks down and chaos, even revolution, results.

The brutal rape leaving a young woman bloodied with missing teeth, a dangling ear and a broken jaw was reportedly committed by a 23-year-old illegal immigrant with DACA status. The aggressor and victim lived in the same complex but did not know one another. It was a clear act of unprovoked aggression. As a result the city of Burien is moving to revoke its sanctuary status.

Separation of powers with one body making the law, another enforcing it, and a third adjudicating it, is the most basic principle of the Constitution. In it “all” federal law originates with and is processed through Congress with the President having only the authority to sign or veto law made by Congress and thereafter obligated to enforce all law processed in the same manner, whether he agrees with it or not. In every presidential inauguration we listen to him pledging by oath to be obedient to it: “I do solemnly swear…that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8). Making his own law, or refusing to enforce existing law coming through the same process, are grounds for impeachment.

Moreover every public servant, state or federal, judicial or legislative, including city council persons, swear an oath “to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3) thus they, by refusing to support, are defiant to the document and should be removed by their constituents (even share some responsibility for the rape and beating). If they refuse to remove those not supporting the Constitution they too stand defiant of it. This issue is that clear.

But these are not the only parts of the Constitution that are damaged by the sanctuary city philosophy. Article VI, Clause 2 states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therein…”   And, as mentioned, city officials are pledged to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states Congress shall have the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” Only the federal government can make immigration law. Sanctuary cities have no constitutional base. Clause 18, of the same section, states Congress shall have the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

The supreme law of the land for immigration is called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 274 of this titled—Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens—requires fines and/or imprisonment of anyone who aids and abets illegal aliens.

Any person who “knowingly” attempts to bring in an alien, has knowledge of, attempts to transport an alien within the U.S., “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; …shall be punished.” Punishment is “for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs.” All offenses bring a fine “under title 18, United States Code” and/or imprisonment ranging from 5 to 20 years depending upon the seriousness of the offense. If the alien’s presence “resulted in the death of any person” those assisting his presence in the U.S. can be fined, and/or, “punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

In the case of the rape and beating of the young woman in Burien, Washington, wherein the alien causes serious bodily injury … or places in jeopardy the life of, any person,” city officials assisting his presence could be fined, and/or, “imprisoned not more than 20 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 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

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