Select Page

Dumping TPP Placed Kink in Globalist NWO Plans

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Many still do not understand the significance of Trump’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) pullout. It was the most serious blow to the globalists in 100 years. In the political literature of the last 100 years internationalism, world government, new world order (NWO), world order and globalism are synonymous. They suggest a progressive transfer of national sovereignty to a higher level of government such as the United Nations. The idea of the 1950’s and 1960’s was to increasingly enlarge the UN until it was the recognized world government with total power. When possible this process continues.

Since countries have been slow to forfeit their national sovereignty to the UN, proponents next encouraged regional governments—uniting countries into geographical units, as for example the European Union, then later, when peoples and nations get used to this power transfer, unite them then into a single political unit. Since countries will never initially unite into a single political unit, the plan was to begin with economical unity then progress to the political unity desired, precisely as was successful in the E U. The unification of Europe into a regional government processed through the following five stages: European Coal and Steel Community, Common Market, European Economic Community, European Community, and finally European Union when political unity was possible.

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 other regional governments each following the European Union model and free trade agreements (economic persuasion) have been the favorite tool. Currently there are 23 such regional agreements each at a different stage in the unifications of the countries in their regions and most still saddled by the necessity of using the somewhat 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, globalists believe.

Some of these perspective regional governments have progressed beyond the need to keep the “free trade” terminology when they describe themselves 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 most still need these words. Central Europe is to be united by the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) exists to unite countries from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka.

In the United States The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was to gradually unite Canada, the United States and Mexico into one regional government as had the European Union united Europe. A real border was never to be implemented because in time we were to be the North American Union complete with open borders of the people within and with an amero dollar to match the euro dollar. To globalists national sovereignty is the enemy. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, that depend on and protect national sovereignty, cannot be allowed to obstruct the move to a world government.

The main reason that the U.S. was not to have an effective southern border prior to the political unification of the three countries was because Mexico was so far behind the other two countries in economic development and it needed time to elevate itself. Mexicans flooding the U.S. for better paying jobs and many sending a portion of their money back to families in Mexico or opting to retire in their homeland with pensions acquired in the U. S., helped in Mexico’s economic elevation.

Some trade agreements also intentionally interlaced with other trade agreements. The three countries in NAFTA also are signatories of the 5,600 paged Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), just ended by President Trump. Had it been implemented it would have governed 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports and 26 percent of the world’s trade. It would have been the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region regardless of what the U.S. Constitution might say.

Its sister trade deal the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), called for by President Barack Obama in his February 12, 2013 State of the Union Address, would have economically merged the European Union and the United States much more closely with respect to market access, specific regulation and broader rules. Secret negotiations on the TTIP are expected to continue through 2020 and remain classified so the extent of this merger is unknown.

Trumps opposition to illegal immigration and his pulling out of the TPP negotiations are the most serious blows to the globalists in 100 years and will never be tolerated by them. They will continue to spew hate for him. His announced objective to renegotiate NAFTA as well and his probable pull out of TTIP too, may make him the most influential president rescuing us from world government.

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Trump Saves U.S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For readers who do not understand the international trade deals of the last 25 years, notably NAFTA, GATT and TPP, you will never fully grasp what President Donald J. Trump has just done for the Constitution and against the proponents of globalism. In his first day in office, pulling the United States out of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, he has done more to return us to constitutional integrity and to international free market economics than the last four presidents combined. Space permits our confining ourselves to the threat averted to the Constitution.

International trade deals have historically been a mix of oxymoron’s: Republicans for and Democrats against, with the actual trade deals finalized and implemented by Democrat presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Unions, considered left, and Tea Party folks, considered right, have been consistent opponents, as have constitutionalists. Thus, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul are on the same side, the former yelling in opposition to the TPP, “No more secret trade deals!” And, “No more special deals for multinational corporations!!”—Both accusing Obama of selling us out.

In 2013, the Washington Post was the largest newspaper to print some of the “secret” parts of the TPP observing that by then, after nearly a decade of negotiation and 19 secret meetings, had become a regional government document of a hefty 5,600 pages. “Which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade.” It will be the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region—without the input of a single member of Congress. This in violation of Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that mandates that all legislative powers reside in the House and Senate and in no other body. In fact, until 2015 members of Congress had not been allowed to even see the treaty whereas privileged corporations had no problem with access.

The paper continued, “The treaty has 29 chapters, dealing with everything from financial services to telecommunications to sanitary standards for food,” demonstrating the wide variety of areas believed to be affected by it, but again, it is the secretive nature of it that is most offensive. Apparently TPP participants signed “a confidentiality agreement requiring them to share proposals only with ‘government officials and individuals who are part of the government’s domestic trade advisory process’.” That excluded you, the media, Congress, and me.

The Post acknowledged that the agreement “encompass a broad range of regulatory and legal issues, making them a much more central part of foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking.” Such is curious. The Constitution requires the approval of your two U. S. Senators and your House member for every regulation upon you. There exists no language in the Constitution that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not affect “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. The admission that the TPP will influence foreign policy is interesting as only the U.S. Senate may influence foreign policy as per Article II, Section II.   Giving a “more central part of foreign policy” to an international agency would have virtually voided the Constitution in this area.

The Post identified “60 senators (who) have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, both Democrats, have been especially vocal about the Obama “Administration’s refusal to make draft text available.” Wikileaks published the chapter on intellectual property raising “many questions about copyright protections.” Obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to restrict everything in the industry. And this was but one of 29 chapters.

The implementation procedure of the globalists was to gain consensus among the countries signing it, all had by February 4, 2016, then present it Fast Track and without debate to both branches of Congress for a simple up or down vote.   Again, this procedure flies in the face of the Constitution. Treaty making, an agreement between two or more countries, is a shared power between the president and the senate. The president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” President Barack Obama did not seek Senate advice; indeed he has not even allowed the Senate to read his treaty prior to November 5, 2015, even then he accepted no changes in it. Then he presented it to both houses for a simple majority vote instead of only to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally mandated.

Law by a single man excluding Congress is unconstitutional. International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership would have siphoned decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and would have affected every American. A signature by any member of Congress or by a president would have violated his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Thank God Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not present it to the Senate when finished and President Trump took it off the table entirely.

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

5th Anniversary of NDAA “Indefinite Detention” Law

Harold Pease, Ph. D

On December 31, 2011, New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama signed into law the most constitutionally damaging law in American history, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This New Year’s Eve we note its 5th Anniversary. Previous annual appropriations bills funding national defense were mostly procedural but it was the addition of two sections, buried deep within the over 600 page document, that potentially gutted the Bill of Rights for American citizens thought by the President to be assisting the enemy, that so upset constitutionalists and libertarians.

Subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” authorized the president to apply the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the 2001 congressional document used to justify war on Iraq, now broadly to all thought to be terrorists—including Americans living in the states far from any battlefield. The military would be used to find, arrest and “detain covered persons…pending disposition under the law of war.” Translated, this means military tribunals and prisons and no Bill of Rights. U.S. law; local law enforcement agents, juries, courts and judges would be excluded, all on the whim of but one man—the president. Moreover there exists no requirement to notify local authority when one is “kidnaped” (captured and detained), or transferred out of the country, as for example to Guantanamo Bay, or detained indefinitely. President Obama did promise that he would not use it against US citizens. This power will be transferred to Donald Trump January 20, 2017.

Constitutionalists and libertarians, notably Senator Rand Paul and Dianne Feinstein, have worked hard to at least modify these two sections. Newer versions do have Sections 1031-1033 that portend to affirm the rights of due process and habeas corpus but opponents of newer NDAA’s are certain that it is not enough to get back to pre 2011 constitutional protections. Senator Feinstein noted that her goal “was to ensure the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists.”

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, following the Civil War, forbade the U.S. military from performing law enforcement functions on American soil. The American Civil Liberties Union warned in 2011, “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.” When asked if it were possible for an American to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, Senator John McCain said yes. Senator Lindsey Graham was more blunt. “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

With at least three generals in the Trump cabinet it is questionable whether they will advise Trump to return to the constitutional protections heretofore in place. But it will be a major test of his sincerity respecting separating himself from the establishment, both Republican and Democratic, who together, have imposed this upon all Americans. Cosponsors of the disturbing changes were Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, the latter Trump deeply offended in his presidential campaign. Neither is likely to abandon what they created without a serious fight.

Some things are very clear in the sections disputed. The terms “terrorists” and “affiliates” are not adequately defined, the President is given too much power, and they violate the U.S. Constitution, which everyone voting affirmatively swore to uphold. It is hard to trust the government’s definition of terrorist when Vice President Joe Biden, once referred to Tea Partiers as terrorists and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as mobsters (a term also implying a threat to society). What guarantee do we have that the “new” enemy does not simply rotate to anyone defined as “anti-government,” citizen or not?

Presidents have not proved particularly trustworthy in the past with respect to the Constitution and civil liberty. Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the stroke of a pen, detained over 110,000 Japanese Americans in “relocation camps” (Japanese-Americans called them concentration camps) in World War II on the basis of race and potential terrorism. Why should we have confidence in any president to not use this power as “seemeth” him good?

The Writ of Habeas Corpus found in Article I, Section 9 recognized that some day war might exist on our soil and that the accused had rights that might have to be momentarily delayed until recognized civilian authority could reasonably attend to them. It allowed this delay in only two circumstances “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Section 9 provides a list of powers specifically denied Congress; nor were they given to the President in Article II. This strongly suggests no federal role outside the two parameters, rebellion or invasion. The removal of any civilian role and the carting off of U.S. citizens to a foreign place without benefit of civilian judge or jury obliterates this right.

The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duties previously rendered by civil authorities is unconscionable in a free society. Ninety-three senators voted for this bill. Only seven understood the Constitution well enough to defend it and vote no. These were Democrats Tom Harkin, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden and Republicans Rand Paul, Thomas Coburn, Mike Lee.

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Is the 2016 Presidential Election Rigged? They all are!

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For some time Donald Trump has said that this election is “rigged” in favor of Hillary Clinton. He talks about the “pile on” against him by the establishment media, establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans, establishment bankers and corporations. He could have added the globalist establishment special interest groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers. There has been collusion amongst all these groups for decades more easily seen now than at anytime since Barry Goldwater. This is evidenced most clearly by the establishment media’s reluctance to cover Wikileaks released emails so devastating to Clinton and the Republican establishments hostility to their own candidate, as for example, George H. Bush’s vow to vote for Hillary.

Remember, Trump is the only “outsider” still in the race. From the onset non-establishment candidates Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump collectively had at least 60% of primary voters. Most Americans have felt something amiss in Washington DC in both major political parties for some time. We have mentioned in previous columns that Wall Street “elites” have, by their funding, owned both political parties and the mainstream media for most of a century and Trump threatens their continued power.

But most Americans do not understand that presidential elections have been “rigged” for decades by deliberate media exclusion of other political party candidates. 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 not told me. Yes, I know the candidates of the two favored political parties, but little else. I wish not to have my choices limited by the managed media.

The Federal Elections Commission requires that anyone running for president that spends or collects $5,000 or more on his/her candidacy for president file with them. My students are surprised to learn that there are always over 200 persons who do so, often many more. In every presidential election there are at least 20 political parties offering a presidential candidate. Part of the “rigged” system is the agreement among the mainstream media to cover only Republicans and Democrats.

The Libertarian Party has offered a presidential candidate in every election for decades and are on the ballot in over 45 states in every election but are seldom mentioned and never invited to the “big debates.” Certainly they feel excluded. 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 in the Union because he received sufficient media attention to be there.

Such would be the case today for anyone else getting media attention. The media get to vote first by its collective exclusion of those not registered with the Democrat or Republican Party. In political science we learn that the first election is theirs. We get to choose from those the media 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/she were 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 vaulted over the establishment by funding his own primary campaign enabling him to say it as he saw it and win over the majority of Americans who have also felt something amiss in Washington DC.

So what other political parties offer choices for president on the ballot this year? They follow: Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), Darrell Castle (Constitution Party of the U.S.), Gloria LaRiva (Party of Socialism and Liberation), Rocky de la Fuente (Reform Party USA), Emidio Soltysik (Socialist Party USA), Alyson Kennedy (Socialist Workers Party), Evan McMullin (Better For American Party), Frank Atwood (Approval Voting Party-Colorado), Scott Copeland (Constitution Party of Idaho-Texas), Princess Khadijah Jacob Fambro (Revolutionary Party-California), Jim Hedges (Prohibition Party-Pennsylvania), Mike Maturen (American Solidarity Party-Michigan), Monica Moorhead (Workers World Party-New York), Rod Silva (Nutrition Party-New Jersey), Peter Skewes (American Party of SC-South Carolina), Tom Hoefling (America’s Party-Iowa), Chris Keniston (Veterans Party of America-Texas), Kyle Kopitke (Independent American Party-Michigan), Bradford Lyttle (US Pacifist Party-Illinois), Dan Vacek (Legal Marijuana Now Party- Minesota), Jerry White (Socialist Equality Par-Michigan). These persons were able to go through the different state hurdles to get on the ballot without significant media coverage. The list ends with another 550 running for president as write-in candidates.

In this election many wish to know of options other than Clinton and Trump. The establishment media reluctantly noted the Libertarian and Green Party candidates, but unless voters do their own research they are not well informed on either and are totally ignorant on the other political parties running candidates. Obviously Trump is mostly arguing that elections are “rigged” because of the “pile on” against him, but it can also be argued that they were “rigged” long before him.

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

The Lesser of Two Evils

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

I have not endorsed a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan because in every election in my lifetime, the prevailing argument has always been the lesser of two evils. But if you are voting for the lesser of two evils aren’t you still voting for evil? As a devout Christian I do not wish to vote for any evil. Outside basic Christian values, I have gravitated to two things that dominate my political loyalty; the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, and opposition to what is now called globalism, the transfer of power from nations to regional governments and then to a world government. Political party is not my base for determining truth.

I have never supported the lesser of two evils voting practice because both candidates were “evil” using these barometers. But what if one candidate is many times more “evil” using these criteria than the other? Historically, lying or abuse of power concerns could be exposed in a free press and perpetrators could be removed either by impeachment or in a subsequent election. The nation could recover. But what if we no longer have a “real” free press and one side clearly dominates and excludes information? What if we reached a point in “evilness” that recovery is very unlikely, and a president uses the power of government to punish or silence political opposition, as did Richard Nixon with the IRS?

What if our outgoing president, Barack Obama, already defies the Constitution with executive orders circumventing the law-making powers of Congress and is already using the IRS against Tea Party groups? What if he has politicized the Department of Justice (DOJ) allowing it to overlook irregularities such as the secret tarmac meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on an airport runway in Phoenix Arizona over DOJ’s possible prosecution of Hillary. This, and the politicization of the FBI resulting in its subsequent failure to recommend prosecuting Hillary on her 33,000 national security bleach-bit deleted emails as it would have anyone else doing the same thing and giving all those pleading the Fifth Amendment on the email scandal immunity from prosecution. Political corruption is obviously at its highest level in U.S. History. What if justice in this country has already been politicized?

What if the establishment media is also politicized to the point that it is just an extension of the Clinton campaign and only Fox News and talk radio are willing to share the Wikileaks emails, what would be, in any other election, devastating to Clinton? Her voters may never know of these scandals. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe are openly Clinton advocates and important feeds to many smaller newspapers as well. The following televised news sources are openly favoring Hillary Clinton for president: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC. Could not an election be managed by such media exclusions?

The Obama Administration attempted to silence the email disclosures. Secretary of State John Kerry, on October 18, unsuccessfully used his influence to get the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to cut off Julian Assange’s Internet access putting an end to the transfer of the Clinton incriminating emails flowing therefrom.

If the Obama Administration has corrupted and politicized the IRS, DOJ and FBI and Hillary is his designated replacement, what hope do we have that she will correct these present examples of misuse of power and not continue to use these agencies, and the politicized media, to further defy the Constitution and punish her enemies? None. She benefited from these tyrannies. More likely she will continue their use adding dozens more agencies to the list as evidenced by her assistance in the scandals of the nineties, the last time the Clintons occupied the White House. Millenials have been largely denied coverage on these scandals: Whitewater, Filegate, Cattle Futures, Travelgate, profiting from the Lincoln Bedroom, Chinagate, White House Looting, Pardongate, and using the IRS on adversaries.

No person in America’s political history has had more scandals attributed to him/her than Hillary Rodham Clinton. WND TV, in May 2015, listed the number of passed scandals at 22. Right now there is Benghazi, the 33,000 bleach-bitted security emails, DNC attempts to derail Bernie Sanders, and the Clinton Foundation plus a half dozen others stemming from the WikiLeaks revelations. Scandals follow her like flees on a dog, often two or three simultaneously. There exists nothing that suggests that such will not continue. She has always ridden the fine line between legal and illegal.

Now Trump has many “warts,” is not a particularly religious man, is not politically polished or verbally refined, and is sometimes offensive to those around him, but there lacks concrete evidence that he is any more “evil” than any of his predecessors. So the real issue is not the lesser of two evils but one “evil” verses many “evils” and we cannot assume that we could recover from the damage to the Constitution, the dive into world government, and the resultant compromised Christian ethics that would result in the next four years from a Hillary victory. The disparity of evil between candidates is greater than ever before, which now necessitates our choosing the “evil” of one over the “evils” of the other. In this sense every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary. This election may be a matter of saving the Constitution and our national survival. Are non-Trump voters willing to accept responsibility for damage to these entities?

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.