Mar 23, 2020 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
This is my 551st column on liberty and the Constitution, I know no-one more published on this topic. I lived under 13 presidents of the United States, all gave lip service to the Constitution but none followed it closely. Of these I voted for only two Republicans. Those who least followed it were Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama. I spent a lifetime lecturing on these and the presidents before them. I dislike political factions (parties) as did George Washington. Readers know I call things as they are and defend the Constitution as written.
So with this background I am qualified to say, “Trump haters,” (Bushites, Clintonites, Romneyites, Holywood misfits, secret combinations in both majors political parties, coup conspirators in the FBI and CIA and finally fake news outlets notably MSNBC, NBC, New York Times and the Washington Post) who have conspired to take out Donald Trump. “Isn’t is time to lay down your arms?”
Four Congressional investigations, the Mueller and Horowitz Reports, and the US Senate Impeachment trial exonerated and indeed acquitted this man. Trump has endured more unjustified opposition/persecution than all presidents combined.
In the upcoming 2020 presidential election you offer only hate Trump rhetoric and freedom and prosperity destroying socialism. You are destroying the Democratic Party, perhaps America. You make Democratic President John F. Kennedy look far right. You offer nothing to build, strengthen or edify this country. Republicans before Trump were awful but you are much worse.
Please cease inspiring the crazies in our society to intimidate MAGA haters, innocent Catholic high school kids visiting DC, or worse, driving vehicles into tents housing Republican campaigners or shooting Congressman Steve Scalise while playing baseball with fellow congressmen and staffers. Cease supporting Antifa and MS-13 gang violence by not condemning them.
So what has Trump done for you that should command your respect? The list is extensive but let me identify in order my favorite six.
He defends the Constitution as written. Unfortunately Trump is a conservative, not a constitutionalist, but he follows the Constitution more closely than any president since Calvin Coolidge. He adamantly defends the 1st (religious and free speech freedoms), 2nd (freedom to protect oneself and neighbors—even from the government), and 10th amendments (states’ rights). No president has defended the rights of the unborn more than he. He nominated two supreme court justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, that appear to follow it and has placed, with Senate confirmation, 187 judicial nominees on the Federal bench who attest that they too will follow the Constitution as written. This is monumental as the Constitution is the reason we are free.
He opposes the globalist plan to first create regional governments of all nations, through trade deals that transfer economic, then political sovereignty, such as the European Union, then merge them into world government. He has made speeches to that end, on the campaign trail and even in the United Nations, which are never covered by the establishment (globalist) medias. His opposition to world government is, and always has been, why he is so hated by them. We have published on this before. Finally, the U.S. is first consideration in his “America First” pledge.. We are no longer nation builders or the world’s policemen. He wants to cut foreign aid (foreign welfare) spending it in the U.S. instead.
He stimulated the economy as no president has in decades. Manufacturing companies have and are returning to America. Almost 4 million new jobs have been created since his election. Reportedly, unemployment claims have now hit a 49-year low. African, Hispanic, and Asian American unemployment are at the lowest rates for decades or ever recorded, as are women and youth unemployment. He promised to dump two regulations for every new regulation but instead dumped eight. This returned companies to America, freed and stimulated the economy as never before resulting in an energy boom placing the U.S. as number one oil and natural gas producer in the world. Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are better off financially since Trump took office.
He is securing our southern border. New agreements with Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras required them to stop the flood of illegal immigration through their countries, or face higher tariffs. Now deadly drugs and violent criminals are not flowing as easily across our borders and into our communities. According to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics 976 alien gang members were apprehended at the border in FY 2019, including 464 aliens affiliated with MS-13. ICE arrested 143,099 aliens in FY 2019, 86 percent of whom had criminal records.
He has done more than all presidents combined to expose and stop child sex trafficking. By executive order Trump declared it a national emergency Dec. 21, 2017. Just last year ICE arrested 2,197 criminals associated with human trafficking and freed 428 victims. To encourage other countries to meet more strident standards eliminating trafficking, he signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
He destroyed 100% of ISIS caliphate.
So Trump haters, you have been wrong on most everything the last three years. I too criticize Trump in print occasionally but isn’t it time to notice that he has been one of our best presidents and lay down your hate and arms? Others think so, his rallies now comprise 20% Democrats.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Sep 30, 2019 | Economy, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Under the traditional definition of socialism that requires government ownership and distribution of the means of production, the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are not socialist as Democratic presidential contenders insist.
All are free market economies. None have government mandated minimum wage laws. These are set by unions. The Fraser Institute which ranks countries of the world on economic freedom based upon limited government, property rights, and sound money value, not socialist attributes, ranked Denmark 14, Finland 20, Norway 26 and Sweden 19. The United States was12. Socialist countries normally take the bottom of the 180 countries ranked (Economic Freedom of the World Index).
As to rankings with respect to the ease of doing business, all four countries ranked in the top 17 countries out of 191on the planet: (Denmark 3, Norway 7, Sweden 12 and Finland 17). The United States is ranked 8 (The World Bank, DoingBusiness Measuring Business Regulations). Socialist countries do not rank high on this index either.
Yes these countries, after becoming comparatively wealthy through the free market system at the end of the 19th Century and most of the 20th, did become welfare states in the 1970’s. As Nima Sanandaji, the Swedish author of Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism, wrote in 2015: “Many of the desirable features of Scandinavian societies, such as low income inequality, low levels of poverty and high levels of economic growth predated the development of the welfare state. These and other indicators began to deteriorate after the expansion of the welfare state and the increase in taxes to fund it” (Jim Geraghty, “Ten Reasons We Can’t, and Shouldn’t, Be Nordic,” National Review, March 12, 2018).
By the definition above defining socialism, it may be possible to be a welfare country without the government ownership of the means of production—the Nordic Model. But if they gather the wealth through confiscatory taxes and redistribute it through gift-giving to those who had not created the wealth, how can they escape the charge of socialism?
In the seventies the Swedish government “instituted a scheme to confiscate corporate profits and hand them over to labor union.” The socialist “golden years” of the next two decades “weren’t so golden for economic performance. Entrepreneurship plummeted. Job creation and wages sputtered” (Rich Lowry, “Sorry, Bernie — Scandinavia is no socialist paradise after all,” New York Post, Oct. 19, 2015). The Nordic model crushed startups and the growth of new companies. As of 2000, Johan Norberg wrote: “just one of the 50 biggest Swedish companies had been founded after 1970” (“Ten Reasons We Can’t, and Shouldn’t, Be Nordic”).
The Scandinavian story since the late eighties “has been a turn against socialism. Taxes have fallen and markets liberalized.” A backlash “against welfare dependency in Denmark” followed (“Sorry, Bernie — Scandinavia is no socialist paradise after all”).
In countries which already have wealth because of a free market philosophy, evidence of which is the existence of a the middle class which spawns economic equality for all who choose to work for it. They can afford the free college, healthcare, welfare and etc. so long as immigration, also wanting everything for free, is very limited.
These four countries, because of the presence of the free market socialists seek to destroy, apparently could afford to expanded their “free” offerings. Because they did, and entitlements and free stuff is a favorite lure for reeling in the industrialized world, made rich through the capitalist philosophy, socialists world-wide look to the “Nordic Model” to emulate. But socialists ignore how they got their wealth. This did not happen by nationalizing industries (like General Motors) and subsidizing favored ones (like Solyndra) as we did under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. So the lessons of the Scandinavian countries is to keep the government out of managing the economy—thus away from socialism.
While Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are pushing America to embrace socialism these four countries are pulling back from the free stuff philosophy. In the 1990’s Sweden adopted a universal school choice system “allowing families to use public funds, in the form of vouchers, to finance their child’s education at a private school, including schools run by the dreaded for-profit corporation” (Corey Iacono, “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism,” Foundation for Economic Education, February 25, 2016).
Nima Sanandaji, observed: “In recent years, they’ve tempered the damage of their big-government policies by scaling back their welfare states and setting limits on their fiscal burdens. Their governments have adopted more work incentives, lowered taxes and allowed for more flexibility when hiring and firing workers. They’ve opened their public schools and health care to more competition, and Sweden partially privatized its pension system. They may not be free market quite yet, but they’re no socialist—or even liberal—utopia, either” (Veronique De Rugy, “Does Socialism Work for Sweden? That’s the Wrong Question,” Reason, Sept. 1, 2016).
The welfare state is not sustainable over time, in any country in any time. Inevitably it will attract immigrants who also want the free stuff without having contributed to the foundation that made this possible before implemented, as had the Scandinavians. It is impossible to have open borders and a welfare state without eventually impoverishing all. This is what all the leading democratic presidential contenders offer in the election of 2020.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Apr 21, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a young man I observed that those who saw racism in everything were usually the most racist. That analysis has proven itself over time. Today the accusation is so frequently made on Democratic Party media outlets, very recently by Beto O’Rourke against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that it’s now difficult to know who is not a racist. If a Jew, the most persecuted race in modern world history, is racist as O’Rourke says, then who is exempt? But the term is used several times a night on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC news outlets. Presumably everyone is racists except Democrats who decry everyone else as such.
As a result white Democratic presidential contenders are apologizing for and fleeing from their whiteness. Joe Bidden and Bernie Sanders, are “old white men,” we are told. The party seems intent on purging the stain of whiteness from itself. Sanders, thus far ignores it while instead apologizing for his great wealth and use of “tax breaks.” Biden recently apologized to Anita Hill for the “whiteness” of the Senate Judiciary Committee he once chaired.
Beto O’Rourke, formerly Robert Morris, (name changed allegedly to attract hispanic voters) recently admitted having benefited from what he called “white privilege.” He told a group, “Absolutely undeniable. I have been arrested twice. But that didn’t come to define me or narrow my options in life. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I’m a white man.”
Democrats also see everywhere “white nationalism,” a form of racism, and attempt to attach the label to anyone who wishes to enforce existing, longstanding, immigration law, the same law enforced by Barack Obama. Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently tweeted, “Stephen Miller is a white nationalist. The fact that he still has influence on policy and political appointments is an outrage.” This, coming from probably the most anti-jewish (and therefore racist) member of congress. Unable to show clear documentation for the charge, supporters acknowledged that although they could not X-ray for “racist bones,” even so, Miller (and by extension President Donald Trump his boss) is still guilty of “soft-core” white nationalism. In other words, they are white nationalists because they are white, the majority, and in power.
Since whites participated in slavery in our early history thirteen Democratic Presidential hopefuls attending the Al Sharpton founded National Action Network’s annual conference April 3, committed to sign Congresswoman Jackson Lee’s recently introduced bill creating a commission to study reparations for African-Americans. Most saw it as a way of addressing the persistence of racism and white supremacy today. Cory Booker said, “It will begin to right the economic scales of past harms.”
Senator Kamala Harris, “Justice means recognizing domestic terrorism, including white nationalist extremism,” which she noted, “should be considered a national security priority.” Senator Bernie Sanders said he would sign, then returned to his racist central theme, “We have a president who is a racist, who is a sexist, who is a homophobe, who is a xenophobe, and who is a religious bigot.”
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand would sign as would Congressman Beto O’Rourke, Governor John Hickenlooper and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Indeed no presidential candidate at the gathering opposed it. All supported “racial restitution,” whatever that means.
The problem with such legislation is no white person now living had anything to do with slavery 154 years ago. Even then, it was almost entirely the whites of the north that gave their lives to free the slaves. It was whites that established and maintained the Underground Railroad at considerable risk to themselves and it was white author Harriet Beecher Stow in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, who brought attention to the moral issue of slavery. Even today, race baiters need to be reminded that it was whites that elected the first half-black president, Barack Obama.
Of course, there were abuses of the past. Indians, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Quakers, Jews and Mormons can all make cases. Race baiters want whites to acknowledge that they are racist and oppressive by nature and should have what they call “white guilt.” The only remedy they seem to accept is compensation, but this is never enough.
But their focus is almost entirely on the blacks and slavery and the then perpetrators and victims are dead and today’s descendants, many generations later, were not wronged. How do they make the case for their receiving compensation for wrongs committed to their ancestors without committing an injustice to those now living—even if it were their ancestors who committed the injustices mentioned? Would they not be the source of new injustice?
Why should I pay for the injustices of my ancestors, even worse, when they may not have been the perpetrators? And why should my black neighbor receive a benefit forced from me without creating an injustice to me? Under this logic his posterity will need to atone to my posterity. Could not the same arguments be used against them in a later century?
Today most white Americans are of many races and not racist. Insisting that all whites should have “white guilt “ because of presumed ancestral injustices or confederate association only exacerbates racism, the very thing race baiters insist they wish to end. Then, are not race baiters the “real” racists? That the news gives their racism so much attention should be objectionable to everyone.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 5, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Most think that the 2020 presidential election is almost two years away. Not so!! The first vote, the vote of the billionaires who choose our candidates, is happening right now. It happens every four years and Democrats and Republicans simply change places. This time it is the Democrats lining up with alms bowl in hand—not to their constituents or the little donors that used to be their base long ago, but the super rich who they pretend to be against.
Candidates each take their “dance” before the billionaire club and are picked by one or more of them. Almost everyone has noticed the dramatic shift to socialism made by the Democratic Party presidential candidates, not because their constituents necessarily demand such, but because their real bosses, the moneyed elite, do. Their moneyed sponsors, primarily George Soros , the leading funder of far-left causes and elections the past two decades, who is said to have spent $25 million on Hilary Clinton and other democratic candidates in 2016 and another $15 million in the recent midterms, and Tom Steyer, who “promised to spend at least $30 million to elect progressives this campaign season,” making him the “most important Democratic donor in the United States.”
Tucker Carlson reported last week on Fox News, “This coming Saturday, Sen. Cory Booker is attending a Silicon Valley fundraiser. It is hosted by Gary and Laura Lauder. They are heirs to the $14 billion Estee Lauder fortune. Kamala Harris just had a fundraiser in Beverly Hills that was attended by an army of wealthy studio execs. Kristin Gillibrand did not even start her campaign for president before asking the permission of Wall Street.”
Yes, Republicans do something similar when it is their turn to oppose a seated Democrat president. Trump was the exception as he financed his own primary making him the only presidential candidate since William McKinley that is not largely purchased by wealthy donors. There are more Democrat political billionaire activists than Republican, taken together Soros money and organizations, and now, Steyer’s money, easily dwarf that of the Koch brothers, said to be funding most of the right side of the political spectrum.
The billionaire club easily favors the Democratic Party and the far-left side of the political spectrum. What is far worse is that Soros and Steyer seem not to be promoting rank and file Democrats but instead radicals who want to upend our political system. It appears that the rich who initially controlled the Republican Party, then both major parties for over 100 years, now has much greater dominance over the Democratic Party. Should they succeed, we will become a socialist country.
So why are the super rich overwhelmingly progressive—code for socialist. Tucker Carlson argues “They love mass immigration — it brings them servants. They support federally-mandated snobbery, masquerading as environmentalism. Abortion is essentially a sacrament to them, especially when practiced in poor neighborhoods” (February 21, 2019).
What is certain is that essentially socialism allows them to command society with their money, to right all wrongs. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex is now wondering if society should limit its number of children. Everything is managed from cradle to grave. Other forms of government deny them this kind of control.
So if most of the billionaire club are progressives and Democrat why do they overwhelmingly fund the party and philosophy that purports to seize their wealth and control? Have not Democrats identified the enemy as “old white men,” which most billionaires are? Taxing is their favorite instrument of control and Democrats have been for higher taxes on the “rich” for decades. Cortez advocates 70%, Elizabeth Warren even higher.
Don’t they pay more taxes because they make more? Yes, but only to a point. The secret is that the rich will never pay more than 24% no matter how much they make. And they, being the financiers of the presidential candidates, will never be required to.
Carlson explains how it works“The top federal income tax rate stops at about 500 grand. So what’s the difference between someone making $500,000 a year and someone making $50 million a year? The answer: The richer one can much more easily evade paying full freight, and they do.”
The rich that the Democrats want to tax are not the “real rich,” only those who make less than $500,000 per year. Those making more are locked in to no more than 27% and the richest of the rich only 24%. “According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of Americans pay about 27 percent of their income in taxes. But the top tenth of 1 percent — that’s people who make $35 million a year — pay less than 26 percent. And the top thousandth of a percent — the absolute richest — pay less than 24 percent. In other words, past a certain point, the richer you are, the less you pay. That’s why billionaires back socialism. It doesn’t cost them much.
The first election is theirs as they fund the candidates who share their socialist views and get a tax cut as well. The show part of the election, the one acknowledged by everyone, does come in two years but well after their candidates are safely placed to win. The masses then salivate over which one of of the anointed the moneyed elite have preselected for us.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 11, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
I flew to El Paso, Texas to see for myself what was going on at the border at the height of the partial government shutdown standoff between Pelosi/Schumer and President Donald Trump. I wanted to interview those on the ground who really knew; thus bypassing entirely the Republican presses that said we were in a border crisis and the Democrat presses that said we weren’t and that we do not need a wall. El Paso, over 800,000 population, and Juarez, Mexico, over 1,400,000, one north of the border, the other south, seemed to be an ideal location to ask the experts.
This is what I learned. Mexican cartels, not the Mexican government, control entry into the United States. They are the de facto government south of the border. Cartels have carved up the important crossing locations and migrants do not get into the United States without first paying at least $100 per person to the controlling cartel. They enforce their rules.
Agents do not seek-out illegal aliens as they once did. Aliens come to them. Most illegals, perhaps 80%, are referred to as OTM’s (Other Than Mexican). Mexicans, when caught, are simply returned to Mexico but the OTM’s have the right to have a judge hear their cases, thus they remain until that happens.
Caravans are a new phenomenon. These are financed, we were told, by billionaire George Soros. his groups organize and instruct perspective migrants in their rights. After crossing Mexico, these people approach the border in small groups of nine to twenty and immediately seek a border patrol vehicle to approach and surrender, “Here I am!” They know that they will be taken to a holding center and cared for. These centers, designed for 80 to 90 migrants, now hold 200 to 250. They are so crowded that there exists virtually no room between migrants.
They know they will be released into the general population after receiving a NTA (Notice To Appear) before a judge, but they also know not to appear as 90% will be sent home because they do not qualify for asylum. But now they are in the United States. The game changes to “hide and seek” until the United States changes its laws. Why? One officer told us that they were awaiting the expected “paradigm shift.” He did not explain what he meant but I inferred that Trump will be removed from power and their group enormity will force a path to full citizenship. He added, “When this hope of being able to stay, is removed—this incentive—the flood will end.”
Agents invited us to visit three unsecured areas within thirty miles of where we were. One was Mount Cristo Rey located between the two cities but a good distance within the U.S. side. It was identified as a place of danger. The sign posted on the 12-foot-wide well-trod trail going up the hill to the statue warned, “If you’re going to tour Mt. Cristo Rey please contact police department at (575) 589-6600 or at 1000 McNutt Rd..” Why would an area, within the country, and close to Border Patrol headquarters, be too dangerous for Americans to visit without first notifying police? Because it is also a corridor for drug and human trafficking between the two countries and you might disappear, be raped, or robbed.
A second was a construction site on the U.S. side of the border accessed by an opening in an 18 foot tall border wall through which construction trucks and workers frequently passed, this with no visibly mounted cameras. An almost dry Rio Grande River just south of the construction site had no barrier of any kind to prevent a crossing from either side and then through this opening.
A third site, some 25 miles west of El Paso, was the connecting point between a high fence, perhaps 18 feet, and a four or five feet high fence thereafter. The much shorter fence was designed to stop only automobiles and Mexico was easily accessed from both sides over the top or sliding under it. I had one foot in Mexico and another in the United States simultaneously. Picture very large steel X’s every ten feet with three horizontal cross beams connecting them. This fence was said to continue this way for some distance west but replaced with mere barbed wire thereafter.
The fence was marked as having been built in 2008 but it was no barrier to drug or human trafficking or coming across unnoticed at will. We were totally alone for a solid hour before we saw a helicopter flying the line. There was no evidence of technology either and we were but 20 miles from one of the most populated areas on the entire border.
We also learned that often the countries from which immigrants come do not want them back as they were happy to rid themselves of their impoverished or criminal class. Twenty years ago the border could be controlled by 5,000 agents now 35,000 agents are required. Even U.S. troops are needed to assist.
No one argued that this was not a very serious crisis, nor that a border wall was not critical in ending it. Border patrol agents confirmed “there is no border security outside a wall.”
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org..
Jan 28, 2019 | Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, Ph.D
No one has been more outspoken against the globalist agenda than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the very antithesis of their plans for world government. This is primarily the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, have come out of the closet to oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists are now praising his newly negotiated and rolled out October I, 2018 USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe first economically then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with it. It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…”. Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018)
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism—everything else he has done suggests otherwise But he has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he said was so “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
