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.
Nov 27, 2018 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Birth tourism, presently running rampart in the United States, is where foreigners intentionally coordinate their delivery dates with tourism ensuring that the birth happens while in this country. They remain the weeks necessary for the new birth certificate to be used to generate a passport for their newborn. Maternal centers, some sleazy others high end, created to accommodate the wait, run lucrative businesses (perhaps $50,000 per birth) encouraging “clients” from China, Russia, Turkey, Taiwan and Mexico primarily. Their “tour” ends with their child having citizenship and a passport with only a few weeks invested in this country. They return to their country with the child raised having dual citizenship.
Why is this attractive to them? Mart Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, shared four reasons for its popularity. First, if things go bad in one’s country at least the child, with a passport, can get out. Second, when the child is an adult he can sponsor his folks for immigration. For them “It is a “kind of retirement program,”with benefits. Third, it is a way for the chid to get cheaper tuition in American colleges as“foreign students have to pay more than U.S. citizens.” Fourth, it is a way for the child to avoid the draft in his home country, he simply goes to America. All of this for a little tour in the U.S. while having a baby (“The Ingraham Angle,” October 30, 2018).
But this practice is specifically forbidden by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which reads in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment, (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom), to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and [already] subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” It was Howard who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted.
Notice also the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here. If diplomats of high honor are specifically exempted from birthright citizenship, mere tourists, without any specific distinction, certainly would not have it. They not only have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere but are specifically identified as ineligible, and thus cannot have birthright citizenship.
On birthright citizenship President Donald Trump is on solid constitutional ground as expressed by the Founders of the 14th Amendment. Because this is a Civil War amendment designed to keep previously rebelling southern states from prohibiting ex-slaves, or their children, from having citizenship and because of the inclusion of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” there exists no other interpretation without serious distortion of the amendment. Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment show no other interpretation. Birthright citizenship cannot be taken from those already citizens or their children.
Indians did not get citizenship until 1924 because they were not yet clearly, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government. One “cannot owe allegiance to anybody else,” argued, Senator Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. That would most certainly exclude those proudly carrying their native flags in the recent caravan invasion of our border.
So how should Trump proceed in getting America back to the Constitution as written? First he must immediately issue an executive order ending the practice of birth tourism based upon his oath of office to defend and preserve the Constitution and by the specific ambassadors exclusionary clause of the authors of the 14th Amendment itself. He can count on the enemies of the republic to sue to block the execution of the order. Such normally take many months to process. This allows immigration and the wall to remain lead issues in the election. America demands closure on this issue and it will reelect him.
A statute solution through Congress in favor of ending the perversion of the Constitution with respect to birthright citizenship for anyone illegally crossing the border is the much preferred solution. Should the courts rule against a Trump executive order on birth tourism he will know the timing is not yet right for the same on the bigger immigration issue. Should they follow the Constitution as intended, he will, with the birth tourism issue in his favor, immediately do the larger issue by executive order as well, more especially if the opposition party, which supports open borders, retains the House, or looks to retain the House in 2020. This also would result in a suit so if in late 2019 a Republican retake of the House is probable, without obstruction from his own party, it might be better to wait for a statute solution through Congress.
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.
Nov 12, 2018 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most constitutional experts know that there exists no birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. LibertyUnderFire and others have made this case for many years. Unfortunately House Speaker Paul Ryan, represents the class of politicians least informed on this subject when he said “As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear,” If he were a constitutionalist he would know better.
Currently the Democratic Party leadership do not care whether it is, or is not, constitutional as they view all illegal immigrants as future democrats. The ignorance of the establishment press too is overwhelming. So we make the case once again.
Most have sympathy for those who were infants or born here when their parents illegally crossed the border and have lived here all their lives and know no other country. The 14th Amendment seems to validate such sympathy IF WE IGNOR SIX WORDS: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” A more careful read, however, shows that such was specifically and purposely denied, not supported. Consider the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The purpose of the clause was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, (already residents) and their descendants after the Civil War. It had nothing to do with immigration. Recipients were already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and while here have a baby. That baby, (excluding the six words) then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegal’s born in the U.S. rages on with virtually no one going to the source of the alleged authority—the crafters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment, (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom), to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and [already] subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
It was he who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted. Those crossing our borders illegally are clearly foreigners not residents, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus are specifically exempt from citizenship. Notice also the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here. The record of the Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment shows no other interpretation.
There is no such thing as automatic citizenship from this amendment without serious distortion of it. In fact, Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, addressing the definition of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” asked, “What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Those crossing our borders illegally have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere and thus cannot have birthright citizenship. How can a child of such a parentage have what his parents clearly do not have?
How many are born illegally in the United States per year? Statistics are difficult to validate but the Pew Hispanic Center study estimated 340,000 in 2008 alone and recent research has doubled illegal entry from 11 to 22 million, so births from illegals are also presumed double. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated the annual cost providing healthcare, education, and food stamps for many, and all other incidental costs at $2.4 billion—and that was based upon the presumed 11 million.
Citizenship was denied Native Americans until 1924 as they owed allegiance to their Sioux or Apache or Blackfoot, or whatever, Indian nations and thus were not yet “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the nation they lived within. Certainly one must cease to be at war or conflict with the conquering country. So just being on U.S. soil did not make them citizens automatically until the “jurisdiction thereof” part of the Amendment was satisfied..
Many of our Mexican friends send portions of their pay checks home to Mexico and plan to return to their native land upon retirement with pensions and/or social security sent to their “first” country from the country they extracted their wealth—the United States. Some vote in Mexican elections from here. It is indeed hard to argue that they are not instead subject to the jurisdiction of another land other than the United States–and most admit it. The 14th Amendment specifically denies birthright citizenship.
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 3, 2018 | Economy, Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The key component in the globalist bid for world government has been their transcending nation states into regional governments, ending national sovereignty, then later, these into a world government. North America must one day be a single country commonly referred to as the North American Union following the model they used for the European Union. Americans must be made to accept open borders.
Three decades ago I wrote a paper that outlined the process by which the European Union transcended first from the European Coal and Steel Community, to the European Economic Community, to the European Community, finally 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 then politically into a single country.
I did not publish the paper, 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 taxpayer money, largely financed the consolidation of Europe into a single county and planned the same for North America with the unification, first economically then politically, 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 told my students 30 years ago that there would never be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration because the CFR, from which all Secretaries of State, U.N. Ambassadors, Russian and Chinese Ambassadors, and a third of all Presidential Cabinets prior to 2016 were drawn, is the nation’s leading advocate for globalism. They are clearly for open borders and trans-national agreements. No major television, radio, or national newspaper outlet yet identifies them by name; nevertheless these mediums know it.
Extending amnesty in the Immigration Act of 1965 did not work because we did not seal the border. Instead it 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 warned that despite the promise to finally end illegal immigration we would repeat this the next generation. And we have. I make the same promise thirty years from now. Those that have undue influence upon both the Democratic and Republican parties—the globalist’s CFR—have no intention of actually sealing the border; thus their resisting President Trump’s efforts to do so.
Centuries ago China built the Great Wall to keep barbarians out without bulldozers, giant trucks, cranes or any other heavy lifting and earth moving technologies that we have today. Globalist want regional government and a wall inhibits this.
The truth is that the CFR 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 For 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 could not then get liftoff, but succeeding president Barack Obama did support open borders, most notably by executive order essentially refusing to deport children of those illegally entering the U.S. and trans-national agreements, notably the Trans Pacific Partnership, both of which undermine national sovereignty and strengthen regional governance.
The CFR plan is to make illegal immigration legal remains in place as a major component of its larger plan to consolidate the three counties of North America and perhaps Central America into The North American Union. A physical wall is the best evidence of our remaining a sovereign country. Sadly the 2018 federal budget denied border wall funding. So far globalists remain in place to prevent a “real” wall ever becoming a reality.
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 U.S. 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.
Aug 14, 2017 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The recent brutal rape of a 19-year–old woman in Burien, Washington, a Seattle suburb, declared a sanctuary city, has refocused attention on the constitutionality of a city protecting an illegal alien. The Constitution should have protected her.
But the issue is complicated by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created in 2012 by executive order by then President Barack Obama.
Constitutionally only Congress can make law (Article I, Section 1). Executive orders that have the force and effect of law are entirely unconstitutional; otherwise our separation of powers philosophy is seriously damaged.
In response, former Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, merely issued memos to border agents to not enforce immigration law on under-aged illegals crossing the border and those who were under 31 when the memos were sent. DACA allowed deportation to be deferred for two-year intervals, which could be renewed endlessly as long as illegals obeyed the laws of the land. If school aged they were expected to remain in school, if adults they were provided a work permit. Congress passed none of this and thus it encouraged evading existing law. Sanctuary cities help illegal immigrants evade the law by not enforcing it within their jurisdiction.
Those supporting the Constitution must oppose made-up law by a single person regardless of political party or personal agreement with the action. That is how law and order breaks down and chaos, even revolution, results.
The brutal rape leaving a young woman bloodied with missing teeth, a dangling ear and a broken jaw was reportedly committed by a 23-year-old illegal immigrant with DACA status. The aggressor and victim lived in the same complex but did not know one another. It was a clear act of unprovoked aggression. As a result the city of Burien is moving to revoke its sanctuary status.
Separation of powers with one body making the law, another enforcing it, and a third adjudicating it, is the most basic principle of the Constitution. In it “all” federal law originates with and is processed through Congress with the President having only the authority to sign or veto law made by Congress and thereafter obligated to enforce all law processed in the same manner, whether he agrees with it or not. In every presidential inauguration we listen to him pledging by oath to be obedient to it: “I do solemnly swear…that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8). Making his own law, or refusing to enforce existing law coming through the same process, are grounds for impeachment.
Moreover every public servant, state or federal, judicial or legislative, including city council persons, swear an oath “to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3) thus they, by refusing to support, are defiant to the document and should be removed by their constituents (even share some responsibility for the rape and beating). If they refuse to remove those not supporting the Constitution they too stand defiant of it. This issue is that clear.
But these are not the only parts of the Constitution that are damaged by the sanctuary city philosophy. Article VI, Clause 2 states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therein…” And, as mentioned, city officials are pledged to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states Congress shall have the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” Only the federal government can make immigration law. Sanctuary cities have no constitutional base. Clause 18, of the same section, states Congress shall have the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
The supreme law of the land for immigration is called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 274 of this titled—Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens—requires fines and/or imprisonment of anyone who aids and abets illegal aliens.
Any person who “knowingly” attempts to bring in an alien, has knowledge of, attempts to transport an alien within the U.S., “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; …shall be punished.” Punishment is “for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs.” All offenses bring a fine “under title 18, United States Code” and/or imprisonment ranging from 5 to 20 years depending upon the seriousness of the offense. If the alien’s presence “resulted in the death of any person” those assisting his presence in the U.S. can be fined, and/or, “punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”
In the case of the rape and beating of the young woman in Burien, Washington, wherein the alien causes serious bodily injury … or places in jeopardy the life of, any person,” city officials assisting his presence could be fined, and/or, “imprisoned not more than 20 years.”
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 5, 2017 | Constitution, Healthcare, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Please understand! I am deeply offended when called either conservative or liberal. These are traps for the ignorant who wish to reduce my years of serious contemplation to a word so that a part of my readers can praise me (“Well done! “ “You are one of us!”). And the other part can dismiss me by a single word—even hate me. This is war, every bit as much as it was for the Founding Fathers and I will not be dismissed. There are Loyalist or Tories in our day just as there were in theirs and I stand to call them out, whether Democrats or Republicans.
My views are the Founders collective view. I draw from the same fountain of natural law as they did and appeal to the same “father of lights to illuminate my understanding” (Ben Franklin’s words at the Constitutional Convention), as they did. I am my own thinker.
I have been a college professor for many years and students sit in front of me just waiting to tag me with some label that did not then exist in the same way and dismiss me or marginalize me so that they do not have to think. As long as they are not successful they are teachable and have to deal with the inconsistencies of both ideologies—liberal and conservative. I have friends in both camps and sooner or latter they say to me, somewhat surprised, “I thought you were one of us.”
I, like George Washington, dislike political parties. Today both major parties undermine the Constitution and collective ignorance, reinforced by numbers, is more dangerous than individual ignorance. Neither uses the Constitution as first consideration in governing.
I publicly challenged the Republican Party for leading us into the Iraq Wars against Saddam Hussein because the evidence for doing so (9 11, weapons of mass destruction, preemption-–the concept that they would do something to us eventually) did not exist and had to be constantly changed to justify our presence. I did not oppose the war in Afghanistan because the evidence was there for 9 11 but I do now because we have no clear definable win objectives and lack the will to unleash everything we have to win. It is another Vietnam quagmire.
It was the George W. Bush administration that gave us the Patriot Act, which allowed the government to define terrorists as her own people and severely damaged the Bill of Rights. Republicans looked the other way as the National Security Agency (NSA) gave itself authority to gather and store in Bluffdale, Utah every electronic message of her own people. While the government looks within for the enemy, it fails to secure our borders, until now, from Middle Eastern intruders from countries with a known intent to harm us. With respect to national health care, something they unanimously opposed, and which has no constitutional basis, they now look more like Democrats who at least were not hypocritical in their desire to take-over a third of the economy. “Obamacare-light” is still Obamacare.
Democrats have taken spending to an unacceptable level and seem intent to risk collapsing the entire economy in doing so. With each crisis they help create, their remedy is always more government as they hamstring businesses that create our jobs with numberless rules and regulations.
Their model is not the Founders or the Constitution but socialist countries in Europe some of whom tax their people over 50% of their income and have far less freedom. A worshipful press has never properly explained Obama’s past connection with revolutionary Bill Ayer, Founder of the militant Whether Underground, which bombed government buildings in the seventies. While China, Cuba, and even Canada are showing clear signs of backing off socialism we seemed “hell bent” to rush into it under either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
Moreover, instead of investigating the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Classified Emails Scandals, that jeopardized national security of which there exists extensive documentation, far more than on Nixon’s Watergate, they push Russian influence in the Donald Trump election for which real documentation is non-existent. Amazing!
So what do I embrace? I usually drop a tear or two when the National Anthem is played. I am touched by George Washington who loved his country enough to risk his life in a doubtful cause failing to win a single battle the first year against England, the most powerful nation on earth, and refused pay from the government for his services as a general or as president. I love knowing that Founders and presidents acknowledge the hand of God in crisis and shamelessly went to him for help. I love the stories of servicemen who put their lives on the line to save a buddy. I have undying respect for those who served their country with the primary intent of saving freedom—even if they did not understand the motives of the politicians who sent them. I love people who stand for traditional values of honesty, integrity and morality and did not justify President Clinton’s numerous White House affairs.
So what am I? Only a typical American that wants to return to our base and thinks more people embrace this description than either party ideology. So please just call me a patriotic American. That is a title that I wear with honor.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
