Dec 26, 2015 | Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The establishment media is baffled. They have influenced presidential elections since Woodrow Wilson by how they cover candidates—even more so with the advent of television. First, by limiting coverage to but two political parties of normally many offering presidential candidates in every contest. Essentially, if they do not give coverage you or your party does not exist. Second, the media shows preference by time given, comments supporting or not, questions asked or not, and placement in debates (whomever gets coveted center stage automatically gets more spotlight coverage) and etc. The first election is always the medias as they alone define serious candidates.
Collectively the establishment media has attempted to show Donald Trump as, a joke—certainly not a serious candidate, not a real conservative, a flip-flopper on the issues, anti-women, anti-immigration, insulting to everyone, a braggart, only into himself, least likely to beat Hillary Clinton, only attractive to white males, and not in touch with reality with respect to the Middle East, and more. They may be correct in some or all of these assumptions, and the constant barrage of but a third of these charges would have easily destroyed previous candidates. So why not Trump?
The establishment (sometimes prefaced by money or eastern) is likewise baffled. For over a hundred years, since William McKinley they, with the help of the media that they largely own, have propelled into power politicians sympathetic to their interests in both parties so that their interests get attention no matter which of their two political parties, Democrat or Republican, gets elected. Control of foreign policy is never out of their hands.
They oppose nationalism favoring coalition governance. Problem solving is much preferred on the world level, as in the UN, or in regional governments, NATO, the European Union and eventually the American Union. They push for international trade agreements that reduce U.S. sovereignty (NAFT, GATT, and most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership). Perpetual war feeds the “Industrial Military Complex” President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us to avoid. They benefit from increased power and money. They universally oppose an audit of the Federal Reserve, which they have controlled since 1913, and their support for foreign aid has never faltered, regardless of which party is in power. They destroy anyone not supportive of these things. So again, why not Trump?
The answer to why not Trump is almost too obvious. In the items mentioned above both parties look too much alike. Most Americans know that something is wrong—really wrong. Today Independents, those refusing to align Democrat or Republican, is about 40%, stronger than either party. Most Americans feel lied to by both parties and the media. Presidents from either party are strongly disliked by the time they finish their second term. The people feel deceived when they elect politicians to restore the Constitution and the economy and these same politicians appeared to join the other side as soon as they arrived in Washington D.C. Many have wondered the value of their vote outside “the lesser of two evils” philosophy.
Enter Donald Trump who mostly says what others were afraid to say, beginning with illegal immigration. Our Mexican friends have indeed invaded our country and taken, not just the jobs Americans did not want, but the ones that they do want as well. They have entered every field and their illegal children, being bilingual, are now favored in most other jobs. When a politician says that he will build a fence to help preserve their jobs almost no one believes him. Trump is a builder, has built magnificent structures, and is believed.
Simply put the media, the establishment, and the political parties have lost their credibility. The more the establishment or media gang up on Trump the more his following grows. He even tells off the media. His bravado is even somewhat refreshing from the Bush’s, Clinton’s, Boehner’s and McConnell’s. To return to yet another Bush, even though he is loaded with establishment money and has placed more television ads with that money than all others of both parties put together, is not going to happen. Nor is it likely for others favored by the establishment like Chris Christie, or John Kasich. The establishment has recently switched from Jeb Bush to Marco Rubio but even he, having run the second most number of television ads, has not gained the trust and traction equal to the money spent.
The establishment opposition to Trump certifies another factor in his favor. He is not one of them. He will not be control by them, as have his predecessors from both parties. Nor will any special interest group control him, as he takes no money from them. This may be the first time in 120 years that this is the case. Only the Constitution should guide and restrain him—not the moneyed establishment.
This brings up another factor in his favor, also not mentioned by the press. Most Americans believe that the economy is on a crash course. No country can long endure when more money is spent than taken in. No candidate understands the economy better than Trump having worked successfully with it for decades. He has the most incentive to get it back to a sound base than any other candidate, or even you or I; we lose hundreds when it goes, he loses billions.
The Trump phenomenon is essentially a rebellion against the media and the establishment by a population tired of being manipulated every four years into staying with the same failed internationalist foreign policy presented by establishment candidates of both parties.
May 26, 2015 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Thank goodness for traditional Democrats with wisdom and experience from a previous trade deal that badly hurt the American worker. They are, for the second time in a generation, opposing their own president for selling them out.
Three weeks ago Democratic lawmakers joined union leaders and hundreds of other Democrats in a rally on Capitol Hill to express their outrage with the request of President Barack Obama, to extend fast-track status to what is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All speakers were angry, one referring to the White House, “We don’t trust you.” Rep. Alan Grayson called the Administration a “sellout government,” and suggested that it did not seem to matter “who’s in charge, Democrats or Republicans.” He wanted to “take back our government from the political acrobats and the corporate aristocrats.” The crowd cheered. Still others wanted to know what Obama was hiding in the 27 chapter agreement between the Pacific Rim countries, reportedly only five having anything to do with trade itself, since they were asked to approve fast track-status, basically an up or down vote without changes, and without being able to read it. Senator Elizabeth Warren yelled “No more secret trade deals!” And, “No more special deals for multinational corporations!!” Again, these are Democrats accusing Obama of selling them out.
Traditional Democrats feel that they are watching the same movie as provided by President Bill Clinton when he shoved the over 3,755 page North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (two volume copy of treaty and supporting documentation in my possession) down their throats, similarly on a fast-track approval process, some twenty-two years ago with precisely the same arguments, that it would expand American jobs. It didn’t!! They were then; as now, overwhelmingly opposed to it, but he was their president so enough supported him to get the deal through. Most democrats with union membership understandably felt betrayed.
The process then and now is the up or down vote without debate and a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress—a process not in the Constitution. Constitutionally the House of Representatives has no treaty-making function. Solely the Senate possesses this power. Clinton, realizing that he could not get a two-thirds vote for treaty confirmation in the Senate as required, purposely used the word agreement rather than treaty, thus treating it as a law, which then required only a simple majority of both houses of Congress for confirmation. He used the same unconstitutional technique on his second major treaty of his two terms in office, GATT—General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Obama seeks the same unconstitutional process for his treaty; presenting it to both houses for a simple majority rather than to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally required. If not stopped now this will be the trend for future presidents as well. No member of Congress should participate in this constitutional distortion or ever vote affirmatively on any measure that they have not fully read and been thoroughly vetted with colleagues and the public.
Even Obama in 2009, seeking union votes in Ohio, described NAFTA as having been devastating to the working class. He claimed in the Bloomberg News that it had cost 1 million American jobs and led to “entire cities” being “devastated.” Yet it is he that now betrays his base support as had Clinton in 1993, the father of NAFTA.
Last week Democrats courageously prevented an affirmative vote for the hated fast-tracked secret treaty but enough were swayed by personal phone calls from the President to get committee passage. In the Senate it now goes to the full body.
The Republican base is generally supportive minus the Tea Party contingent. Patriots worry not only over the loss of American jobs that will result, but also about expanded corporate international control of every person on earth (formerly referred to as world government). They also view corporate management of the economy as not the free market and they have problems with the distortions to the Constitution to achieve it. They are also troubled by the secrecy surrounding the whole agreement. Secrecy and liberty are rarely compatible.
Thus far Senator Rand Paul is the only prominent presidential candidate from either major party expressing the belief that the treaty should be made public immediately before any vote is taken on it. At present Senators are only allowed to read the 800-page document (probably treaty only without supporting documentation) in a room with signs on the door, “No Public Or Media Beyond This Point.” No private copies are allowed to Senators and they are not to disclose its contents—thus the charge secret agreement. Paul plans to oppose it but his Kentucky counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, promises to run it through as quickly as possible. We soon will know the position of the remaining presidential contenders. Freedom advocates are advised to reject from further office any member voting for fast-tract consideration or any measure without full disclosure, public vetting, and congressional debate.
Again, thanks to the Democratic Party faithful that have been bold enough to resist the intrigues of their own president to abandon the American worker and instead to protect him. Hopefully constitutionalist will join them in their efforts. It will take more than party to reclaim our liberties and our jobs.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
May 4, 2015 | Constitution, Globalism
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many are still ignorant of the coming to fruition after a decade of numerous secret meetings, a huge trade agreement known as the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP, first initiated under George W. Bush in 2005 and now pushed by Barack Obama, “which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade” (“Everything you need to know about the Trans Pacific Partnership,” Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2013). 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 U.S. 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. It also violates Article II, Section II that gives only the Senate power of advice and consent on treaties. But reportedly Senators requesting the proposed treaty have been refused access to the secret agreement whereas privileged corporations have no problem obtaining copies.
Critics, mostly Democrats and Tea Party proponents, resent the secretive nature of the agreement’s origin. Those feeling especially threatened include: global health advocates, environmentalists, Internet activists and trade unions. “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 excludes you, me, the media, and Congress.
Tea Party supporters oppose the treaty primarily because it violates two of its core values: constitutional limited government and the free market. They are also bothered by its likelihood of increasing illegal immigration and view it as a giant leap in the direction of world government because it replaces national sovereignty with international sovereignty. Neocon Republicans, like the Bush’s past and present, favor such agreements. Democrats oppose it primarily because it is likely to send jobs overseas, cost consumers more, and undermine environmental protections. The Democratic Party is split on the deal with Obama decidedly for it and Senator Elizabeth Warren and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressing concerns over potential loss of American jobs. Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker shares the same concern over loss of American jobs. Again, both political parties abhor the secrecy and deception surrounding it.
Amplifying the concern over secrecy and deception is the president’s push for fast track status, meaning an up or down vote of both houses of congress with no debate or amendments. This is blatantly unconstitutional as it, in essence, voids them as the sole architects of law. They have a function far more worthy than merely approving or disapproving law made by benefiting corporations.
The Washington Post acknowledges 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 that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not trump “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. Moreover, 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 virtually voids the Constitution in this area and would have been thought treasonous by our Founders.
Were it not for Wikileaks who published the chapter on intellectual property in early November 2013, this and so much more would still be off limits to the media and everyone else. This chapter alone raised many questions about copyright protections and obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to be potentially, as one critic called it, the treaty to “restrict access to knowledge.” And this is but one of 29 chapters.
International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership siphons decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and will affect every American. Any Congressman, or president, who supports such violates his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Jan 19, 2015 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
First Jeb Bush, then Mike Huckabee, and most recently Mitt Romney have each announced an interest in becoming the Republican Party nomination for president in 2016. The problem is, as is the problem with every election for many presidential elections, they, as with the media appointed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, are all members of, endorsed by, or notably friendly to the international banking special interest group, the Council on Foreign Relations. Indeed for decades the CFR has not let anyone close to the nomination of either party for president that is not subject to their influence.
No special interest group has had more impact than the CFR over foreign policy in the 20th Century, leading many to question if we have but one political party in the United States with two arms. Indeed, many see no significant difference in foreign policy between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Nor was there any between George Bush and Bill Clinton. CFR candidate Barack Obama, probably the most anti-war candidate in a couple of decades, and so condemnatory of his predecessor in this area, as president not only continued the Bush wars but added Libya, central Africa and now Iraq and Syria to the list while sponsoring drone killings in Pakistan, Syria, and Somali. History will view him as having been as pro-war as George W. Bush.
Obama’s previous Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, probably admitted more than she was supposed to in her address at the dedication of a branch CFR facility in Washington D. C., when she said that her source of direction was the CFR sub-center down the street. “I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” Hillary Clinton Describes the Importance of the CFR 32511
Of those thus far indicating a 2016 intent to run for president only Mike Huckabee is remotely conservative but the CFR dominated media, because of his evangelical credentials, have undermined him as a serious candidate as they did Ron Paul, the only candidate for president in 2012 not CFR approved. Non-approved candidates are marginalized; as was Paul, “Nice guy but not likely to win,” type comments that with constant repetition become believed. “Why would anyone intentionally throw away his or her vote,” is the hidden message. Huckabee was once listed as a member of the CFR and presumably would follow instructions, at least on things that mattered to the establishment.
The next UN Ambassador, Secretary of State, Ambassadors to both Russia and China will be from this organization, as will a third of his/her cabinet. Not might be!! Will be!! No one gets to be president without its approval. No exception!! We get to choose which one of their approved party finalists we want, but the first election is theirs. I make the same prediction today for whoever follows Barack Obama to the presidency. Such has been the case since the Council on Foreign Relations was founded by its international banker creators J.P. Morgan and et in 1921. It is the special interest group of Wall Street, supported by grants from the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford foundations. Its journal, Foreign Affairs, is “considered throughout the world to be the unofficial mouthpiece of U.S. foreign policy. Few important initiatives in U.S. policy have not been first outlined in articles in this publication.” The CFR promotes sovereignty transfers from all nations to the United Nations; indeed its end goal is world government.
The Bush family has been CFR attached long term. George Herbert Walker Bush was at one time a director and later loaded his administration with advisers from that group, as did his son George W. Bush (although not a listed member but his Vice President, Dick Cheney, was). One can expect the same for his brother Jeb who was co-chair of “CFR Task Force Report on U.S. Immigration Policy,” (July 2009). The current CFR membership roster does not list Mitt Romney as a member, and in 2007, he denied such. That said, the CFR website did have a very comprehensive and favorable outline of his policies on 22 foreign policy areas seemingly to invite support for him. They cite him as having published in their July/August 2007 magazine Foreign Affairs. They publish no one unless seen favorably by them. His selection of their organization as the source for a majority of his foreign policy and national security advisers suggests that a Romney Presidency will be managed by the CFR as with his predecessors.
This is why there is so little difference in foreign policy between democrats and republican presidents. They get their advisers from the same Wall Street special interest group pool. They all support extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 900 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. They all support economic sovereignty transfers from all nations to the United Nations and outsourcing American jobs through regional partnership agreements. Likewise, they all support bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers own private Federal Reserve Bank. The one percent richest Americans heavily finance both parties. Neither represent, as first consideration, the poor or the middle class.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Oct 20, 2014 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Three weeks ago President Barack Obama made it clear to the United Nations General Assembly that he no longer intended to be guided, at least in foreign policy, by the U.S. Constitution, “We cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century,” he told them, then he advocated global government through the UN. “If we lift our eyes beyond our borders – if we think globally and act cooperatively,” he said, “We can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age” (Obama UN Address Sept.24, 2014).
So with this clear directive to follow UN law, as established by those who “shaped the post-World War II age,” he spoke of the bombing of Syria to get rid of ISIS. This without either the permission of Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution or that of the United Nations though the UN Charter. Nor did he seek permission from the sovereign country of Syria to invade, with warplanes their soil.
Is an attack warranted under international law and, if not, could we be viewed by the world as an aggressor nation? Consider the following United Nations Charter violations we incurred when we crossed the Syrian border without Syrian permission to illuminate ISIS: Article 2, Sec. 4, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….” Even our threat of the use of force is a violation. The only exception to the use of force is self-defense as stipulated in Art. 51. “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Obama has yet to make a case to the United Nations for attacking the sovereign country of Syria. He has not, and will not, because he would have to justify such action on the basis that Syria had first shown actual aggression toward us necessitating our responding in self-defense. This he cannot do. Yes, ISIS has a history of aggressive behavior, even beheading two U.S. citizens on Iraqi soil, but Assad had nothing to do with this and has not even been consulted in resolving the problem either approving or denying our war planes entering his country. Were U. S. citizens attacked by Syria we could respond in self-defense but we were not. According to the UN Charter such acts of aggression justifying self defense must immediately be provided to the UN Security Council who then decide “such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Do not get me wrong, I oppose world government and think it incompatible with a country’s sovereignty and liberty and want us to operate totally independent of it, but Obama made a strong case for global government declining to follow the Constitution that he swore to “uphold, defend, and preserve” in favor of it, yet he refused to follow its charter also. He must follow one or the other or he risks being accused of following no legal path.
Other United Nation Charter rules also need satisfied. Article 39 stipulates that “the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Even before this takes place Article 40 must be satisfied which reads: “In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.” Obama went to the UN, not to comply with any of these instructions, but to tell them what he is already doing.
Theoretically Russia, China and Syria could ask the United Nations to define the United States as the aggressor nation and Obama as a war criminal and call for economic sanctions on us as has been used on other nations. That would be unlikely as they too are showing their own aggressive natures, Russia invading the Ukraine and China coming down oppressively on Hong Kong. Ironically Obama refuses to be guided by constitutional law or established international law—the very authority that he patronizes in his speech. And since we are the most powerful military power on earth the UN is not likely to press the matter, even more so as other countries, without UN or Syrian permission, are also bombing in Syria. Still, our signature on the Charter document obligates our submission to international law now mocked by Obama’s not following it. Did we think when we signed the Charter, creating the “world government,” that the rules did not apply to us, that we could just bomb whomever, whenever, and wherever we wished? Obama must think so.
Jul 29, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Clearly our borders are not protected when children can cross, reportedly unaided: if children, then anyone. If anyone then we cease to be a country. Historically borders define a country, when they cease to exist, or to have meaning or respect, the country soon also ceases to exist.
The first sentence of the Constitution, the Preamble, charges the federal government with the responsibility of providing for the common defense. All common defense powers (except the Commander and Chief component) are then listed as powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. Protecting the border is clearly the responsibility of the Congress—who makes all the law. The executive branch enforces the law as written and understood by the Congress.
Clearly there exist laws forbidding illegal entry and clearly the executive branch has not, and is not, protecting the border. But such can be said of all presidents since before Ronald Reagan, although failure is more blatant now. I have told my students for 25 years that there would never be an effective southern border because neither political party really wanted one. I repeat this prediction today. The argument that our borders are too long to protect is easily dismissed when we reflect that the Chinese successfully kept barbarians out of China for hundreds of years by building the Great Wall without the aid of cranes, giant earth-moving trucks or any other technological marvels. Today, if we really wished to restrict entry, motion detectors, electric fences and drones could stop most, if not all the traffic.
I have consistently argued that The Council on Foreign Relations—-the most powerful special interest group in the United States– with vast influence in both parties and also in the establishment media, would not endorse any candidate for president pushing for a real border. A border where both countries had real security aimed at preventing passage. They have another plan called the North American Union patterned after the European Union.
This plan calls for the amalgamation of Mexico, the United States and Canada into first an economic union through NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, ushered in during the Clinton Administration, followed eventually by a political union. Canada and the United States are already near economic equals but Mexico, and Central America, added later under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, is not.
The North American Union plan, which has never been denied by the CFR, the powerful wall-street special interest group, is to give Mexico and south to Panama, thirty to forty years of near open border status to gain what they call “economic commonality” with their northern neighbors before political assimilation. (For those who may not understand, political assimilation is the end of the United States, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, as we know them). Southern foreigners would invade the United States taking the jobs Americans did not want and send some of their new wealth back home to elevate their families and the economies of their homelands. Many would retire to their place of origin with pensions and other amenities acquired from the United States—perhaps even Social Security and Medicare. Their children would seek the middle and higher-level jobs and being bilingual would have advantage over their American peers.
Although most of us are not ready to talk of the late, great America and believe that just getting back to the Constitution will always keep America great, the present foreign child invasion of the United States does demonstrate a non-existent border and such is a serious threat to independence and sovereignty. Apparently, the signal has been sent to prepare us for an open dialogue on actually combining the three large countries into a single, North American Union. Two notables proponents of assimilating the countries, who “have woven” this theme into their recent public speeches, are House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and former U.S. military commander and former head of the CIA, David Petraeus.
In The Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty, June 18, of this year in a panel discussion entitled “After America, What?” General Petraeus answered, “There is North America.” He went on to proclaim “the coming of the ‘North American decade,’ a vision he explained was founded on the idea of putting together the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico, some 20 years after the creation of North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA” (Jerome Corsi, “What Comes ‘After America’?,” July 7, 2014).
If the children of foreign lands can cross our borders unaided, as contended, it is difficult to argue that we have a border. Look for the internationalist, who do not understand or value our sovereignty, to come out of the closet arguing that it is now time to open the borders to all who wish to come. Such are enemies of the republic and will destroy the United States, as we know it.
