May 20, 2013 | Globalism, Immigration
Br Dr. Harold Pease
Almost two decades ago I wrote a paper that outlined the process by which the European Union transcended from the European Coal and Steel Community to the European Economic Community to the European Community to the European Union. Never were the people told that the intended outcome—unification—was to slowly take away their sovereignty. The paper began with a call from General Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, for “The United States of Europe” (“An Early Champion of Unity,” U.S. News and World Report, Oct 15, 1990, p. 65). I documented how the Marshall Plan money was handed out, not so much to prevent communism from making progress in Europe, as we had been told, but to consolidate Europe first economically than politically into a single country.
I did not publish the paper, although based upon numerous sources, it seemed out of reach for most Americans at the time. Imagine telling people that a group of wealthy Wall Street elites, through the use of tax-payer money, had something to do with the consolidation of Europe into a single country and planned the same for North America with the unification, first economically than political, of Canada, Mexico and the United States into a single country known as the North American Union, with a single currency called the “Amero” Dollar. Who would believe it until now? I was young in my career and decidedly not anxious to step too far out of political correctness.
I am now established in my career and have the respect of colleagues’ so such is more easily believed. I have also seen that foreign policy never changes from democratic to republican presidents with respect to foreign aid, military adventurism, perpetual war, the continued enlargement of the power of the United Nations, and never ending illegal immigration on our southern border.
I told my students 25 years ago that there would never be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration because the Council on Foreign Relations, from which all Secretaries of State, U.N. Ambassadors, Russian and Chinese Ambassadors, and a third of all Presidential Cabinets are drawn, is a strong advocate of globalism. They are easily the most powerful special interest group in the United States and they are clearly for open borders and trans-national agreements.
Extending amnesty in the Immigration Act of 1965 did not work because we did not seal the border. It just encouraged more to come. When offered again by President Ronald Reagan in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, with the promise that we would never need it again, I issued my warning that despite the promise to finally end illegal immigration we would repeat this a few decades down the road. And now here we are. I make the same promise thirty years from now. Those that have undue influence upon both the democratic and republican parties—the globalists—have no intention of actually sealing the border.
China built the Great Wall to keep barbarians out of their country centuries ago without bulldozers, giant trucks, cranes or any other heavy lifting and earth moving technologies that we have today. The truth is that we do not want to do so.
The truth is that The Council on Foreign Relations wants a generation or two of illegal immigration to help Mexico gain some measure of economic parity with Canada and the United States before assimilation can be a reality. Illegals tend to send money home and often retire in Mexico. The CFR 2005 publication, “Building a North American Community,” outlined “the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America.” They seek “cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America.” The featured article in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs, the Council’s principle publication, has author Jerome Corsi identifying NAFTA, The North America Free Trade Agreement, as being “the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”
This best explains the semi-secret meeting of George W. Bush in the somewhat obscure location of Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vincente Fox to formulate the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” popularly referred to as SPP. Two years later in Montebello, Quebec, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper again came together with U.S. President George W. Bush. In that meeting Fox News reporter Bret Baier asked each, “Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union?” None denied it (Permanent Amnesty, Temporary Border, The New American, April 22, 2013, p.15). The very controversial Bush planned Super Highway running through the mid-west, allowing unrestricted use by both neighbors, seems to be currently on the back burner, but President Barack Obama does support open borders and trans-national agreements both of which undermine national sovereignty and strengthen regional governance.
Will the so-called “Gang of 8,” and their 800-page immigration reform bill that seems to parallel “Building a North American Community” stop illegal immigration after we have extended amnesty once again? No, because there is a force greater than they, The Council on Foreign Relations of which John McCain, one of the “Gang of 8,” is a member as is Vice President Joe Biden, and past and present Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The CFR plan is to make illegal legal. Should Americans go with their plan? No! Not unless there is enforceable resolve from both political parties to end all federal benefits enticing illegals to come to the United States in the first place and a “real wall” absolutely and totally backing this.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 11, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Are your city or county government leaders ICLEI members, or is your city an ICLEI city? If so, you, or they, may not fully realize that the United Nations has a big influence over your local government decisions. You need to void this influence as quickly as possible.
I too was slow to see the influence of the United Nations on city, county, or state governments but the documentation supporting that influence is now overwhelming. I was conversant with their use of environmental prongs to standardize regulations and govern allocations of resources on the nations of the earth through the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and through their United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), but we were okay because we had not signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol Treaty. There were so many other fronts in trying to preserve our Constitution and Republic this seemed less unimportant.
While I battled the loss of freedom elsewhere, the United Nations formed in 1990 the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI, to ideologically infiltrate local governments into “winning enactment of global-warming legislation at the state and local levels.” A tentacle of a giant UN octopus has reached into our local governments. Now becoming recognized for what it is, it appears almost everywhere. It claims over 1200 local government members in 70 different countries. Of that number 130 are members of our county and city governments in California alone. California’s ICLEI cities include Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento, which sheds light on how California could be so easily enticed into AB 32, formally known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This legislation, sometimes referred to as “cap and trade,” is driving businesses from the state and flooding those who stay with regulatory nightmares.
ICLEI’s purpose, according to their web page, is to “Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies… Mobilize local governments to help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements such as the Rio conventions…. Forge multi-stakeholder partnerships such as Resilient Cities, a global framework on urban resilience and climate adaptation where local governments, international agencies, development banks, ministries, institutes and others, collaborate.” The master plan is Chapter 28 of Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 “proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coast-lands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and ‘protecting’ the atmosphere.”
But Agenda 21 is far more than just extreme environmental regulation—that is just the beginning. The New American magazine gave the best description of what it includes. “It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption—in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21” (“Your Hometown and the United Nations,” February 21, 2011, p. 14). In short, it will affect every person on earth and that affect is not likely to be positive for individuals or their local governments. Like a vacuum cleaner it siphons power from local and state jurisdiction to the United Nations.
The list of environmental groups, foundations, and government agencies supporting Agenda 21 is mind-boggling. Local opposition is underfunded and overwhelmed.
“Sustainable development” (not defined) is the wording used to describe their end result. This is the most appealing part of Agenda 21 for visionaries of a perfectly, totally managed, world governing environment. Unfortunately, it is way too open-ended allowing the ruling class (the planners, of course) to modify the rules as necessary. Gone would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but Utopians do not think that far in advance. Fortunately, locally elected leaders generally do, but they need to rid themselves of this UN influence, like a cancer, to remain locally controlled and free. Once again, are your city or county leaders ICLEI members? Why not ask them?
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Dec 3, 2012 | Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
In driving to and from Utah late July and spending a couple of weeks in what are known as “Mormon” communities, I expected to find Nevada and Utah littered with pro-Romney signs and didn’t. In fact, I was hard pressed to find any bumper stickers or yard signs favoring either major presidential candidate. There were Ron Paul signs, however. As a political scientist I have studied elections for many years so this omission was glaring. Why the lack of enthusiasm?
America, a right of center country, had no candidate right of center—hence no “real” choice. Except for the “handout” vote, that increased substantially during the Barack Obama Administration and of course went to him, the people were not that excited about either major candidate. They looked too much alike. The third and final debate, focused on foreign policy, clearly showed Mitt Romney as a white Barack Obama. For Romney the whole evening was, “I would have done the same thing, only better.” Both supported tougher sanctions against Iran. Both supported drone warfare in foreign lands without the permission of the invaded country and without even a hint of a trial to prove the quilt of the accused, even if American. Both believe that the President can start a war without a declaration of war by Congress as required in the Constitution and both believe that they can charge the expense of such to our children without approval of the House as is also constitutionally required. Finally, both drew their advisors from the same Wall Street special interest group, the Council on Foreign Relations.
On Civil Rights both supported the Patriot Reauthorization Act, Obama arguing that civil right violations were far more serious under President George W. Bush, because of his executive orders and Obama mentioned violations with respect to Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wire taping, and the suspension of habeas corpus. These candidate Obama promised to reverse “by a stroke of a pen,” when elected. Four years later he still has not done so.
But how much solace can we have from a President Romney on civil rights when he was asked if he was in favor of wiretapping mosques? His answer frightened civil libertarians and constitutionalists. He suggested not only wiretapping the mosques but also Islamic schools and play grounds if needed as well. “We (the government) need to know what is going on… Track them, follow them, and make sure that in every way we can we know what they are doing and where they are doing it. And if it means that we have to go into a mosque to wiretap, or a church, that’s exactly where we are going to go. And I hear from time to time people who say, now wait a second. We have civil liberties that we have to worry about.” Obviously, the violation of civil liberties was not a problem for the last two presidents, nor would it be for a President Romney. Romney, of course, would have no problem if his church or temple were wiretapped by the government.
On this same subject President Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act just last New Years Eve. A Bill that the left and right both believed gutted major sections of the Bill of Rights. A U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist, without witnesses, testimony, or defense, could now find himself kidnapped by his own government and shipped out of the country to Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely without any protection from the Bill of Rights; all this on the say so of the military and president alone. When asked, in one of the Presidential debates, whether he would have signed the Act, candidate Romney answered, “Yes, I would have. And I do believe that it is appropriate,” this to the loud accompaniment of boo’s from the audience which understood that in this country that is never to happen.
A close examination of virtually every issue reveals the Obama / Romney likeness in statements made by each the last five years. Both extolled the virtues of Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury; and both favored retaining Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Both favored extending the payroll tax cut, the line item veto, and each planned to create new government funded jobs rebuilding Americas roads and bridges, a power never delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Energy independence was a major goal of both, each extolling the virtues of wind, solar, and coal at one time or another. Both listed Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup as major funders. Both favored TARP and stimulus programs. Even on national health care there were far more similarities than differences. The biggest common denominator was their love of big government.
The Tea Party Patriots did what they could to make Americas’ core values: fiscal responsibility, limited constitutional government, and the free market fit for a Mitt Romney, but it was like putting a square peg in a round hole and Barack Obama, who has demonstrated over and over again that these values are not shared by him, remains in office. They chose a Tory, bypassing their own Patriots Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, or even Ron Paul, and have undermined the movement by doing so.
Most pundits of the election argue that the Republican Party, to survive, needs to get on board and look more like the Democratic Party. I disagree. The Republican Party already looks too much like the opposing party and instead needs to distinguish itself more from it. It cost them the election by having done too much of that already.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 22, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
A year ago last October, I wrote of President Barack Obama’s clandestine operation in central Africa called Operation Lightning Thunder, involving 100 U.S. military “advisers,” sent by the President to help capture the allusive child abuser Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army. Congress was informed of the engagement by letter October 14, 2011, but reportedly troops were already on site two days before, so the letter was decidedly not asking for permission to use armed forces in a foreign country as is required by the Constitution. I wrote then that our involvement would escalate but I had no idea that it was to include all 54 African nations.
Of course, nothing more was said of Kony who was never found, making it now appear that he was but an excuse for our penetration of the continent with forces from Afghanistan as we wind down our involvement there. An expanded military presence in Africa must have started with George W. Bush, his last two years in office, as “about a dozen air bases have been established in Africa since 2007” (“US expands secret intelligence operations is Africa” Washington Post, June 13, 2007).
The Washington Post reported last June, “The U.S. military is expanding its secret intelligence operations across Africa, establishing a network of small air bases to spy on terrorists hideouts from the fringes of the Sahara to jungle terrain along the equator, according to documents and people involved in the project.” Presently they use small private planes equipped “with hidden sensors that can record full motion video, track infrared heat patterns, and vacuum up radio and cellphone signals, the planes refuel on isolated airstrips … extending their effective flight range by thousands of miles.” The operations have intensified in recent months under Obama, the Post revealed, and include commando units who “train foreign security forces and perform aid missions, but they also include teams dedicated to tracking and killing suspected terrorists.”
In a recent article, “White House widening covert war in North Africa,” AP reported that an expanded U. S. role is anticipated and that Delta Force units eventually “will form the backbone of a military task force responsible for combating al-Qaida and other terrorist groups across the region with an arsenal that includes drones.” Col. Tim Nye, Special Operations Command spokesman “would not discuss the missions and or locations of its counter-terrorist forces’ except to say that special operations troops are in 75 countries daily conducting missions” (October 2, 2012, by Kimberly Dozier). Conducting daily missions in 75 countries!!! That was what was reported. Where is Congress?
Some of us remember when the Soviets invited Cuban mercenaries to “Sovietize” the African continent in the mid 1970’s to help offset Cuban debt to the USSR. More than 25,000 Cuban troops were in Angola in 1975 and “advisors” were in neighboring countries as well. The world was not favorably impressed with this blatant communist overreach of military power. Nor is it today as we seek to enlarge our colonial control over Africa on the pretense that we are only defending America.
Global Research was even more explicit. In an article “America’s Shadow Wars in Africa” it went into greater detail (Nick Turse, July 13, 2012). Although Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, with “more than 2,000 U.S. personnel stationed there” is the “Pentagon’s showpiece African base,” there are many “nodes” of U.S. military presence elsewhere: three in Kenya, two in Uganda, two in Central African Republic, one in South Sudan, and one in Ethiopia. They specifically named the places. “Outposts of all sorts are sprouting continent-wide, connected by a sprawling shadow logistics network. Most American bases in Africa are still small and austere, but growing ever larger and more permanent in appearance,” they wrote. Add to this the extensive counter-terrorism training provided by the United States in Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, Lesotho, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Tunisia. With respect to the size of U.S. forces on the continent at any one given time, they added, “On an average basis, there are approximately 5,000 U.S. Military and DoD [Department of Defense] personnel working across the continent.”
With respect to just why we need a military presence in every country in Africa, AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham said, “The absolute imperative for the United States military [is] to protect America, Americans, and American interests … [to] protect us from threats that may emerge from the African continent.” No thought is given to protecting them from us. If this is our mindset why not conquer all continents? Perhaps it is. Perhaps this is the New World Order that is referenced by so many. We certainly appear to be the world’s policeman. Unfortunately our presence creates perpetual enemies, which creates perpetual war. Someone benefits from this “colonial styled occupation” but it is neither you nor I.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 16, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Harold Pease
On October 6, an unmanned drone flew deep into Israeli territory before it was shot down. The drone, now thought to have been sent by Lebanon, who acquired it from Iran, raises awareness of the sanctity of a nation’s airspace. As the violation of airspace has traditionally been seen as an act of war, Israel sent warplanes over Lebanon the next day. This brings to light how calloused and disrespectful of the air space of other countries we have been where we indiscriminately kill our enemies on their soil.
Drones are now our favored weapon of choice and we unleash them on suspected “terrorists,” without the permission of sovereign countries, throughout the Middle East. Moreover, we assume unto ourselves the right of surveillance of all potential adversaries on their soil. We get away with this because we are the “town bully.” Such would be acts of war if done on stronger countries. According to the Washington Post we have “secret facilities, including two operational hubs on the East Coast, virtual Air Force cockpits in the Southwest and clandestine bases in at least six countries on two continents” (Under Obama, an Emerging Global Apparatus for drone killing, by Greg Miller, Dec. 27, 2011).
The paper reported, “Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists.” What is worse, “officially, they are not allowed to discuss” this most secretive activity although it is not denied.
President Barack Obama can argue that he did not invent this sophisticated “killing machine.” George W. Bush was the first to use it but he limited its use to Pakistan “where 44 strikes over five years had left about 400 people dead.” This is true, but Obama has amplified its use by at least four times the number of strikes and death and proliferated the death to several additional countries in northern Africa and the Middle East and the above numbers are conservative, the paper revealed.
The fact that such killings have included American citizens raises a serious constitutional question as well. Past presidential candidate, Ron Paul, said it best, “American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced” (An Unconstitutional Killing, New York Daily News, October 2, 2011).
The latest drone, the Phantom Eye, uses a hydrogen-fueled propulsion system capable of remaining in the air for four days without refueling, and potentially flying at about 65,000 feet, thus vastly increasing the surveillance capabilities of our military (Boeing Phantom drone has 1st flight, by W. J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2012). It has a 150-foot wingspan, perhaps the largest of the drones, but others come as small as a humming bird. Should our government be able to see everything?
No wonder we are especially hated in northern Africa, the Middle East and in Pakistan. A poll last June revealed that “about 74 percent of Pakistanis surveyed regard the U. S. as an enemy,” up from 64 percent just three years ago. The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project revealed that “only 17 percent support our drone strikes” and that this activity fuels the hatred. Has it occurred to this administration that for every alleged al-Qaeda that we kill we potentially create dozens more? This is a recipe that guarantees perpetual enemies and thus perpetual war. Surely, they know this. Are we not facilitating the strength of the Taliban? The increased foreign aid to “buy back” good will in Pakistan has not worked.
Two additional concerns emerge. First, drone warfare makes war too easy. So instead of making it difficult to engage because mothers will lose sons and sisters will lose brothers, and politicians will lose votes, there are no consequences. We just label a few people terrorists, blow them up, and there is no “body bag” coverage on the nightly news—actually no coverage at all.
Second, it sanitizes war. It is like playing a video game from some structure in Nevada. No one from our side gets killed or hurt. Our players do not have to see any blood or witness the sounds of human agony that result. The “video players” from 8,000 miles away can kill and be home with their families by five o’clock for supper, oblivious to the hell that they have inflicted on others. It is virtual war for us, much like the video game “Modern Warfare II,” and we play it so well. Is this the New World Order?
We have violated the air space of probably a dozen countries and killed their people. If they did not fear us we would presently be at war with most of them. Then we wonder why they hate us. When they are stronger they may one day send drones to spy and kill us.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 2, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
I used to believe that if you read and viewed news sources widely enough, which I do, you would have all the information to be properly informed. I depended upon this assumption. I defended and trusted this assumption. I teach Current Events every semester and find so much under-reported. Most of the “real news” is seemingly not headlined. One such is the attempt this summer by the United Nations to further restrict the availability of firearms.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has been a dream of internationalist and globalists for several years. In their 2006 meeting some 153 countries favored the Treaty, 24, including the United States, did not. Traditionally, until now, the United States has been the leading “hold out” primarily, it is feared, because it could effectively damage the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—your right to defend yourself with a firearm.
Ironically proponents falsely use Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution to destroy the part of the Constitution referenced above. If they could outlaw international firearms trade throughout the world it would have to be embraced in the United States as well. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” By restricting movement of conventional firearms by treaty the U.N Treaty provision would be the supreme law of the land they conspired.
The Founders would never have meant for another government to have the power to alter or dismantle any provision of the Constitution that all elected officials are required to swear by oath to preserve. Even more is this so with respect to the Bill of Rights, wherein the federal government is especially restricted from infringement, which acceptance was a condition required by many states for ratification of the Constitution itself. Then the power of the individual state was viewed as superior to federal power that a statement of supremacy of the Constitution had to be made. That is all.
Our previous objection to this treaty was moved from the back burner, and all doors flew wide open for it, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the green light from President Barack Obama, both long-time anti-gun proponents, announced, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventions weapons” (America’s 1st Freedom, “Gun Owners Win Battle at U.N.,” p. 46-48). Hence all countries gathered in New York City July 2-27, 2012, to do just that.
The Treaty noted the inherent right of all nations to self-defense but refused to allow the individual that same right. The Treaty seemed focused on conventional firearms, even “non-explosive” weapons, whatever those were, perhaps bows and arrows? Transfers of arms and ammunition required mountains of paper work with proponents wanting information on “end users”—information designedly impossible to know at sale.
Perhaps it is time to remind ourselves that there would not be a United States of America, a land of the free and the home of the brave, without an armed populace that was willing to force a separation with Great Britain because of perceived tyranny. Surely we have not forgotten those Americans who hid their firearms from the British in Lexington and Concord, or the farmers who rushed to the front in the Battle of Saratoga. An armed populace best ensures freedom from tyranny; that is why the Second Amendment exists.
Sadly, the establishment press was negligent in informing Americans of this potential serious restriction on firearms availability endorsed and encouraged by the present administration. Fortunately, 130 members of the House of Representatives threatened the President with their intention not to fund the new treaty were it enacted. Fifty-one U.S. Senators, in letters to both Obama and Clinton, wrote of their opposition to the Treaty and hundreds of thousands of NRA supporters signed a petition that declared “independence from any United Nations treaty that would strip (them) of (their) constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Because of them the United States, once again, did not sign the Treaty. These are our real hero’s in our fight to preserve our Bill of Rights but again, very little coverage from the popular presses who sometimes give us only part of the news. A story like this should have been headlined everywhere and often.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
