Feb 18, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
(Presidents’ Day, Article)
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Perhaps America’s most beloved and respected president was Abraham Lincoln, who now shares a national holiday—Presidents Day—with George Washington. Today most Democrats would oppose him, as they once did in 1860. He opposed slavery and socialism. He saw nothing in the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, worthy of emulation.
On the ownership of property Abraham Lincoln’s feelings were especially strong, he said, “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprises” (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, pp. 259-260). Lincoln might have added “which produces jobs for those not rich.”
To him there was no need to take by force the wealth of those who produce and give it to those less productive, as has always been the prescription of socialism. The “share the wealth” philosophy of socialism brought on by “envy politics,” so articulated by the Democratic Party today, was a foreign ideology to the Civil War president, who had read and rejected Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
The answer to ending poverty is not class envy, first identified by Aristotle some 2,500 years ago as being the natural inclination of those with less, a philosophy implemented by Lenin in Russia when the communists identified those holding property as enemies of the state and liquidated some four to eight million farmers, the “Kulaks” (“The Russian Kulaks,” InDepthInfo.com). Then, they wondered why the country had such a horrific famine in 1921-1922 when millions starved.
No money was set aside for, or provided to, any class or special interest group in our Constitution. The power distributed benefited all equally and at the same time. The federal role was as referee only. Our Constitution does not redistribute wealth; it leaves the individual to do that for himself by his work ethic. It remains the fairest way.
Will income inequality be the outcome? Yes! Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. But all will have more under capitalism than had we instead forced income equality by taking from those who produce and giving it to those who do not. We remain anxious to share our wealth producing philosophy with our less prosperous neighbors and the world so that all can have more, but individuals stealing it from us, or using the government to do it for them, known as legalized plunder, is just wrong and disincentivizes those who produce.
Lincoln’s answer to the poor, from which he sprang himself, “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence….” Unfortunately, many in our society have forgotten the “labor diligently” part of his phrase and have come to expect the government to provide, from the industry of others, their every need. On that score Lincoln said sarcastically. “You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.” He viewed this principle as a form of tyranny/slavery on those who work. Today approximately 47% of the adult population pay no federal income tax; many actually receive benefits for which they have paid nothing.
Watching others acquire wealth was, in fact, a sign of a healthy economy for Lincoln. “I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.” Nor would he have supported the hundreds of laws that we have today that disincentivizes a man trying to acquire wealth.
His view sounds similar to those expressed by President Trump in his 2019 State of the Union Address. “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination and control. We are BORN FREE, and we will STAY FREE. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.”
The new calls for socialism in our country referenced above were recently dropped by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s long-awaited Green New Deal endorsed by recently announced Democratic presidential candidates, Senators: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand seemingly each attempting to “out socialize” opponents.
Paying the estimated $7 trillion price tag required would result in a 90% tax take which, ironically, is the definition of slavery—the very thing Lincoln is credited as having ended. It would end air travel and radically effect every other aspect of life. It would also redistribute vast new sums of less valued printed paper money making all equally poor.
Socialists may hate the “Walmarts” or the “McDonalds” all they want, but these provide the poor tens of thousands of jobs. Do not bite the hand that feeds you, then wonder where the jobs and prosperity went, as did the early Russian socialists. The “share the wealth” philosophy, which Lincoln opposed, and endorsed now by the Democratic Party, has never brought long term general prosperity for any people, any place, or any time.
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 4, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
By now Beto O’Rourke’s unflattering comment referencing the Constitution, “Does this still work?,” is old news. He was suggesting that government is now too complicated for it to deal with 21st Century problems. What isn’t old news is that there was no backlash from the Democratic presses or Party regarding this ill-informed comment, nor pressure on O’Rourke to end his intended run for president because of it. Such would have ended the run of any contender twenty years ago. Do Democrats now oppose the Constitution?
Neither major political party has followed the Constitution, as first consideration, in more than 50 years. Of the two, Democrats rarely cite the document and seem almost contemptuous of it. In fact, most of what they propose is easily argued to be outside the Constitution. They once defended parts of the Bill of Rights but I no longer see much of this. Republicans sometimes carry the document on their person but do not hold to it and thus much of what they propose is also outside the Constitution.
Constitutional ignorance is so prevalent. Have we reached a day when a major political party is openly against it ? President Barack Obama came close when he told the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014, referencing the U.S. Constitution. “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century.”
The obvious dig shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1), but Democrats did not wish to rebuke or confine their president. Still, Obama’s phrase was a mockery of the Constitution and should have been unacceptable to every American, whether said by a Republican or a Democrat. Ironically the Constitution is designed to harness presidents just like him, just like his predecessor George W. Bush, and his successor Donald Trump, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for their own constitutional abuser as also has happened for over 50 years.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution (whether ignorantly or intentionally), which is based upon time-tested human nature and natural law which do not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those who wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power at the expense of the people. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do and they will always need to be harnessed to that list. There will always need to be division of power and checks on each branch of government and presidents will always, as James Madison said, “have a propensity for war” and wish to use military power without consent. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can, in effect, purchase elections by “gifting” voters.
The magic of the Constitution is that it, as designed, does not distribute benefits or preferences to anyone. These are the reasons that it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. Lawmakers having problems with the Constitution are those that do not wish to be restricted in their governance of us and thus they belittle it and seek to convince us to give them more power in another one. Thus the ignorant comments regarding it by O’Rourke.
One of my favorite college courses to instruct was Contemporary Political Topics. Students were given a copy of the Constitution and required to problem solve with it and natural law rather than political party or philosophical persuasion. This base is justified because every politician has sworn to “protect, preserve and defend” this document. It is the instrument by which everything should be judged. The students loved it. Amazingly, from food stamps to climate change, we never found an issue that the Constitution did not address. Century, language or culture were irrelevant because human nature remains the same.
The “rule book written in a different century” is still as reliable as before. What we need today are presidents legislators and judges that know its limitations, love and interpret it as written. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply. Why?
Constitutional principles were once taught at every level of education and stories of the sacrifice of our Founders frequently recited with admiration. Today few schools teach these principles in grade school and fewer still in high school. In college the Constitution is tucked in the back of textbooks as an appendix in U.S. History and Political Science courses, hence very few actually read it. The history of the Constitution’s origin is housed in a chapter but constitutional principles seemingly have only informational value.
Constitutional illiteracy is almost universal to the point that those qualified to defend the Constitution as designed are becoming extinct. Students are not likely to defend it if they have never experienced it being defended. A real danger exists that if too few know or value its principles we will lose it—perhaps we already have. Some, like O’Rourke, say it is no longer relevant for our times. They couldn’t be more ill-informed.
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 23, 2019 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Mid December 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last year ending the individual mandate’s penalty, which is the heart of Affordable Care Act, also made Obamacare unconstitutional without it. Nineteen other state attorneys general joined in the lawsuit Texas v. Azar. Likely this is headed to the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court essentially resolved this question June 2012 with the same five to four composition of the Court that now exists, when Justice John Roberts changed sides ruling that the individual mandate was a tax, not a fine, therefore making it constitutional, a position denied by Democrats previously. But it saved Obamacare. Justice Roberts could be again the deciding vote. If he betrays original intent of the Constitution, as before, he may again do heavy damage to the Constitution.
Prior to Roberts unanticipated vote, Anthony M. Kennedy had been the unpredictable swing vote on the Court. Justice Kennedy, not happy with the Roberts’ switch saving Obamacare, said: “The court majority regards its statutory interpretation as modest. It is not.” Then, not hiding his distain for it added. “It amounts to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.” He called it “judicial legislation” and accused Chief Justice John Roberts of trying to “force on the nation a new act.”
Judicial activism is when a law of Congress is interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a way as to give it new meaning, which is what Justice Roberts did. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address of the inclination of government to do so. “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Usurpation, in his day meant twisting things around to extract meaning that was initially not there.
So what did Justice Roberts twist, or legislate, that changed the National Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) as passed by Congress? At the top of the list, his rewrite called it a tax when Congress never passed it as a tax and the political party passing it, and their President, Barack Obama, emphatically resisted any description of it as such.
Rich Lowry, a political commentator, said it best. “Obamacare as passed by Congress had a mandate to buy health insurance and a penalty for failing to comply. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court has an optional tax for those without health insurance. Obamacare as passed by Congress required states to participate in a massive expansion of Medicaid, or lose all their federal Medicaid funds. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court makes state participation in the Medicaid expansion optional.” In short, “Obamacare as passed by Congress didn’t pass constitutional muster. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court didn’t pass Congress” (The Umpire Blinks, by Rich Lowry, The Corner, National Review Online, June 29, 2012).
Judicial Legislation or Activism is not new. The desire for the Court to “legislate” through decisions expressed itself more fully the last sixty years as it attempted to “right” perceived wrongs instead of sending the faulted legislation back to the legislative branch for correction by the peoples’ representatives. By altering legislative law it has moved into state prerogatives such as education, state residency requirements, and imposed federal standards of procedure on local police to name but a few. In broadening its power base, far beyond constitutional restraints, it has almost destroyed the idea of two co-equal governments, one federal the other state, known as federalism.
In the National Affordable Healthcare Act the Supreme Court has effectively restrained further encroachment (mutilation) of the Commerce Clause, formerly used to increase its power, but opened wide the interpretive door that the federal government can control anything it taxes. So, does this mean that if the federal government wishes to control free speech, press, assembly, religion, guns, or any other activity, it first simply levies a tax on that activity? Apparently judicial legislation creates a “need” for additional judicial legislation. God help us!!
We must return to our foundation, the U.S. Constitution as written, without all the judicial or executive alterations that go beyond this document. According to Article I Section I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is no authority for either of the two other branches of government to make law—any law— and law made by Congress is specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 where 18 clauses identify the very limited powers of the federal government. So, even Congress cannot make any law they like.
The issue of health is not listed and is therefore, as per Amendment 10, entirely a state issue. The Supreme Court majority ruling ignored this long-term clarity and instead chose to violate the document they are charged with upholding.
Judge Reed O’Connor’s ruling rendering Obamacare unconstitutional may give the Supreme Court a chance to return to the Constitution as written. Unfortunately the deciding vote remains again with Roberts who can’t be trusted constitutionally and so Obamacare could still stand.
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 1, 2019 | Constitution
Harold Pease, Ph. D
The federal government desperately needs to diet. Much of our spending is constitutionally dubious and it is immoral to pass our national debt, now exceeding $21 trillion, to our yet unborn children. We need to return to constitutional limits to govern the distribution of our taxes.
The one exception to the diet argument is national security. Without a physical barrier that works we cannot remain a country. History has demonstrated our souther border to be too porous and that only a physical barrier will work. “Kicking the can down the road” on border national security, as both major political parties have done for decades, only exacerbates the problem. Our national security now demands a wall.
We’ve had 20 government “shutdowns” since 1977, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most Americans never knew when we were in one. In fact, “shutdowns” may be a good thing if they reduce the national debt, make expenditures more constitutionally based, or strengthen national security.
Democratic opposition to a southern border wall (they advocate for open borders) has been the principle reason for the last two “shutdowns.” Open borders is the “real” reason for their opposition but they know this will not sell with most Americans. The other two reasons are that a wall won’t work and it costs too much.
But walls do work. Look at any penitentiary. Many of those pushing the ineffective argument, hypocritically, live in gated communities. If walls (gates) did not work they would not live there. China’s Great Wall successfully kept “barbarians” out for centuries and they built it with human labor—no earthmoving equipment—and over impossible terrain.
Today’s 143 mile steel border fence in southern Israel has stemmed the flow of illegal immigration by 99%, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (The Jerusalem Report, Herb Keinon, January 2, 2013). It “stopped the flood of African migrants into the country,” ending “Sinai terror.” At one time 2,300 people crossed each month but after the fence it dropped to 18, a 99% cut. Israel will be building other walls. The wall began in November 2010 finishing December 2012, changed everything.
Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted, “President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”
Democrats argue that the wall costs to much but in the requested 2018 budget of $4.094 trillion, certainly five billion is but a drop in the bucket. Spending beyond our means has never been a deterrent for Democrats. In the 10-year Farm Bill of 2014, they gave $3.3 billion alone for a cotton income protection plan. Other gift giving in that nearly trillion dollar bill, considered pork by critics, included: “$2 million for sheep production and marketing, $10 million for Christmas tree promotion, $170 for catfish oversight, $119 million for peanut crop insurance, $100 million for organic food research, $150 million to promote farmers markets, $12 million for a ‘wool research and promotion’ program, and $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry.” Ironically the 949-page bill spends about $1 billion dollars per page ($956 Billion Farm Bill Loaded with Pork, Your World Cavuto).
We could easily fund the wall by ending the funding (ice cream cones) we presently give to the illegals after they illegally cross our borders, but the Democrats would never agree to this because they are presently purchasing future party affiliates. The non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies recently found that “63% of non-citizen households access welfare programs compared to 35% of native households,” costing taxpayers an average of $73,000 per immigrant over his lifetime. In addition they found, “compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).” Plus illegals get cash. “Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native household.” If these funds were instead used to finance a wall, such would be easily funded.
As far as the cost of the wall is concerned, a study released in September 2017 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) revealed that, “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” This, the report says, is a nearly $3 billion increase in the cost since 2013. It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall—five and a half times more, and every year.” Consequently, “each illegal alien cost nearly $70,000 during their lifetime.
Both studies show that funds presently given those who cross our border illegally could easily pay the $25 billion total cost of building the wall or five billion per year for five years for the same. This without raising a single penny from any new tax monies from our citizens.
Looks like we need the wall for both national and domestic security. To get this apparently we have to have the Democratically imposed partial government shutdown. Let us keep the partial shutdown in place until we get a commitment from both parties for the whole $25 billion needed; or legislation to redirect the funding of illegals to the 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.
Dec 25, 2018 | Constitution
By Harold Pease, Ph.D
What are my constitutional rights in school with respect to Christmas? It might surprise some to learn that the Constitution does not allow the government to prevent you from doing in public—even at school—most things that you do at home. The constitutionally ill-informed like to refer to the “separation of church and state” as the rational for a prohibition of religious or seasonal expression in public places. No such language exists in the Constitution. To prevent you from doing these things would be as unconstitutional as mandating that you do them. Are school Christmas carols, plays, and nativities constitutional, The Supreme Court has not ruled on any measure that would silence those who celebrate Christmas openly and in public places, ACLU threatens tradition expression of Christmas but the Supreme Court has never upheld their view, www.ADFlegal.org defends traditional Christmas celebration, Alliance Defending Freedom is go to place for defending 1st Amendment, Amendment 1 defended by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Some school administrators share the fallacy that receiving government funding inhibits1st Amendment freedoms,What are my constitutional rights in school with respect to Christmas? It might surprise some to learn that the Constitution does not allow the government to prevent you from doing in public—even at school—most things that you do at home. The constitutionally ill-informed like to refer to the “separation of church and state” as the rational for a prohibition of religious or seasonal expression in public places. No such language exists in the Constitution. To prevent you from doing these things would be as unconstitutional as mandating that you do them.
Actually the language of the First Amendment, from which opponents to religion derive this falsehood, is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Such was included for the sole purpose of preventing the government from creating a state approved organization of religion as had happened in Europe for more than a thousand years. Simply, government may not establish a state religion. Instead, government is charged with protecting “the free exercise thereof.”
So decorate your school Christmas trees (not diversity trees), distribute your Christmas cards (not Holiday Cards) with Biblical messages on them to your school mates, greet your school friends and colleagues with Merry Christmas (not Happy Holidays), sing “Silent Night” and “Joy to the World,” in your school choirs and for heaven sakes do not let your teachers or administrators change Christmas Break to Winter Break or “Sparkle Season.” You have a culture and heritage to preserve, so say the courts. You may even have a nativity scene in the classroom or on school grounds but outside activities are better left to parent organizations.
Some might say that I am giving you the view and practice of 50 years ago. This is so, but amazingly that view remains in place constitutionally. Whereas the Supreme Court has participated in constitutional distortion in so many other areas in the past, the original view, the “free exercise” of religion, still holds. The Court has not ruled on any measure that would silence those who celebrate Christmas openly and in public places. If it did so it might fairly be accused of creating an organization of the irreligious to destroy religious freedom.
Yes, you might get a letter from the ACLU threatening your “free exercise thereof” of religion but the Supreme Court has never upheld their view—in fact, the opposite has been established in case after case. Because they have been successful in creating the opposite public impression, they can bully and bluster the ignorant into forfeiting their constitutional rights. And this they do.
Should they do more than bluster, which is unlikely given their loss ratio, defending your right to celebrate Christmas in the traditional—even historical manner—is protected by the Constitution and the Alliance Defending Freedom who a few years ago sent a letter to more than 13,000 school districts nationwide offering their free legal assistance. Attorneys all over the country volunteer their services to protect this part of the Constitution. Should a student or faculty member feel threatened by their leadership, or wish council on this subject, the Alliance can be reached at 1-800-835-5233 and such are invited to visit www.ADFlegal.org The Alliance will be happy to send a letter encouraging them to honor your First Amendment rights.
Alliance literature notes the things that may be done in the public setting. Colleges may decorate campus Christmas trees. Christmas programs may include religious songs. The courts have recognized for many years that Christmas carols have achieved a cultural significance that justifies their being performed in public schools. Moreover, teachers may constitutionally present Christmas passages from the Bible when treating the event in the historical sense. The First Amendment does protect the right of individuals to private religious expression on public property—even nativity scenes. Even showing paintings of Jesus Christ in public parks is constitutional.
May the government sponsor religious displays inside government buildings? Of course!! How could the Supreme Court rule otherwise? Moses with the Ten Commandments is chiseled in stone on their building. Prayer is held every working morning in both the House and Senate chambers and each body dedicates a room for quiet meditation and prayer for legislators.
As this is written the Alliance is defending an elderly woman in Chehalis, Washington senior living complex called Providence Place. She and her neighbors have been banned by the managers of the complex from “saying ‘Merry Christmas,’ singing religious Christmas carols, or displaying any religious Christmas items in its common areas, including on the doorposts of the building’s apartments.” Management wrongly “claims that it cannot allow any resident to engage in religious expression because it accepts funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.”
Some school administrators share the fallacy that receiving government funding, which they do, inhibits this freedom. Not so!
So LibertyUnderFire encourages readers to not give way on your 1st Amendment right of freedom of religion. How else will it be maintained? But we lose this freedom to the extent that we do not defend it. If not you then who? If not now then when? Doing nothing only exacerbates the problem and encourages opponents to bluster and intimidate all the more.
Merry Christmas my liberty loving friends.
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.
Dec 12, 2018 | Constitution
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The big drop promised by Q and his QAnons for three months finally arrived, and the Clinton Foundation lies exposed with 6,000 pages and 95 exhibits of documented wrong doing provided by Foundation lawyers themselves. Indictments are certain to follow in the next few weeks—some with big names.
The Q phenomenon in the present war between the globalists and patriots has taken the nation by storm. Internet readers of Q are found in most industrialized countries of the world. Q shirted protestors were even sighted in the current demonstrations in France as the people there work to remove the globalist influence over them. Globalist outlets the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek and MSNBC have openly called the movement conspiratorial but these same outlets never called the Russian Collusion Hoax a conspiracy, despite no evidence of Trump Russian election collusion.
The enemies of Q also argue that Q has provided little or nothing that actually happened. That is because they never cover the results of his work on their mediums. If they do not cover it, it never happened and their readers remain ignorant. Q posted sarcastically, “It’s all just a CONSPIRACY. Nothing to See Here. Nothing is happening. RUSISA RUSSIA RUSSIA Q.”
Still, much of the Deep State exposure and resulting firings of top personnel was first made known to patriots by QAnons (bakers of Q’s cryptic messages). Q is a high level security person (or persons) close to the Trump administration that has access to classified information but can only guide (providing breadcrumbs) which Q Anons, in their search for truth, bake for their readers. Internet “detectives” zero in on the clues allowing them to know things yet to happen much better than those still confined to managed news.
But since the origin of Q the FBI and DOJ have been overhauled. Corruption within both intel services has been exposed resulting in the firing, or forced to leave, of most of the top personnel. These include: James Comey, Director, Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director, Jim Rybicki, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor, James Baker, General Counsel, Bill Priestap, Director of Counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence, Lisa Page, Office of General Counsel, Mike Kortan, Assistant Director for Public Affairs, Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to Comey, David Laufman, Chief of the Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General—Head of DOJ’s National Security Division, Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General, Mary McCor, Acting Assistant Attorney General—Acting head of DOJ’s Nation Security Division, Bruce Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General-TERMINATION IMMINENT, Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General— No. 3 official behind Deputy AG Rosenstein.
Those in what Q refers to as the “[Bater’s Box]” awaiting removal are: Michael Steinbach, John Glacalone, Randy Coleman, Trisha Anderson, Kevin Clinesmith, Tashina Gauhar, and Sally Moyer. This is serious “swamp drainage.”
Patriots believe there exists immense corruption in our government especially in the state department. This corruption has existed in both major political parties for some time and swamp drainage is critical to ending our two tiered justice system. Hence, indicting the Clinton’s on “pay for play” activities of the Clinton Foundation would go nowhere with a bias and corrupt FBI and DOJ, as Hillary had been given passes before by them on her unsecured, bleach bitted, and hammered server.
The drop patriots knew was coming because of Q, as soon as the DOJ and FBI were clean enough to deliver equal justice, exploded on the Sean Hannity Show last week from investigative reporter, John Solomon, but it had previously been given to the IRS in August 2016, to the Justice Department in October 2017, and to the FBI in Little Rock in early 2018. These agencies poured over the 6,000 pages of incriminating documents since and are now ready for legal action against the wrongdoers. The story is new only to the globalist medium audiences.
Solomon reported: that the Clinton Foundation reviewed itself twice, its lawyers concluding that there existed “a strong possibility that donors were being made promises of quid-pro-quo favors from Secretary Clinton when she was in the Obama administration in return for gifts to the Foundation. In addition, they warned that there was a culture of non compliance, not wanting to comply with the law with the rules that the Foundation had to follow. They said that Bill Clinton personal interest in his commingling of his personal business with the Foundation posed a grave threat to the Foundation itself.”
Solomon continued “These are not Republicans, these are not partisans saying it. These are internal documents of lawyers hired by the Clinton Foundation to find out what was going on wrong in the Foundation….” Andrew Kessel, Clinton Foundation Chief Financial Officer, disclosed to those assembling these documents, “I know where all the bodies are buried at the Clinton Foundation.”
This week Jon Huber is scheduled to testify before congress regarding the Clinton Foundation. These documents may be what he will be discussing. For the moment the noose appears to be around the neck of both Clintons, but it has been there before and they have slipped out of it. With a new DOJ and FBI it may not be so easy this time. At least Q thinks so. Expect criminal referrals to follow very soon.
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.
