I began my professorship career in 1975 in Blythe, California with at least 20% Iranian foreign students who chose Palo Verde College for its like environment because it was hot and dry like Iran. I remember well an early classroom conversation with them. They did not hate the Shay of Iran that was then being displaced in 1979, they said by America. I told them that we had nothing to do with it. One student said, “You know, how you say his name, R o c k e f e l l e r, he take over and removed the Shay,” he protested. They seemed so emphatic and in total agreement that America was responsible, I could not argue against them.
The ruling Ayatollah is no more. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Core (IRGC) which existed to protect the fanatical Islamic theologic system that most everybody hated except the mullahs, is but a shell of what it once was. Iran has no navy, no air force, virtually no defense. It lost the war in 45 days. The shell of what once was is kept alive almost entirely by other Deep State countries, mostly the U.S. and Europe and their medias, encouraging it to stay alive with fake news for propaganda purposes. And Trump is allowing ships to go in and out of the Strait of Hormuz at his discretion. The people will rise up and throw off the rest as soon as they feel safe in doing so. The Republic of Iran will likely chose to become a Constitutional Republic.
Nelson Rockefeller served as Vice President under Gerald Ford, just two years before the Iranian Revolution of 1979 under Democrat President Jimmy Carter. He and his brothers John and David were sons of John D. Rockefeller, who at one time virtually controlled America’s and the world’s oil industry. No name in U.S. history was better known than Rockefeller as internationalist or globalists (now known as the Deep State). That the Rockefeller’s would be heavily involved in the politics of Iran, even regime change, of one of the world’s largest oil producing countries is very logical. My Iranian students knew more than I. They hated the Rockefeller name. We had more conversations on this subject. They repeatedly said “Your media lie to you.” Today, 47 years later, we also know this. The Rockefeller’s had been heavily involved in the oil industry in America since 1863 and in the 20th century in Iran and Venezuela. Because of them oil became the largest source of energy for the global economy.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshall Asim Munir, offered to moderate in America’s conflict with Iran to end the almost total destruction of Iran’s military resistance. Amazingly, after over 1,200 hits, the necessities of life: water and electric power plants, bridges (that did not have a military purpose), schools and hospitals and etc. were untouched. Even the oil refineries and oil tanks are still in place which would enable a new government to rebuild quickly—and non-military facilities on the Strait of Hormuz also untouched. Kharg Island houses 90% of Iran’s oil exports. Trump’s strikes were on facilities and the terrorist government—not the people. We were never at war with the Iranian people.
It became readily apparent that there were two forces seeking political power in Iran, the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Core) consisting of the mullahs likely brought to power with the help of the Deep State in America and the people calling themselves the Republic of Iran. The first viciously retained that power by oppressing the people for 47 years—even slaughtering 32,000 demonstrators last January. America’s and the European Union’s Deep State media side with the mullahs. Clearly the MAGA movement, conservative media: One American News (OAN), NewsMax, mostly Fox, and dozens of podcasters, side with their people.
Trump agreed to hold off further destruction of Iran for two weeks. Why? Because those representing the Republic of Iran requested it and offered a 10 point proposal conceding most of what America wanted. This included never having a nuclear weapon and “gifting” the Strait of Hormuz (already taken) as a sign of how serious they were to ending the conflict. According to Trump, “We have already met and exceeded all military objectives.” The objective was never to destroy Iran only the IRGC powered government American Deep Staters installed in 1979 against the will of the Iranian people. And Trump added “a two-week period will allow the agreement to be finalized and consummated.” So why did the cease fire work for only a few hours? It was with the new Republic of Iran—not the IRGC government who would have Iran and its people destroyed rather than concede anything, as would also the American and European Deep State. Trump only needed proof that the new Republic was strong enough to clean out the old guard and stay in power. This could be demonstrated by there opening the Strait of Hormuz. This would never be allowed by any other than the IRGC government. Turns out they weren’t powerful enough yet. The delegation to Pakistan to negotiate further collapsed for now.
Simultaneously Trump hoped that the European Union countries would help protect the Strait as they are its principle users and it is supposed to be international waters. The U.S. receives only 1% of its oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The islands that are in the Strait actually belong to the United Arab Emirates —not Iran. Oil is found largely in four areas of the globe: Russia, Venezuela, Iran and the United States. The United States now controls the oil in three of these areas which essentially means that Europe must purchase their oil from either Russia, whom they tried to provoke to war via Ukraine for at least the last ten years, or the United States whom they recently offended by not letting it use its bases funded, built and manned by America in this war.
Iran was involved in and did help fund the Hamas Massacre Oct. 7th, 2023 of over 1,200 unprovoked Israeli children, women and men and the taking and holding of 250 hostages. There were also dozens of rapes. Indeed the mullahs did have blood on their hands.
European Union countries refused to support America’s refusing to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon and insisting the Strait return to international waters status. Their countries have no oil. Trump closed the Strait pending his removal of underwater mines placed there by the IRGC government. This accomplished, he reopened the Strait without fear of Iranian retaliation or resistance and all counties soon will be free to use it as once was. Venezuelan oil is now available on the free market and Iranian oil under the Republic of Iran soon will be as well.
The biggest win of all is that these Deep State countries, who once controlled the supply of oil world-wide, even in America with their bans on drilling, now have no oil outside America and Russia. Trump is gradually forcing The European Union who are just now, this week, arguing that they should have a role in opening the Strait of Hormuz—essentially the argument Trump was trying to get them to take before the war with Iran. Presently empty oil ships are racing to the Gulf Coast of Texas to fill up. The United States became the world’s emergency gas station.
Trump has cleared the Strait and controls it without meaningful resistance from London, China or the world’s Deep State and is returning Iran to what it was before America’s intervention in 1979. When Iran is ready its people through their Republic of Iran are set to finish the deal and govern themselves with free elections. Its an optimistic view but at least now possible because of Trump. My students, if still alive, are very happy. Hated Rockefeller has been removed.
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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. Read his weekly columns @ www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column #868.
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
A newspaper editor once wrote me of the difficulty in finding a columnist expressing the constitutional viewpoint. I was impressed that he was making his way through the Federalist Papers and considered it a good read. Few today can identify what it is or how it came about. Today the Federalist Papers would be too deep a read for most college students—even many law school students. But it houses the thought processes and debates behind the Constitution, the document that caged the natural tendencies of government more than any governing document in world history. An understanding of the Constitution without this resource is not possible. And because the Constitution is based upon natural law, which does not change, it applies in all generations and in all societies. Likely not one in 20 today can defend the Constitution. from this perspective.
Because the Constitution is based upon natural law, which does not change, it applies to all generations, times, and societies. People immigrating from whatever form of government or environmental condition, benefit under this document. That has always been a major reason they come. Natural law begets freedom environments, which beget incentive environments, which begets creativity, which begets tools that enhance prosperity. Also, few nations of the world did not emulate parts of the Constitution. Likely, not one in 20 today can defend the Constitution. This is even less common from the natural law perspective.
Constitutional principles were once taught at every level of education and stories of the sacrifice of our Founders frequently recited with admiration. Today few schools teach these principles in grade school and fewer still in high school. In college U.S. History and Political Science classes the Constitution is tucked in the back of textbooks as an appendix, hence few actually read it. The history of the Constitution’s origin is housed in a chapter but constitutional principles seemingly have only informational value.
Some colleges or universities have courses on the Constitution for political science majors but almost, without exception, students are not required to actually read it, heavy emphasis is given instead to case law. Hillsdale College, and independent professors may be the only exceptions. The same is true in law school. Original intent is hardly mentioned. Law schools provide our attorneys and our judges, most with too little, on original intent. One rogue Supreme Court decision can effectively destroy large chunks of the Constitution and almost no one notices or cares. Too few understand that the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land over the Constitution. The Founders would have never permitted nine justices to destroy foundation principles. Sadly, I never met one having a Ph. D. in U.S. History or Political Science who, to get the degree, actually was required to read the U.S. Constitution in full. Nor have I met a lawyer having to do so. Case law yes, loads of it, but not the Constitution in full or natural law upon which it is based.
My point, if colleges give no emphasis to constitutional study how can we expect the student to do so either? Many years ago U.S. News and World Report reported a study showing that most Americans could not pass the constitutional questionnaire for citizenship, so constitutionally illiterate are we. This document is only of minimal value to journalism or communication majors as well. But these professions serve as information filters in our newspapers, magazines, radio, television news programs, or in social media, even podcasts as well.
The media has divided citizens into two warring camps liberals and conservatives, lumping constitutionalists and libertarians with conservatives and pretends there exists no other viewpoints. Rarely is original intent allowed into the discussion as in The Federalist Papers. Thus a liberal moves further, faster from original intent than a conservative but both still move away although at different speeds until the liberal no longer cares if the grant of power is constitutional or not, which is where we are today. Until then both maintain the constitutionality of their position by the latest perversion, or a combination of perversions, to justify the recent perversion. And each perversion of original intent invites another until after a period of time the ending perversion no longer resembles the original grant of power thus authority is essentially manufactured out of thin air. All maintain they follow the Constitution when neither has. Traditionally both major groups problem-solve primarily by increasing federal power without specific constitutional authority. If the document is properly understood this cannot be done without damaging the fabric of the document. A constitutional provision either CLEARLY grants the “over-reach” or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t we can’t pretend that it does. But the Constitution is the law of the land and all in authority swear by oath to preserve it.
Today the Federalist Papers would be too deep a read for most college students—even many law school students. But it houses the thought processes and debates behind the Constitution, the document that caged the natural tendencies of government more than any governing document in world history. An understanding of the Constitution without this resource is not possible.
Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter violated the Constitution with impunity as did both Bush presidents. The Tea Party movement, primarily constitutionalists, rose up in 2009 as much against George W. Bush, a conservative, as against the incoming president Barack Obama, a liberal. It used to matter if a president did not carefully follow the Constitution. Barack Obama, violated the constitution more than any president preceding him and Joe Biden more than Obama. In fact, there were few things that Biden did that were constitutional. Today both Democrats and Republicans defend their president routinely when he violates it. Donald Trump, not particularly a constitutionals, has followed it more closely than any previous president since Ronald Reagan —37 years ago. He also appointed three largely constitutionalist judges. These made the Court more fundamentalist then decades previous.
Of the two major political parties the Democrats rarely cite the document and seem almost contemptuous of it. In fact, most of what they propose is easily argued to be outside the Constitution. They used to defend major parts of the Bill of Rights but I do not see much of that anymore. Republicans sometimes carry the document on their person but do not hold to it and thus much of what they propose is also outside of the Constitution but they do use the word Constitution more than do Democrats, if that means much. This generation knows that the Constitution was a good thing, probably should be revered, at least historically, but they know little of the principles housed therein and have no idea how to vote to get back to it. Getting back to it is never considered. This they will never get from the media, political party, or currently, it seems, not even the institutions of learning—only private study.
That my new editor would find it difficult to find columnists that express the constitutional viewpoint is easily understood, as is the fact that newer columnists, lacking this understanding, are far more likely to express views in opposition to it. Constitutional illiteracy is almost universal to the point that those qualified to defend the Constitution as designed are becoming extinct. Students are not likely to defend it if they never experienced it being defended. A real danger exists that if too few know or value its principles we will lose it—perhaps we already have. Some say it is no longer relevant for our times. They are so wrong.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist on current events. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column #863 Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
Before 1913, and for 137 years as a nation, the United States had no federal income tax. The expenses of the federal government were covered by tariffs assessed on goods from other countries wishing access to America’s market. Money flowed in externally from other countries. Thereafter, and today, the vast majority of federal expenses come internally out of the pockets of the American taxpayer. The federal government spends what it wants borrowed from a private income source called the Federal Reserve which must be repaid with interest for the use of their money, just like any bank. This is called the national debt which now exceeds 38 trillion dollars.
The heart of Trump’s Parallel Economic System is the tariff on goods from other countries wishing access to our markets —the same system used the first 137 years of our history as a nation until 1913. Tariff revenue soared in FY 2025 more than 240% from the year before moving to over 300% by October. The Deep State does not want a parallel system that competes with their monopoly through their Federal Reserve and will do everything in its power to destroy it. Thus far all signals are encouraging including the recent Supreme Court decision which actually only killed the weakest tariff law of the many long-standing strong ones.
President Trump knows this debt is not sustainable and a collapse is imminent. He is trying to restore the funding system that sustained the country for its first 137 years as a nation with no national debt. That system is today called the Parallel Economic System which we will switch back to when it can sustain us. It is getting stronger every month. The heart of this Parallel Economic System is the tariff on goods from other countries wishing access to our markets.
The Federal Reserve created in 1913 is the Deep States’ funding, enslaving and destroying entity. They intend we never be out of debt to them and taxpayers give to it a sizable portion of their income every year which seems never to decrease until they are safely dead. We want freedom from it. Until Trump it had no real resistance nor competition. The Deep State wishes to destroy Trump and his Parallel Economic System. No other president has tried to get free from the Federal Reserve. Trump knew that it would be opposed by all Deep State aligned and influenced politicians both Democrat and RINO.
Trump knew his return to tariffs as the principle source of income for federal expenses would be challenged. The Deep State wanted the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional to end the competition. Trump tricked them into using our weakest statute on tariffs so it, not the funding practice, could be sacrificed. It worked! After all, tariffs had Congressional approval throughout American history. If he lost the case it could be brought back using a stronger statute. The Court ruled he could not charge countries “even one dollar,” but his tariffs could be used to block a nations unwanted goods from entry. This was vastly more important and certainly suggested retaining tariffs (X22 Report hereafter not cited, Ep. 3845b, Feb. 22, 2026, 53:16).
The tariffs challenged are the ones using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) which is a federal law enacted in 1977 granting the president authority to counter unusual and extraordinary threats to national security without requiring congressional approval or extensive agency review. Because of its vagueness it became the “go to” authority for new tariffs more especially in a “hostile to Trump” Congress (combining Democrat/RINO opposition) becoming the majority in the U. S. Senate.
In the dissent ruling, Justice Kavanaugh encouraged Trump’s use of the other stronger statutes on tariffs going forward. In the 6 to 3 ruling Trump lost the use of this single act in establishing tariffs, not critical to their continued existence, but miraculously won the case to continue them with the minority vote. The need for tariffs was not damaged or even discouraged. The ruling made Trump’s use of tariffs in other statutes stronger. The Deep State tariff threat was vaporized.
On C-SPAN Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained, “The Court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs. Six Justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even one dollar of revenue. This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs.” (“On Tariffs and the Economy” Ep. 3845a, Feb. 22, 2026, 16:16).
Trump wrote, “Now the Court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country, a much more powerful right than many people thought we had… But now I am going in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his descent: ‘The decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. This is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1952, Sec. 232, TheTrade Act of 1974, Sec. 122, Sec. 201, Sec. 301 and The Tariff Act of 1930, Sec. 338.”
Trump continued, “The Supreme Court’s decision today made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and crystal clear rather than less. There will no longer be any doubt, and the income coming in and the protection of our companies and country will actually increase because of this decision. Based on long-standing law and hundreds of victories to the contrary the Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA tariffs…In order to protect our country a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past under the merits of a tariff authority which have also been confirmed and fully allowed.” Then he doubled down. “Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs Section 232 existing, Section 301 tariffs remain in place and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged” (Ep. 3845a, February 22, 2026, 19:04).
The ruling had a possible interesting side benefit. If it is true that “US consumers paid for 90% of IEEPA refunds —$120 BN— should go direct to consumers / firms. And with refund timing open-ended, they can be sent any time before midterms. Did the Court just give Trump the ability now to send everyone a $2,000 dividend check as he suggested last Fall, sometime before the 2026 midterm elections, this from tariff money (Ep. 3845b, Feb. 22, 2026, 48:03)? Perhaps!!
Trumps’ Parallel Economic System was not destroyed by the Deep State as intended and will continue to grow until it replaces the Federal Reserve as the funder of federal expenses as it once was for 137 years and possibly end our federal income tax as well. Wow!!
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist on current events. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column #861
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
We think of the Pilgrims enjoying abundant food on the first Thanksgiving Fall 1621, but this was not their real reality. Few mention the starving times the first year in 1620 when half died of starvation that winter. Harvests were not bountiful in that year and the next two. Plymouth was beset by laziness due to lack of incentive and thievery due to hunger.
Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common and thievery due to hunger existed. They endured the starving times the first year in 1620 when half died of starvation that winter. Harvests were not bountiful in that year and the next two.
William Bradford, the governor of the colony, in his History of Plymouth Plantation reported that “much was stolen both by night and day” to alleviate the prevailing condition of hunger. The “feast” of the first Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, he reported, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common. Why did this happen? Because they had fallen victim to the socialistic philosophy of “share the wealth.” This dis-incentivized the productive base of society.
Then suddenly, as though night changed to day, the crop of 1623 was bounteous, and those thereafter as well, and it had nothing to do with the weather or soil. Bradford wrote, “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” He concluded later, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
One variable alone made the difference and ended the three-year famine. They abandoned the notion of government (or corporation) owning the means of production and distribution in favor of the individual having property and being responsible to take care of himself. Before, no one benefited by working because he received the same compensation as those who did not. After the change everyone kept the benefits of his labor. The basic natural law, “you reap what you sow,” was violated. You can’t eat what is not sown. In a just society those who chose not to work basically chose also to be poor and the government (corporation) does not confiscated from those who produced to give to those who will not. People may share their wealth as in giving charity but government may not morally confiscate your money and give it to another.
Ironically all this could have been avoided had Plymouth consulted history and communicated with their neighboring colony, some distance south of them, who had been down the same trail 13 years before. Jamestown too was first a socialist society where “each produced according to his ability and received according to his need,” (revitalized by Karl Marx centuries later), which, of course, affected supply. One cannot divide what does not exist. Our textbooks tell us that only one of twelve survived the first two years for precisely the same reason, starvation. The problem, as noted by Tom Bethel in his work The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, was identified by an unnamed participant as “want of providence, industrie and government, and not the barenness and defect of the Countrie.”
Captain John Smith is credited with having saved the floundering Virginia colony by his “no workie, no eatie” government program (the Virginia Company was the government) and was hated. Addicted to the promise of getting something for nothing, even if it is always less than promised, the receiving part of the population will always oppose their not getting their “fair share.” Sound familiar? Captain Smith was eventually carted off to England in chains as fast as the parasitic population could do so. Once again, why? Philip A. Bruce in his Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, p. 121, called it agricultural socialism. “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil…. Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” When settlers finally were allowed to own their own property, and keep what they produced, things changed over night.
Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote of incoming prosperity, beginning in 1614, after ownership of land was allowed. “When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he [who] could slip from his labor, or slumber over his tasks he cared not how, nay, the most honest among them would hardly take so much true pains in a week, as now for themselves they will do in a day, neither cared they for the increase, presuming that however the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, so that we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty as now three or four do provide for themselves.”
Let us be grateful for the prosperity that we have—even the poorest among us. Jamestown and Plymouth set us upon a course that recognized that prosperity requires incentive to flourish and that the profit motive stimulates industry. We are so grateful that, having recognized the poison of “the share the wealth” philosophy, they purged it from their midst and proceeded to make America the most prosperous country on earth.
In Plymouth half died the first year. In Jamestown it was much worse, only 60 of the first 400 survived by the Spring of 1610. They ate mice, rats, cats, dogs, snakes, horses, and some, desperate from starvation, resorted to cannibalism. Starvation was common in both societies as was socialism. No one benefited by working because he received the same compensation from the storehouse as those who did not work. Prosperity for both came when the individual had his own property and was made responsible to take care of himself.
Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, however, America has eased, even more so in the 1960’s and 1970’s, progressively into a incentive destroying socialist economy. The recent government shutdown demonstrated how much money is forcibly taken from hard working citizen taxpayers and redistributed to the half of Americans that pay no federal income taxes; this through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program —formerly Food Stamps, renamed to reduce stigma), and like programs (X22 Report, Ep. 3761b, Oct.27, 2025, 1:02:18). There are 42 million people in this country currently receiving food stamps, 12.3% of the U.S. population, 59% of all illegal aliens are collecting food stamps says Rob Finnerty of Newsmax (Ibid., Ep. 3762b, Oct, 28, 2025, 1:03:00). Supposedly it is against the law for illegals to be on the program but like everything else it is not enforced and they are.
Teachers generally are no longer sharing the early harsh lessons of our socialist beginnings in our first Thanksgiving. Chances are likely they never had it themselves. It is up to parents and grandparents to share the above. Perhaps you will be able to do so for those you love at the dinner table this Thanksgiving. Their failures taught them how to incentivize productivity resulting in giving our posterity the wealthiest, and 150 years plus after, the freest society in the history of the world. This forever, lest we forget what our first colonists learned in both societies! Socialism has never given prosperity to any society.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist on current events. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column #847
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
When Congresswoman Maxine Waters was recently asked by a reporter whether “Democrats are willing to shut down the U.S. government to prioritize healthcare for illegal immigrants,” she partially avoided the question by saying “Democrats are demanding healthcare for everybody.” Which, of course, would include illegals. (“Maxine Waters Gets TESTY When Asked if Democrats Are Shutting Down Government Over Healthcare for Illegals, by Mike LaChance, Gateway Pundit, Sep. 30, 2025). Democrats are demanding that American taxpayers foot the bill for healthcare for illegal immigrants.
Respecting the shutdown as a weapon to prioritize healthcare, “Democrats are demanding healthcare for everybody” says Congresswoman Maxine Waters. This, of course, would include illegals.
In the Democrat presidential primary debate (June 27, 2019) the moderator asked the candidates to raise their hands if their health-care plans would cover undocumented immigrants—the illegals. Of the 20 Democrat candidates seeking the presidency 19 raised their hand. At this moment Democrat Party leadership acknowledged that they would use their influence and taxpayer monies for healthcare for illegals. Non-U.S. citizens suddenly became their primary constituents and have remained so since.
Theoretically everyone in the world that invades America can expect free or subsidized everything at the American taxpayer’s expense—and they came in the millions with Biden’s encouragement, not primarily escaping tyranny, as heretofore, but for free things. Newsmax host Rob Finnerty reported that the government shutdown revealed “59% of all aliens are collecting food stamps.” The Affordable Care Act (ACA) “explicitly prohibits undocumented immigrants from buying coverage on the federal exchanges, even at full price” and in other places it seems to invite their participation (X22 Report, hence fourth not cited, Ep. 3762b, Oct. 28, 2025, 1:03:00). If food stamps are available to them it’s only a matter of time before healthcare would be as well.
The Heritage Foundation told us in 2009 that the bill in the House, then called, H.R 3962 was written to that end. They provided the following major talking points from it. 1) “H.R. 3962 does not seek to deter or prevent illegal immigration, but rather to support and subsidize it. It would deliberately permit illegal aliens to participate in the government health insurance exchange and in the public option insurance program. Illegal immigrants are nominally barred from receiving health care ‘affordability credits’ and most regular Medicaid benefits, but verification procedures are weak and subject to fraud.”•2) “Nearly 400,000 illegal immigrant women give birth inside the U.S. each year; under H.R. 3962, many of these births would be fully covered by U.S. taxpayers through the Medicaid program.” 3) “All limitations on benefits provided to illegal immigrants under health care reform legislation are deceptive. The President [then Barack Obama] and the congressional [Democrat] leadership clearly intend these limits to be only temporary, to be overturned by amnesty or ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ legislation to be introduced next spring.” Virtually everything they predicted happened.
Though subject to fraud and intended to include healthcare for illegals from the beginning, despite assurances from President Obama otherwise, new documents attest that Obamacare goes to illegals in at least six blue states. This most stunning and authoritative report was issued October 31, 2025, by Mehmet Oz, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Dr. Oz reported, “Based on our initial set of audits, more than $1B of federal taxpayer dollars were being spent on funding Medicaid for illegal immigrants…The truth is that the federal law is supposed to prohibit federal Medicaid dollars from being used to cover illegal immigrants. It does permit states to use Medicaid dollars for emergency treatment, regardless of patient citizenship or immigration status. States can also legally build Medicaid programs for illegal immigrants using their own state tax dollars, so long as no federal tax dollars are used but that did not stop Democrats from going even further by breaking federal law to give illegal immigrants federal Medicaid dollars meant for American citizens.”
Proof, it has to be subsidized by the government to exist.
Dr. Oz continues, “Earlier this year, the CMS team began auditing state Medicaid programs to ensure that they were following the law and not spending any federal tax dollars on illegal immigrants outside of emergency Medicaid. What we found was shocking. In a preliminary review of six states are found these states improperly using federal dollars for their allegedly state funded programs and provided coverage to individuals including some with criminal records of murder and assault… California $1.3 billion, DC $2 million, Illinois $29 million, Washington $2 million, Colorado $1.5 million, Oregon $5.4 million. The states were notified and many have begun refunding the money. But what if we had never ask? Whether willful or not the states’ conduct highlight a terrifying reality. American taxpayers have been footing the bill for illegal immigrants’ Medicaid coverage despite many Democrats and the media insisting otherwise” (Ep. 3765b, Nov. 2, 2025, 48:31).
Using federal funds may be universal among Democrat states. Secretary Brooke Rollins said, “On my first day at USDA, we told every state to send their SNAP data so we could make sure illegal immigrants aren’t getting benefits meant for American families. Twenty-nine states stepped up, twenty-one blue states refused – and two sued us for asking!” The 21 states that refused to send their SNAP data to the USDA were named. They were the Democrat lead states” (Ep. 3766b, Nov.3, 2025, 1:10:21). These too are likely unlawfully giving healthcare to illegals.
No matter how it is calculated Democrats giving healthcare to their illegal constituents played a big role in the longest government shut down in U.S. history. What did the Democrats give up regarding the shutdown. They were forced to give up the guaranteed ACA (Obamacare) subsidy extension making it possible to end this disastrous and failed program for illegals and likely as well for actual citizens of this country (Ep. 3771b, Nov. 10, 2025, 57:00). Still, the shutdown was primarily to get healthcare for illegals as admitted to above by Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist on current events. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column #846.
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
At one time Democrats were as vociferous against free healthcare for illegal aliens unlawfully crossing our borders as Republicans. Consider the following. Bill Clinton, “All Americans, … in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more, by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.” (Bill Clinton’s State of the Union Address given on January 24, 1995).
In the Democrat presidential primary debate (June 27, 2019) the moderator asked the candidates to raise their hands if their health-care plans would cover undocumented immigrants—the illegals. Of the 20 Democrat candidates seeking the presidency 19 raised their hand. At this moment illegals became their main constituents.
Hillary Clinton promoted her husband’s healthcare reform as First Lady, “We do not think the comprehensive healthcare benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens.” She stated that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for his proposed plan. (The Washington Post, July 1, 2019) Adding, “We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration in this country. We know now that too many people come in for medical care as it is. We certainly don’t want them having the same benefits that American citizens are entitled to have” (X22 Ep. 3763b, Oct. 29, 2025, 51:38).
Barack Obama in a joint session of Congress Sept 9, 2009 emphatically stated, “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” (“Providing Health Care for Illegal Immigrants: Understanding the House Health Care Bill,” by Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation, Nov. 24, 2009).
Five years later President Obama told Congress. “Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable — especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent… But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it. Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America….”
Obama continued, “When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history (Administration of Barack Obama, Address to the Nation on Immigration Reform, November 20, 2014).
Chuck Schumer, presently the lead Democrat in the US Senate, once held similar views. In archived records from the Congressional Record on August 1, 1996, then Congressman Chuck Schumer, made remarks about immigration and benefits. He stated that non-citizens receiving SSI had grown sharply (from ~128,000 in 1982 to ~738,000 in 1994) and said: “…a whole lot of people determine they can come to the United States … they come to the United States for a hand-out. What did they do? They received SSI and Medicaid. They received a lot of Government assistance. Thank you very much, taxpayer…” GovInfo
The idea of the American taxpayer, who could barely afford his own healthcare, funding healthcare benefits for 50% of his neighbors who pay no federal income taxes, AND those who unlawfully crossed our borders reflected a mainstream Democratic stance at the time thus national health insurance explicitly limited eligibility to U.S. citizens and legal residents. Both political parties agreed, hence the laws prohibiting were very clear—still are. Illegals, those coming into the county through the back door and illegally, were prohibited the benefits of the taxpayer. There is no free money. Socialism forces those who produce to fund those who do not.
But in the 2010’s progressives (socialists) saw votes from the masses attracted by free food, subsidized housing and healthcare. California began covering undocumented children under Medi-Cal (2016) and adults under certain income thresholds (2019–2024). Illinois, New York, and Washington followed with similar limited-coverage programs. By the end of the 20-teens a rhetorical and policy shift from exclusion to total inclusion for everyone was complete in the Democrat Party. Every one in the world could invade America and expect free or subsidized everything at the American taxpayer’s expense—and they came in the millions. Biden unconstitutionally let them in and they were instantly Biden Democrats. If America could not afford them they just printed more money. The escalating NATIONAL DEBT NOW OVER $38 TRILLION AT $328,220 PER TAX PAYER (the readers bill) would just be moved to the next generation.
Everyone in the world could now invade America and expect free or subsidized everything at the American taxpayer’s expense–and they came in the millions . Notice the shoe prints are going into the U.S. but the border gate was pushed outward into Mexico by the Biden government inviting them in.
The best visual of the above described transition was the Democratic presidential primary debate (June 27, 2019) where the moderator asked the candidates to raise their hands if their health-care plans would cover undocumented immigrants—the illegals. Of the 20 Democrat candidates seeking the presidency 19 raised their hand. Free healthcare—the world noticed and flooded in.
When Congresswoman Maxine Waters was recently asked by a reporter whether “Democrats are willing to shut down the U.S. government to prioritize healthcare for illegal immigrants,” she partially avoided the question by saying “Democrats are demanding healthcare for everybody;” which, of course, would include illegals (“Maxine Waters Gets TESTY When Asked if Democrats Are Shutting Down Government Over Healthcare for Illegals,” by Mike LaChance, Gateway Pundit, Sep. 30, 2025). Democrats now demand that American taxpayers foot the bill for healthcare for illegal immigrants world wide, even if doing so remains against the law and unconstitutional.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist on current events. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column #845
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
