Nov 12, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
For months the media has showcased their gladiators and we have been spectators with load applause to every twist and turn of political events in the 2012 presidential elections. The people, programed by their television sets, have dutifully chosen sides from the only two parties provided by the media and have obediently paraded themselves to the ballot box to cast their vote for the warrior most pleasing to them. In the games the rich from both sides gave large sums of money to boost the chances of their favorite to the tune of over 2 billion dollars, the largest in history. The winner was announced at approximately 8:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, just 30 minutes after polls on the West Coast closed. California was called for Barack Obama within 60 seconds of poll closings in California, but the real election for the president is December 17, not November 6.
Because we are not a democracy our Founders established a system by which wise men would elect our president rather than the populous as that system had proved fateful to freedom in Athens and Rome. When the masses get the vote they tend to vote for the candidate who will open the government chauffeurs more fully to them. There was no popular vote for the presidency until Andrew Jackson, when disgruntled followers started a straw vote which the media came to treat as the real and only vote. This is the “hunger games” vote loud and with much fanfare. The “real vote” is very quiet and may not even be covered by the media.
For the first 60 years or so of our history under the Constitution, the Electoral College voted for the masses in presidential elections. These non-governmental individuals, selected by the state legislatures presumably for their integrity, experience, success, and wisdom, were perceived to be less emotionally driven (they have seen it all) and less susceptible to the emergence of a tyrant or a candidates radical departure from established practice. It was a body not responsible to any other entity for their vote once selected by their State Legislature. Each State Legislature selected from the private sector a number of respected individuals equal to the number of members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senators their state was entitled to.
Today with the rise of the power of the popular vote by the media and the dominance of political parties, states do not wish to let the best informed choose independently of them. They want their favored political party to do so. So by October 1st of each election year, each political party submits a list of electors, should they win the general election in their state. Persons “holding office of trust or profit of the U.S. may not be electors” according to the Constitution.
Let us use California and its selection of 55 delegates as representative of the “winner take all” process used by most states. Here the Republican Party draws from their state party leadership as per Elections Code #7300. The Democratic Party does as well but they have each Congressional nominee, and each U.S. Senate nominee, designate one elector as per Elections Code #7100. Most other political parties offering a presidential candidate, the American Independent, Green, and Libertarian Parties nominate their electors at their state conventions as per Elections Code #7578, as does The Peace and Freedom Party, but they want half their delegates male and the other half female. So, for this election California had five different lists of 55 perspective electors. Because Barack Obama won the general election in California only the Democratic Party list counts.
Since Democrats heavily dominate the state, neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama really campaigned here. Each did stop by for fund raising from their wealthy supporters but the number of registered voters pre-decided the election. Essentially the state belonged to Barack Obama before the first vote was cast.
“Winner take all,” as outlined above, is common in all states except Maine and Nebraska where two electors are awarded by statewide popular vote and then by the popular vote within each Congressional district. This is known as the Congressional District Method.
Each State’s Electors meet in their respective States on Dec. 17 and vote for President and for Vice President and this vote is sent certified to the President of the Senate (the Vice President of the United States). This is the real election of the president. Once there, the 51 unopened envelopes (one for each state and the District of Columbia) are placed in alphabetical order until opened in front of both Houses by the Vice President on January 6th at one p. m. This final vote is read and the victor announced.
Initially the independence of the Electoral College could be manifest at this time protecting us from a candidate not in harmony with a Republic, or perceived to be a threat to it, but most States have removed this independence by threatening prosecution of what are now called “faceless electors” (those who depart from the party line). In other words, the College does not do what it was first designed to do. Electors’ wisdom and experience has no place to be expressed. Even so, faceless electors are rare as they are now selected, not for their wisdom and experience, but because of their total party loyalty. As such they rarely deviate from the party line anyway so the real damage to the concept was done when electors were linked to the party and the “winner take all” concept.
Barack Obama has kept his promise to fundamentally change America and is sincere in moving us from a Republic to a Democracy then deep into socialism so abhorred by the Founders. So theoretically the outcome of the election could be altered were the electors to abandon loyalty to party in favor of loyalty to the elements of a Republic as it once was. Will they do so? We will have to see in the real election of the president December 17.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 3, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Political scientists have long known that the first election in any presidential contest is the medias. They decide who gets coverage, how they are covered, and just as importantly, who does not. Other factors too weigh in, such as frequency of coverage, type of coverage, questions asked and etc. Media bias is now obvious to most and documented in many studies. No news flash here!
A case in point, national televised media outlets who favor the re-election of Barack Obama, and most do (especially is this so with MSNBC), will tend to play more clips of mega storm Sandy and fewer clips on new highly damaging reports to the President on the terrorist attack on our ambassador in Benghazi. Fox News, which tends to favor Mitt Romney, will cover the storm but will make certain that their viewers see the new evidence. This is normal bias, although accentuated the last few years.
But there is a story with respect to the media establishment’s consistent exclusion of presidential candidates from any political party outside Republican and Democratic. It happens every four years. Candidates not getting coverage are not known to be running by the public and thus are guaranteed to lose by those entrusted to tell us. Each election year a student invariably asks who I support. My answer, “I do not know, the media has not yet identified all presidential contenders,” intrigues him, as I am a political scientist. Every late October of an election year since 1992, I have written the Federal Election Commission to get this critical and consistently omitted information. They offer two reports, one “The 2012 Presidential Address List” and the other, “Ballots of Each State and the District of Columbia” from which the following is extracted.
Political Scientists have also known that there are always more than 200, closer to 400, individuals running for that high office and well over twenty political parties in the country at any given time, many of which provide a candidate. Presently there are 405 individuals running for president and 53 political parties functioning in the United States. Those running include past and present Governors, U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives. Certainly there are many less notables as well. Each candidate is required by law to register with the Federal Elections Commission if they have raised or spent $5,000 or more on their candidacy for president, so they are serious candidates.
Twenty-eight of these were powerful enough to make it on one state ballot or more with little or no national media mention. In an effort to limit ballot names each state develops its own hurdles. No state wants 400 entrées and to that end the media legitimately also assist in exclusion, but nothing justifies national, or near national, blackout of everyone except the two favored parties. Of the 28, three, in addition to the anointed Democratic and Republican party candidates, were able to get placement in more than half of the states in the union. These candidates were: Virgil H. Goode of The Constitution Party, Jill Stein of The Green Party, and Gary Johnson of The Libertarian Party. Anyone able to vault the hurdles of twenty-five states or more should have earned the right to debate Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. We have a right to know how they might differ from each other and the designated candidates.
The strongest case for media manipulation of the election is the Libertarian Party who frequently qualifies in every state in the union, but is consistently denied access to the television cameras of the debate. They have attended but are denied placement.
It is the same every presidential election, each of these parties providing a candidate for the last 30 years. The national media has seemingly funneled the “sheeple” (people who tend to follow without deep thinking) into only two corrals by pretending that there are no other choices. Remember, each candidate got into state ballots without national media help. Any party would field a candidate in all fifty states if given any real media coverage. America does have choices but only if the media inform us of them.
On October 23, the day following the third Mitt Romney / Barack Obama debate, four of the ostracized presidential candidates held their own debate. Unable to get a network to cover them, their debate was on the Internet and is available through U-tube. Participants included the parties previously named plus Roseanne Barr of the Peace and Freedom Party. Not one word, however, from the establishment press announcing the debate or commenting on it later. You had to learn of it from a dedicated columnist.
Perhaps our free elections are not as free as we have supposed.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 30, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Viewing past presidential elections, and the one we are now in, it becomes very obvious to me that the winner will be the one who gathers the most special interest groups by promising them favors in return for their vote, often from the public treasury. Today there are between 9 and 15 thousand lobbyists working on Capitol Hill seeking ever-larger portions of the tax pie for their faction. Purchased politicians can’t say no. When they can’t actually meet all the promises they have made, they simply raise the debt ceiling which signals the Federal Reserve to print more paper money, a process sometimes called quantitative easing. Hence we have passed to our children a debt in excess of 16 trillion dollars.
The Founding Fathers were quite familiar with the need to control special interest groups, then referred to as factions, as absolutely critical to liberty. Democratic governments in both Athens and Rome had bred and fed factions thus, “bread and circuses” was the cry of their factions before their loss of liberty.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, defined a faction, in The Federalist Papers No. 51, as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and activated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He saw the source of factions as being “the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination.”
Tension over income distribution will always exist because we do not share the same talents or work ethic. The problem with democracy, he continued, is that “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or the obnoxious individual. Hence, it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.” Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
George Washington warned that factions “put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community” (Congressional Record, Feb. 19, 1973, S2653). He admitted that they “may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men, will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” Unions come to mind. Factions are focused only upon themselves and demand an ever larger share of the public pie until there is no pie. Look at Greece.
Madison knew that factions could not exist in non-free states, they could simply be outlawed, but in free states only a republic could control them. The Constitution was specifically designed to do just that by offering them no incentive to assemble on the federal level. Congress was given but four powers: to tax, to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defense. Clauses 2-9 of Section 8, Article 1 defined what general welfare is and 10-17 what common defense is. No money was set aside for, or provided to, any special interest. 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 by his work ethic. It remains the fairest way. The Founders, who were all veterans, even resisted the temptation to carve out special privileges for themselves. With no money to divide, the vultures had no reason to assemble.
Unfortunately, the resistance to use the public treasury to further special interests did not last. A transcontinental railroad was desirable in the late 1860’s and the country was willing to look the other way, ignoring the Constitution, when two railroads, the Union and the Central Pacific, were given the privileged contracts. The completed track laid in 1869 wet the lips of other railroad building companies who thought that they should get monies from the public treasury as well. The government, invaded by “me too” applicants financed three additional transcontinental railroads by the early 1890’s.
Benjamin Harrison decided to promise veterans monies from the treasury in his election against Grover Cleveland, who honorably refused to do so. Harrison’s win opened Pandora’s box. Now that some were getting access to the treasury, other groups and causes felt that they should as well. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson opened it even wider allowing anyone with a cause to get taxpayer monies. Armies of special interest groups now assemble on the Capital to feed off the public trough. Damaged is the view that the federal government can only do and finance the listed items in Article I.
Factions will inevitably destroy our republic unless we return to the list. It will not be easy. We are addicted to debt, having everything right now, and passing it along to our children. Still, the foundation is there. Every remodel is first ugly and dirty before it shines, but getting back to where government cannot show favoritism to any group, interest, or faction is critical or this patient is terminal. The Founders had to start from the beginning to control factions. We already have machinery in place to do so but lack statesmen who will use it. It is time to find those statesmen.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 22, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
A year ago last October, I wrote of President Barack Obama’s clandestine operation in central Africa called Operation Lightning Thunder, involving 100 U.S. military “advisers,” sent by the President to help capture the allusive child abuser Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army. Congress was informed of the engagement by letter October 14, 2011, but reportedly troops were already on site two days before, so the letter was decidedly not asking for permission to use armed forces in a foreign country as is required by the Constitution. I wrote then that our involvement would escalate but I had no idea that it was to include all 54 African nations.
Of course, nothing more was said of Kony who was never found, making it now appear that he was but an excuse for our penetration of the continent with forces from Afghanistan as we wind down our involvement there. An expanded military presence in Africa must have started with George W. Bush, his last two years in office, as “about a dozen air bases have been established in Africa since 2007” (“US expands secret intelligence operations is Africa” Washington Post, June 13, 2007).
The Washington Post reported last June, “The U.S. military is expanding its secret intelligence operations across Africa, establishing a network of small air bases to spy on terrorists hideouts from the fringes of the Sahara to jungle terrain along the equator, according to documents and people involved in the project.” Presently they use small private planes equipped “with hidden sensors that can record full motion video, track infrared heat patterns, and vacuum up radio and cellphone signals, the planes refuel on isolated airstrips … extending their effective flight range by thousands of miles.” The operations have intensified in recent months under Obama, the Post revealed, and include commando units who “train foreign security forces and perform aid missions, but they also include teams dedicated to tracking and killing suspected terrorists.”
In a recent article, “White House widening covert war in North Africa,” AP reported that an expanded U. S. role is anticipated and that Delta Force units eventually “will form the backbone of a military task force responsible for combating al-Qaida and other terrorist groups across the region with an arsenal that includes drones.” Col. Tim Nye, Special Operations Command spokesman “would not discuss the missions and or locations of its counter-terrorist forces’ except to say that special operations troops are in 75 countries daily conducting missions” (October 2, 2012, by Kimberly Dozier). Conducting daily missions in 75 countries!!! That was what was reported. Where is Congress?
Some of us remember when the Soviets invited Cuban mercenaries to “Sovietize” the African continent in the mid 1970’s to help offset Cuban debt to the USSR. More than 25,000 Cuban troops were in Angola in 1975 and “advisors” were in neighboring countries as well. The world was not favorably impressed with this blatant communist overreach of military power. Nor is it today as we seek to enlarge our colonial control over Africa on the pretense that we are only defending America.
Global Research was even more explicit. In an article “America’s Shadow Wars in Africa” it went into greater detail (Nick Turse, July 13, 2012). Although Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, with “more than 2,000 U.S. personnel stationed there” is the “Pentagon’s showpiece African base,” there are many “nodes” of U.S. military presence elsewhere: three in Kenya, two in Uganda, two in Central African Republic, one in South Sudan, and one in Ethiopia. They specifically named the places. “Outposts of all sorts are sprouting continent-wide, connected by a sprawling shadow logistics network. Most American bases in Africa are still small and austere, but growing ever larger and more permanent in appearance,” they wrote. Add to this the extensive counter-terrorism training provided by the United States in Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, Lesotho, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Tunisia. With respect to the size of U.S. forces on the continent at any one given time, they added, “On an average basis, there are approximately 5,000 U.S. Military and DoD [Department of Defense] personnel working across the continent.”
With respect to just why we need a military presence in every country in Africa, AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham said, “The absolute imperative for the United States military [is] to protect America, Americans, and American interests … [to] protect us from threats that may emerge from the African continent.” No thought is given to protecting them from us. If this is our mindset why not conquer all continents? Perhaps it is. Perhaps this is the New World Order that is referenced by so many. We certainly appear to be the world’s policeman. Unfortunately our presence creates perpetual enemies, which creates perpetual war. Someone benefits from this “colonial styled occupation” but it is neither you nor I.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 16, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Harold Pease
On October 6, an unmanned drone flew deep into Israeli territory before it was shot down. The drone, now thought to have been sent by Lebanon, who acquired it from Iran, raises awareness of the sanctity of a nation’s airspace. As the violation of airspace has traditionally been seen as an act of war, Israel sent warplanes over Lebanon the next day. This brings to light how calloused and disrespectful of the air space of other countries we have been where we indiscriminately kill our enemies on their soil.
Drones are now our favored weapon of choice and we unleash them on suspected “terrorists,” without the permission of sovereign countries, throughout the Middle East. Moreover, we assume unto ourselves the right of surveillance of all potential adversaries on their soil. We get away with this because we are the “town bully.” Such would be acts of war if done on stronger countries. According to the Washington Post we have “secret facilities, including two operational hubs on the East Coast, virtual Air Force cockpits in the Southwest and clandestine bases in at least six countries on two continents” (Under Obama, an Emerging Global Apparatus for drone killing, by Greg Miller, Dec. 27, 2011).
The paper reported, “Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists.” What is worse, “officially, they are not allowed to discuss” this most secretive activity although it is not denied.
President Barack Obama can argue that he did not invent this sophisticated “killing machine.” George W. Bush was the first to use it but he limited its use to Pakistan “where 44 strikes over five years had left about 400 people dead.” This is true, but Obama has amplified its use by at least four times the number of strikes and death and proliferated the death to several additional countries in northern Africa and the Middle East and the above numbers are conservative, the paper revealed.
The fact that such killings have included American citizens raises a serious constitutional question as well. Past presidential candidate, Ron Paul, said it best, “American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced” (An Unconstitutional Killing, New York Daily News, October 2, 2011).
The latest drone, the Phantom Eye, uses a hydrogen-fueled propulsion system capable of remaining in the air for four days without refueling, and potentially flying at about 65,000 feet, thus vastly increasing the surveillance capabilities of our military (Boeing Phantom drone has 1st flight, by W. J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2012). It has a 150-foot wingspan, perhaps the largest of the drones, but others come as small as a humming bird. Should our government be able to see everything?
No wonder we are especially hated in northern Africa, the Middle East and in Pakistan. A poll last June revealed that “about 74 percent of Pakistanis surveyed regard the U. S. as an enemy,” up from 64 percent just three years ago. The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project revealed that “only 17 percent support our drone strikes” and that this activity fuels the hatred. Has it occurred to this administration that for every alleged al-Qaeda that we kill we potentially create dozens more? This is a recipe that guarantees perpetual enemies and thus perpetual war. Surely, they know this. Are we not facilitating the strength of the Taliban? The increased foreign aid to “buy back” good will in Pakistan has not worked.
Two additional concerns emerge. First, drone warfare makes war too easy. So instead of making it difficult to engage because mothers will lose sons and sisters will lose brothers, and politicians will lose votes, there are no consequences. We just label a few people terrorists, blow them up, and there is no “body bag” coverage on the nightly news—actually no coverage at all.
Second, it sanitizes war. It is like playing a video game from some structure in Nevada. No one from our side gets killed or hurt. Our players do not have to see any blood or witness the sounds of human agony that result. The “video players” from 8,000 miles away can kill and be home with their families by five o’clock for supper, oblivious to the hell that they have inflicted on others. It is virtual war for us, much like the video game “Modern Warfare II,” and we play it so well. Is this the New World Order?
We have violated the air space of probably a dozen countries and killed their people. If they did not fear us we would presently be at war with most of them. Then we wonder why they hate us. When they are stronger they may one day send drones to spy and kill us.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 9, 2012 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
On August 31, between the two national party conventions, our national debt exceeded $16 trillion dollars; four of which is from eight years of George W. Bush and six, and counting, from less than four years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. history. So what is a trillion dollars? Let me try to give some perspective. To begin with a trillion is the number 1 followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to my students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $6 trillion, would take us to the moon and back. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $16 trillion in debt would take you to and from the moon twice and to the moon a third time and you would still get a third of the way back to earth as well.
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (ibid.).
Someone else equated our national debt to seconds and concluded that a million seconds is about 11½ days and a billion seconds is about 32 years. A trillion seconds is about 32,000 years thus 16 trillion seconds is 512,000 years (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). This only make my head spin. My Ph. D is not in math.
I ask my students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” Go without?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their immediate share of the debt is $51,265 (see USDebtClock.org), due immediately, they are angry.
The 13th amendment ending slavery has been rescinded. They are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children in order to have them. Well Communist China owns an eighth of us and the bills are due. What is worse the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in all human history?
The latest new theory to avoid fiscal responsibility and continue unlimited spending used by both Bush in late 2009 and Obama in 2010 is referred to as Quantitative Easing. Crudely it means printing more money out of thin air to cover our debt, but it is far more sophisticated than that. For Bush the money supply was greatly expanded by having the Federal Reserve purchase $600 billion in Mortgage-backed securities (Harding, Robin. 3 November 2010, Quantitative Easing Explained. Financial Times). Obama purchased $600 billion of Treasury securities over a six month period of time beginning in November 2010 in what has been called Quantitative Easing or QE2 to distinguish it from QE1, the Bush expansion of the money supply (Cesky, Annalyn,3 Nov.2010, “QE2: Fed Pulls the Trigger” CNNmoney.com. Retrieved 10 Aug. 2011). Neither has stimulated the economy or created jobs, but for a few months, like a drug high, things seem to feel better.
The biggest problem with expanding the money supply is that it reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as had a thief lifted their wallet or purse. They cannot return to their employer for a raise to compensate for the loss caused by their own government.
Last month the Federal Reserve announced a third round of Quantitative Easing, QE3. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke will be expanding the money supply, this time by purchasing $40 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities per month indefinitely. By doing so now we will experience a similar feel good euphoria, with respect to the economy, through the presidential election. Bernanke fears more fiscal restraint from a President Mitt Romney than from President Barack Obama, it is alleged (Skousen, Mark, Oct. 2012, “Forecasts and Strategies,” p. 1).
Still, with all the sophisticated “doublespeak” it means that we will print whatever money we need to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we are imposing upon our children and grandchildren. Moreover, who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked upon one another can go to the moon four times and back to earth three so long as the government fills our stomachs and buys our cell phones.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
