Select Page

The Most Influential Man in Post-World War II History

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The most influential individual in post-World War II history had a hand in creating the United Nations, even donating the property for the building in 1946. No one had greater claim to influence since. By the mid-seventies he owned dominating interests in The New York Times, CBS, NBC, and ABC (Senate Document 93-62, Disclosure of Corporate Ownership, 1974). He was also chairman of the 50 year-old Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful special interest group in U.S. history from which both major political parties always selected their Secretary of States, Ambassadors to Russia, China, the United Nations and a third of all cabinet posts. In the last fifty years, (until Donald Trump) either the president or the vice president was an open CFR member. Members also held leadership positions in the vast majority of major media outlets in the U.S.

Those following his life the last 50 years know him as the one individual in U.S. history who could phone the White House, day or night, and expect the occupant, Democrat or Republican, to come to the phone. He was a confidant of many world leaders. He was powerful enough to persuade President Jimmy Carter to allow his friend, the extremely controversial, despised and deposed Shah of Iran, to come to the United States for medical treatment, disregarding intelligence warnings of retaliation if he did so. This resulted in the U.S. Embassy takeover and the Iranian Hostage Crises of 1979-1981.

In 1973 he created the Trilateral Commission, the most powerful special interest group in the world, designed to dominate the economies of Japan, North America and Western Europe. His thinking was that dominating these three geographical areas would allow him to indirectly dominate the world. His two notable lieutenants, one Henry Kissinger, influenced Republican administrations, the other Zig Brzezinski, influenced Democratic administrations, both became household names, the first more so with Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the latter with Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. There might be some differences in what became “his” contending political parties, but in things that affected foreign policy and the interests of the establishment there were few.

Although not a founder of the Bilderbergers, a world government confab of the super rich of the western world, founded in 1954 by Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, he came to have membership and great influence in this group as well. It is here, behind closed doors, that he was most candid about his world government aspirations. In a 1991 meeting he spoke of his control of the American press. “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of and intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries” (The New American, April 17, 2017, p 42). Twenty-six years have passed since he boasted of his influence over the press and most Americans remain blind to the control over them. What is known, as the “Establishment Press” is “his” press.

By now most who read more than just the establishment press or their tributaries, who downplay all the above, know that the most influential person in post World War II era, and the one to whom we have referred is David Rockefeller, grandson of oil baron John D. Rockefeller.

To the ignorant who still insist that they are not dodo birds, and almost as though to test the level of his ability to manipulate them, he confessed everything.   In his published autobiography Memoirs, 15 years ago, he wrote. “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum … attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it” (p. 405).

His fingerprints are all over all free trade agreements especially NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA, and SPP. He Founded the Council of the Americas, the Americas Society, the forum of the Americas, the U.S. Council of the Mexico-U.S. Business Committee and the Institute of International Economics to accomplish these economic/political unifications.

Still, even after his death on March 20, 2017, at age 101,“his” press did not share the extent of David Rockefeller’s decades long control over both major political parties. How is this possible with the level of greatness he acquired? Because the control remains in place? A quiet death with little acclamation does not bring attention to the “secret combination” for economic world power that he waged so successfully. Today his organizations advocating a new world order, including the U.N., are as strong and determined as ever, and remain mostly undetected.

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

Please Don’t Call Me Conservative or Liberal

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

Will Next President be “Elected” by End Run Around the Constitution?

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Opponents of the Electoral College seek to alter a process that has worked for well over two hundred years. Fueled by Hillary’s winning the popular vote yet denied the White House and unable to get two-thirds of the states as required to consider altering this part of the Constitution, some seek an end run around it instead. They say that the Electoral College is not democratic enough. They call their plan the National Popular Vote Plan. In it participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state.

There exists no language in the Constitution authorizing a popular vote for the executive branch of government. Such came about in 1824 after the Electoral College denied the presidency to Andrew Jackson, the most popular man in America due to his success in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. His supporters, believing the denial to be an injustice, created a straw vote so that the people could participate in the election although this vote had no power.

Over time the media empowered it by treating it as the “legitimate” vote for the president belittling the College process as unfair and undemocratic. Seldom do they remind us that it works because we are not a democracy, but a republic, and that none of the branches of government are democratic; most especially the Senate and Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson had to wait until he could convince the seasoned citizen voters of the Electoral College that he was not too emotional for the office. He did so four years later in 1828. Moreover, today the media seldom cover the real election for the president in December such is their distain for it.

Those unable to get a two-thirds vote to destroy the Electoral College have conceived a brilliant plan to do just that without the constitutional amendment required. The plan is to have each state legislature commit their state to support the national popular winner instead of the candidate winning their state. When enough states do so that the Electoral College numbers exceed 270, remaining states will be required to support as well. Wham!! Almost without any public debate outside state legislatures, and seemingly overnight, the popular vote will replace the Electoral College as the means by which a president is elected. We would be back to a few highly populated states deciding for the rest of the country—so opposed by our Founders.

Ironically proponents ignorantly use a small portion of the Constitution to destroy a larger portion. They cite Article II, Section 1 which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” This, they say, gives state legislatures the right to award their electors as they see fit. Actually, the phrase allows the state legislatures appointing powers only. To suggest that they should have influence over their voting once selected, nullifies the reason for their existence. The Electoral College was to be a non-governmental body completely separate and unaccountable to the State Legislature once appointed, as per the rest of the section. Certainly the phrase did not authorize states to simply alter or dump Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 12 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the National Popular Vote Plan also violates Article I, Section 10. This prohibits states from entering into “alliances” with other states unless Congress gives its consent. Certainly agreeing states have entered into an alliance with one another to nullify the Electoral College, which mandates the right of individual states, through their people, to chose the president.

At present ten states and the District of Columbia, a combined electoral vote total of 165, have come on board delivering about half the 270 electoral votes needed to impose this upon the rest of the country and nullify a long standing pillar of the Constitution. States voting to change the Constitution without amending it, as required by the document, are: California 55, Hawaii 4, Illinois 20, Maryland 10, Massachusetts 11, New Jersey 14, New York 29, Rhode Island 4, Vermont 3, and Washington 12. New York is the most recent addition joining the unconstitutional alliance March 25, 2014.

Unfortunately for those who revere the Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to balance the vote so that rural American would not be disenfranchised by urban American, are emboldened by Hillary Clinton’s receiving the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election yet denied the presidency. Still, it is well to remember that only California gave Clinton its popular vote. In the other forty-nine Donald Trump won the popular vote. Without the Electoral College Clinton would be president by the vote of but a single state, disfavored by all others. How is that just, balanced or even democratic?

Granted the Electoral College is the most difficult part of the Constitution to understand and is easy to oppose because it is undemocratic. Spend some time to understand it. A patriot and constitutionalist will see through the scheme to destroy it without the debate and transparency required in Article V. No end run around this document should ever be permitted.


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

Getting Back to the Constitution in Education

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

In an executive order (EO) issued April 26, President Donald Trump ordered a rollback of what he termed “a federal power grab” in education. Constitutionally this order is profound and long over due.

The order begins, “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the proper division of power under the Constitution between the Federal Government and the States… it is hereby ordered as follows.” It instructs Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to review and report on regulations and directives as far back as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Highlighted for her review were the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) April 30, 1970—Dec. 10, 2015, the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) Dec. 10, 2015, and the Every Student Succeeds Act also of Dec. 2015, which replaced George w. Bush’s No Child Left Behind with Obama’s Common Core.

The word education is not found in the Constitution, nor inferred, and no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving it from a state to a federal prerogative. Instead, from its inception, the Constitution protected the philosophy of federalism, (shared government), the federal government to manage foreign, the states domestic policy. Some ill-informed might argue that certainly the words “general welfare” in the document included education but this phrase was restricted to seven areas (Article I, Sec. 8, Clauses 2-9) specifically identifying what was to be general welfare, with education excluded.

Otherwise, the federal government might conclude that they should manage everything in the name of general welfare. This interpretation could destroy the Constitution as a restrictive document on governmental power. And this is what was meant by the words in the Trump executive order “to restore the proper division of power under the Constitution between the Federal Government and the States.”

Until 64 years ago the federal government honored this division of power leaving education to the states as constitutionally designed. Their first major inroad into this area was the creation of The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) on April 11, 1953. Heretofore both health and education were understood to be state prerogatives only. President Jimmy Carter signed the bill creating the Department of Education on October 17, 1979; without constitutional authority. This action resulted from the immense pressure applied by the “all powerful” teacher union—the National Education Agency (NEA)—which sought to nationalize education removing it from local control. Carter rewarded their support in his election with the new cabinet post.

But an executive order is not enough and can be rescinded by the next president, as Trump is doing to his predecessor. The EO restricts itself to “under the law” and Congress (both parties) clearly passed these major education laws identified in the order. Trump must more fully hinge his argument on the Constitution and on the doctrine of federalism, which preceded the Constitution as a carry-over from the Articles of Confederation, our first national constitution. He should do so by arguing that he has no authority to enforce law that violates the separation of powers as created by the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold. He must also encourage Congress to rescind those laws or, through the states, create a new amendment to the Constitution using Article 5 of the Constitution. Otherwise this immediate victory, his EO, will be short lived.

One of the first questions I ask students in an into to government class, since every textbook has a chapter on federalism is, “Who cares most whether Johnny can read, his mother or federal bureaucrats located hundreds often thousands of miles away.” It is generally agreed his mother does and is in a position to do most to remedy the problem by direct access to his teacher and school and can run for the school board if not satisfied.

A second question, “Who suffers most if the school fails Johnny?” Again, his mother as responsible bureaucrats have moved on and she is left long term with the consequences of their failure with Johnny. As a life-long student or instructor I have never seen evidence that the federal government can administrate the needs of Johnny better than most parents.

My best and most caring teacher did her “magic” in a remote country school of two rooms; one a library the other a classroom. She taught all grades 1-8 at once with two or more students from each grade. No electronic aid or devices—only a chalkboard and books. Government policies and money raining down from afar generally discourage individuality in teaching and creativity. Instead they often spawn collective thought, (the enemy of real education), by their distribution of money favoring some ideas and groups.

Federalism and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to retain it and to specifically list the powers of the federal government in Article I Section 8 leaving all other powers, in this case education, at state and local levels, was brilliant. Hopefully the Trump E O will strike a new public debate eventually removing all federal influence and funding in education. Trump is not yet a constitutionalist but this move alone shows him closer than the vast majority of presidents in my lifetime.

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

CIA Spy Penetration Worse than Presumed

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Over the years LibertyUnderFire has provided multiple columns on the National Security Agencies’ (NSA) massive intelligence gathering and storage of all electronic information from all electric devices and how such activity violated the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution of all U.S. citizens. Such is now well known and after the Edward Snowden document dump four years ago, no longer disputed.

Now new document dumps by Wikileaks, one over 9,000, beginning March 23 through April 22, reveal a second U.S. intelligence gathering organization potentially far worse than the NSA. The CIA, supposedly restricted to foreign intelligence gathering, has developed technology capable of turning our electronic devices, televisions, computers, iPhones—even automotive technology—against the user anywhere in the world, even U.S. citizens. That is why the unidentified whistleblower leaked to Wikileaks.

We do not disapprove of spying in other lands, it is always wise to know your opponents, plus they do it to us. Our concern rests with, are the practices moral and constitutional? Government spying on U.S. citizens necessitates the full protection of the Bill of Rights for the accused, thus we have the same constitutional concerns as we do with NSA spying on Americans. We also have concern whether the CIA has exceeded its constitutional authority when it “commits actions to overthrow governments and influence elections,” as the documents purportedly show our having done on a consistent basis.

The document trove named “Vault 7” identifies cyber weapons “malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized ‘zero day’ exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation.” The Wikileaks dump revealed a “globe-spanning force—its own substantial fleet of hackers” of “over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other ‘weaponized’ malware” to be used at their discretion. And the document dumps keep coming code-named: “Dark Matter” March 23, “Marble Framework” March 31, “Grasshopper” April 7, “Hive” April 14 and “Weeping Angel” April 21.

Perhaps the most interesting, code-named “Dark Matter,” describes tools enabling it to remote into someone’s personal computer without his knowledge or consent, add, alter or delete files; such is unethical and unconstitutional. Most unethical of all is CIA ability, without the victims knowledge, to plant false evidence, as for example, child pornography or classified documents “that could be discovered at a later date by investigators serving a warrant.” The planted evidence, imbedded deep in the hardware would be difficult to notice by the computer owner, also has enormous blackmail potential. Tools under this generic name include “DarkSeaSkies”, “SeaPea,” “NightSkies” and “DarkMallet.” And this according to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange referring to the dumps to follow, as just a small example of material to come.”

This already happened to Sharyl Attkisson, a CBS News correspondent working in 2012 on an expose’ on the Benghazi Scandal. Her fan on both her lap top and office computers seemed to run excessively so she had both looked at by a computer savvy government friend who found spyware on both and three classified government documents (presumably to frame her later), complete with a government ISP address. Planted evidence that she had violated the Espionage Act (Mitchell Shaw, New American, April 17, 2017, pp. 21-22).

Probably “Hive” is the second most interesting of the “Vault 7” dumps. According to WikiLeaks it “is a back-end infrastructure malware” used to “transfer exfiltrated information from target machines to the CIA and to receive commands from its operators to execute specific tasks on the targets.” Targeting firmware enabled CIA hackers to “remain in control of an infected device even if the target wipes the data and re-installs the operating system.”

“Night Skies,” another part of “Vault 7,” deals with implanting IPhones, a practice nearly ten years old. Wiping the data and re-installs do not affect their lodgment. Other CIA weapon programs have different names and purposes such as “UMBRAGE”, “Fine Dining”, and “Improvise.” Weeping Angel enables the CIA to turn on video or audio functions of ones television set, whether on or off, allowing filming or audio recordation of the activities in the room.

Assange claims not to have published “all details of the hacking techniques revealed in the leaks as they would result in both the “good guys” and the “bad guys” getting them at the same time. This could hurt the former.

Even more disturbing in the WikiLeaks dump was documentation of the existence of a CIA Embedded Development Branch (EDB) interested in future “mission areas” as, for example, the ability to control the operating system of an automobile to “engage in nearly undetectable assassination.” CIA involvement in assassinations goes back to the ruling Diem brothers in South Vietnam in 1963, described in virtually every U.S. History textbook and continued into the CIA drone strikes under Obama.

Such may have happened to journalist Michael Hastings in Los Angeles in 2013, who told friends, “I’m onto a big story,” the story was on CIA and NSA abuses. A guy who reportedly “drove like a grandma” went through a red light at more than 100 miles an hour crashing into a tree (Michael Newman, New American, April 17, 2017, pp. 30-31). An eyewitness to the crash indicated that the automobile was on fire before it hit the tree and exploded. The “big story” was never published. Failing breaking and acceleration technology, controlled externally through computer malware, could remove a lot of resistance.

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


A “Government Shutdown” May Be a Good Thing

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Democrats won’t fund a border wall and threaten a “government shutdown” if included in the budget under consideration. Without President Donald Trump removing for now the wall from consideration, a shutdown would be likely. President Trump largely won on the popularity of the wall but promised to make Mexico pay for it with a better trade balance, so he cannot back down long term without the loss of credibility with core supporters. But a government shutdown is never as bad as portrayed and, in fact, may be a good thing.

The fear generated by media when Republicans threaten a “government shutdown” is many times worse than when Democrats do so; compare three years ago with today. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit an extreme emotional response. Moreover, the phrase essentially becomes a weapon to be used on other potential government “shutdowners.” It appears designed to frighten the least informed against the other political party, thus the terminology. This enables the media to have undue influence in spending and undermines the sole power of the House on this issue.

A budget always involves the House of Representatives, as it alone constitutionally must initiate all government spending. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” (Article I, Sec. 7, Clause 1). This places the people in charge of taxation. The Senate cannot initiate a tax bill but can adjust any initiated by the House.

So what does a “government shutdown” look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No, they stay on the job and receive full pay as before. Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? No! No, NO! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and policemen, prisons, and teachers remain in place. Will we still get mail? Yes. The U.S. Postal Service functions as an independent business unit. Will we still get Social Security benefits, food stamps, unemployment compensation and veterans’ benefits? Yes!

Why then the hysteria? Because these two words, “government shutdown,” and the possibility of missed food stamps send the largely uninformed into a frenzy—they finally awake from their stupor. They largely know nothing of the wrangling of government to protect them from themselves and oppose any proposed government diet that might reduce their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders that are least likely to disturb this base.

There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen, short of an overthrow of the government from within, the collapse of our financial structure (which is becoming ever more likely due to our obsession to live beyond our means), or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.

How do we know this? Because we have had 18 “government shutdowns” since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service, the Reagan Administration having 8 of them alone. Because in 1979 the government was shut down for 10 days while Congress argued over a proposed salary increase for the legislative branch. Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of the bad things mentioned above happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice it.

Then what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.

Our spending addiction has given our children and grandchildren a 20 trillion dollar debt. Of course it is painful to curb our appetite, but the longer we wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both shutdowns, were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8, so in time such cuts should become permanent or be subjected to the amending process for appropriate authority.

Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with “the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920’s” and Republicans because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).

So at worst a “government shutdown” is really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services and a delay of payment for some few federal workers. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. Let’s abandon this terminology in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed and they overreact?

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