Dec 29, 2011 | Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
College enrollment is now in progress and a new semester or quarter begins in January. Dare I say to a generation whose work ethic has greatly diminished, what I was told prior to my many years of college? If you get a college degree you likely will have a higher level of income and more favorable working conditions. Certainly there are notable exceptions like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who have no degrees, and those who major in medieval art, or some such discipline were there exists no real employment demand. But by in large in this country, barring an accident or unusual health concern, if you are poor by the age of forty you chose to be so.
Your choices, made between ages twenty and thirty, largely place you where you will be the rest of your life. The road to security and prosperity is education and is available to everyone willing to work. I tell my students that they may not be able to run out of the ghetto, even walk, but all can crawl.
There was no silver spoon in my mouth, being second oldest of 14 children, this option applied to me as well. Few were poorer than we. All night factory work and all day classes meant sleeping when you could. This was so for many years.
Others may find work and satisfaction outside formal education, but most will struggle in its absence. I have yet to meet a re-entry student; one who dropped out then returned years later, who did not wish they had stayed in school. The choice seems to be clear for most young people, work your butt off in school for at least four years in expectation of an easier life, or without school for forty without such.
Many, all with excuses, do not choose the education highway, dropping out of high school or college and thus choose poverty. They allow themselves to accept a lower place in society. Some pick up the visual signs of poverty such as degrading language, coarseness in their behaviors, and the appearance of one who is poor. Sometimes homes are not painted and lawns uncut, back yards dirt and weeds. In time they are easily recognizable as poor. Many come to believe that they are owed the basics, even some of the privileges of life. These become wards of the state and accepting of the philosophy that “it’s not my fault” and politicians have no problem confiscating the rewards of those who do labor to give to them. Food stamps, subsidized school lunches, housing, and healthcare and hundreds of other charity programs, instead of incentivizing this class to believe in themselves and work to be self reliant, seemingly teach, even enable, dependence.
Unscrupulous politicians learn quickly that these can be managed by subsidized gift- giving from those who do produce, which ensures that they remain in office. The “freebie class” becomes their base. Last year 47.5% of the adult population paid no federal income tax. Those who paid for all the programs of the poor were the other 52.5%. As a class, the poor want more, lose their sense of gratitude for those who are forced to subsidize them, and grow ever larger without education. The tax paying class diminishes as confiscatory taxes rob them of the benefits of their labor. They become the working poor. In time they too may be, without additional education, enticed to work less and join the poor class.
So back to the choices we make which select our future dependence or independence. Those choices remain available. Some few reenter the education highway. Now with a companion and children they sacrifice evenings to elevate themselves. Perhaps it takes twice or thrice the time but there is an end to poverty if one chooses wisely.
Stay in school my young friends and return my older friends. You will never be sorry that you made this choice. Your choices today will place you where you will be ten years from now. This law applies to all. You do not have to rob, or have the government rob for you, the fruits of others. You do not have to be the fodder for politicians who wish to give you the benefits of those who produce so that they can remain in power and addict you to the philosophy that it is owed you.
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.
Dec 4, 2011 | Economy, Healthcare, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Be grateful for your right to criticize the government, whether as a Tea Party Patriot or as Occupy Wall Street. This can be lost. It helps to remember that we can vote to make things much worse if we continue to travel further into socialism. Take Austria in 1938 for example, as related by eyewitness Kitty Werthmann, whose account is herein summarized. They too voted for socialism to end dire economic conditions and died as a nation for so doing.
With unemployment and interest rates at 25%, the country was in deep depression and “people were going from house to house begging for food.” Kitty remembers her mother cooking a big kettle of soup and baking bread to feed her staving neighbors, about “30 daily.” The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party, two conflicting varieties of socialism, were fighting each other. The Germans, under Adolf Hitler, promised an environment of no crime, full employment, a high standard of living, and happiness. Austrians “became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.” The Austrian government could not deliver these conditions, so 98% of the population, believing the lies, “voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.” When this happened, the people danced for joy in the streets for three days.
Almost immediately law and order returned and “everyone was employed” in government created jobs, but what followed under fascist socialism was pure hell. In return for believing the empty promises, education was nationalized and freedom of religion in public education ended. Crosses in the predominantly Catholic schools were “replaced with Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag” and prayer, replaced with singing praises of Germany. “Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance.” If their children were not present, parents were threatened first with “a stiff letter of warning,” then with a $300.00 fine, and then with jail. The day consisted of two hours of political indoctrination followed by sports and fun. The children loved it but “lived without religion.” Having no moral compass, illegitimacy flourished. “Unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.”
Men and women had equal rights under Hitler. They found out what that meant when workloads were equal, making no distinction on the basis of sex. When the war came in 1939, the draft was compulsory for both sexes and women served on the front lines as well. Many became “emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.” Kitty Werthmann continues, “When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.”
Under Hitler’s socialism everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing. Healthcare was socialized as well, free to everyone. “Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.” Of course, to pay for this benefit for the less productive, “the tax rate had to be raised to 80% of our income.”
When the war started, a food bank was established. “All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.” Socialism now controlled life and death by controlling who ate.
Small businesses were intentionally over-regulated out of business leaving the government owned large businesses the only ones existing. “We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished.” Moreover, “farmers were told what to produce, and how to produce it.”
Worse yet, finding it so easy to kill six million Jews, Hitler next moved on the mentally retarded as not having value and liquidated them as well. To prevent the population from revolting, guns had long since been registered, then outlawed, and freedom of speech ended as well. “Anyone who said something against the government was taken away.”
How close are we to having implemented some of the above socialism by false promises, as did they, too close? No wonder Tea Party Patriots have said no further. It’s not a matter of gridlock for them, but liberty. So far both groups can criticize the government, but the slippery slope for the end of such is at our backside.
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 18, 2011 | Economy, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Few realize that New England’s first form of government under the Pilgrims was communalism (socialism) where “each produced according to his ability and each received according to his needs,” more than two centuries before Karl Marx first penned the above script. The result of “share the wealth” then and now was, and always will be, shared poverty.
William Bradford, the colony’s governor its first 30 years, wrote of the agreement between the Pilgrim passengers and the financial “Adventurers” in his book Of Plymouth Plantation. He noted that the seven-year contract signed July 1, 1620, before leaving Plymouth England, stipulated that the Pilgrims were to pool, for common benefit, “all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons…” It further noted “that at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt the Adventurers and Planters…” During this time the colonists were to “have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.” It doesn’t get more socialistic than this because the government divvied out the goods and loafers received the same as those who worked.
The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy. In another book written by the same author, History of Plymouth Plantation, Bradford spoke of another problem because of the government created famine—thievery. Even in this Christian community, “much was stolen both by night and day….”
After two years of such, with the survival of the colony at stake, they contemplated upon “how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.” They opted to abandon the incentive killing socialist contract in favor of the free market. And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”
The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work because they got to keep the benefits of their labor. “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God…. Any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
Secure property rights are the key to prosperity for all who wish to work. When this right is threatened by confiscatory taxation or outright confiscation of property, or by excessive government rules and regulations governing such, whether planned as in a contract enforced by the government at Plymouth, or gradual as in our day, work and production slow and can eventually stop. The answer for them was to extract socialism from their midst as it is for us today as well. May we have the wisdom to do so?
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 12, 2011 | Economy, Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Some protesters say the Occupy Wall Street mother city should move to Oakland, California as the New York branch has not shown the “stomach” needed for the more violent form of confrontation necessary for “real” change and the weather is better for maintaining the movement through the winter months. Others say that a move to Washington D. C. is critical as the Congress is the only real agent of change, and Occupy should assemble, like everybody else, in front of the capital, as did the Tea Party with their million July 4th 2010. “President Obama, Can you hear us now?” repeated three times with added emphasis each time.
But those who study special interest groups know that Occupy Wall Street needs to stay right where it is, as within blocks of Zuccotti Park, where they are assembled, is the most powerful special interest group in the United States. Unbeknown to the protesters, they are located near the nerve center of U.S. foreign policy. Important visitors to the U.S. usually make at least two scheduled visits while in the United States, one to 58 East 68th Street, New York City, the other to the White House. Yes, this one organization (which I will not identify just yet) provides at least a third of all cabinet members and the Secretary of State of every administration since the 1930s. It has, and always will, until known more fully to the American people for its vast influence over both major political parties, provided all ambassadors to Russia, China and the United Nations as well. Its members fill most of the seats on the Federal Reserve Board, from whom most of our fiscal policy is determined.
My Occupy friends, you have the power to bring attention and exposure to this semi- secret governance. You already want an audit of the Federal Reserve, and these members come from the organization just down the street. This organization in question cares nothing about you or your causes, and they are more responsible for your anger than any other single organization. Can you at least schedule a march to the address cited above and have discussion about this influence in your meetings? In your attempt to occupy colleges and cities throughout the land, would you please check out the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), not just from its sources, which you would expect to be favorable, but from the very numerous other sources fully documenting the power they hold over our media and government?
Start with conclusions three and four of the three-year, 1954 Reece Congressional Committee Report issued by the House of Representatives that identified the CFR as the special interest group of large foundations, specifically the Carnage Endowment, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rhodes Scholarship Trust (p. 169 and p. 176). “The power of the individual large foundation,” they wrote, was “enormous.” “It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them elements of thought control. It can exert immense influence on educational institutions, upon the educational processes, and upon educators. It is capable of invisible coercion through the power of its purse. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts and courses of action through the process of granting and withholding foundation awards upon a selective basis, and by designing and promulgating projects which propel researchers in selected directions.”
After noting the power of just one large foundation such as those cited above, the House report continued, “This power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in the social sciences and education… It has ramifications in almost every phase of research and education, in communications and even in government” (p. 16).
They noted that the productions, of what has become Wall Street’s special interest group, the Council on Foreign Relations, “are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalism concept.” How powerful was it by the time Congress first discovered its influence? It had come, they wrote, “to be in essence an agency of the United States government, no doubt carrying its internationalist bias with it” (Pp. 176-177).
So my young friends, consider the possibility that you might just be a ploy to help these folks further some globalistic objective—perhaps the collapse of the economy in preparation for some world currency more easily managed by them. Extreme? Perhaps! But you are good at thinking out of the box so don’t move your headquarter and do make a visit just down the street to the real source of your concerns.
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, 2011 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
Steve Jobs died leaving five and a half billion dollars, thousands of high paying jobs (12,000 in his hometown Cupertino alone, plus countless others in support roles), and having made things better for every person on the planet. Having begun in a garage with his friend, Steve Wozniak, with only personal funding, and no government bailouts when things did not go well, he exemplified what has made the United States the most prosperous people on earth. He vies with Thomas Edison and Henry Ford as the world’s greatest inventor.
One wonders how he might have done if born under extreme socialism—such as Sparta, the ancient Greek city state and also the worlds’ first known socialist state—which model the Founders veered from in repulsion, in their founding of a land destined to produce at least 85% of all inventions of mother earth. How would a mind such as his have flowered under the more modern socialist states of the twentieth century, the USSR or East Germany perhaps, or in North Korea today? One is hard pressed to identify a single invention of significance under any of these states while under socialism. He would have been destroyed, as socialists traditionally kill or at least take the wealth of the rich and distribute it to themselves. Under more moderate socialism as in Europe, seemingly our model of late, we prefer to tax or regulate entrepreneurs to death—often before they get off the ground.
The philosophy of sharing the wealth has always resulted in bringing down those who create the jobs. You can hate McDonald’s, or Wall Mart or whatever, all you want, but they still give you your job. Do you suppose that those demonstrating in “Occupy Wall Street” today, (ironically using their various “Steve Jobs creations” to communicate with each other their revolutionary doctrine attempting to bring down “the stinking capitalist system”), understand how the free market actually saves them from third world poverty? No!!
The “share the wealth” philosophy is as old as mankind. Aristotle first wrote of it in his work Politics, Book IV twenty-four centuries ago when he noted that the poor will always envy the rich and the rich will always despise the poor. Neither can rule because neither can understand the other. The middle class, having enough of the goods of the world to not envy the rich, but being close enough to poverty themselves to understand the poor, is the arbitrator class. The free market also creates and expands the middle class. Karl Marx put force into the equation making the arguments for class warfare which make the Steve Jobs—all of them— the enemies of the state.
The problem with socialism, whether extreme under communism, which exterminates the rich, or more mild by taxing those creating jobs to accomplish equality for all, is that it destroys incentive for the producer. If a great inventor, such as Steve Jobs, cannot see a profit at the end of the tunnel why would he risk investing in the next new idea? Why would a medical doctor endure years of medical school and poverty if the government is not going to allow him, when finished, to charge what he may for his services? Altruistic motivators like “for the betterment of mankind” are normally not enough to vault the distance by themselves. There would be a shortage of inventors and doctors. Inventors deprive themselves of food, fabric, and fellowship, working late into the night to accomplish their vision of an Edison Illuminating Light Co. or the Apple Corporation rather than an eight-hour a day government job at a government-controlled salary. Government intervention in the market is like mixing a cup of sugar into the gasoline of a lawn mower. It may still work but the efficiency is greatly impaired.
Abraham Lincoln was well aware of the class warfare advocated by socialism, having read The Communist Manifesto, and saw it as a theory opposite that left to us by our Founders under the U.S. Constitution, when he wrote. “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… Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, this by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence… 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.”
Steve Jobs did well, in large part, because he could begin in a garage without governmental regulation. Big government advocates would have had him begin, at the very least, with a costly nine-month environmental impact study, followed by his obtaining a building permit to alter his garage, followed by a permit to do business, followed by filing forms dealing with social security and etc.; and there is always OSHA hovering over him. Get the picture? All this before he has any profits to confiscate for the benefit of those who do not support themselves.
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.
Aug 13, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
I do not usually write on themes getting extensive attention in the media but the establishment press has overlooked a big story in the debt limit debate. Every one has covered who lost: the President, Congress and both major political parties but almost no one identified the Tea Party Patriot movement as the clear victor.
Remember the over 2400 separate and spontaneous gatherings of Tea Party Patriots in 2009, geographically spread throughout the nation and proportionately held April 15, July 4, and Sept. 11, with about 800 such gatherings held each date. These gatherings, with no national leadership or direction, led mostly by moms with homemade signs, was perhaps the showing of greater anger against the federal government than in any single year in our history—certainly in my life time.
Remember as well the two Tea Party assemblages of over a million in Washington D. C. during that same year crying out “President Obama!! Can you hear us now?” “CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?? Yes, the establishment media had trouble covering these stories then too, but they still happened.
The Tea Party movement resulted in the election of a few candidates committed to Constitutional limited government, the free market and fiscal responsibility—the Tea Party’s core values and actually those of the U.S. Constitution as well. Values perceived by them as having been largely abandoned by the leadership of both major political parties.
All this is conceded but how does this translate to a win for the Tea Party Patriots on the Debt Limit Deal? True to the Constitution and their election promises these patriots bucked the weak-kneed Republican Party in the House of Representatives and the spend-happy Democrats in the Senate and forced both to talk about the following previously ignored concepts. What is the proper role of government? How do we get a Balanced Budget Amendment to curb our addiction to debt? Are raising taxes always the only answer? And given government’s addiction to growth, will they ever have enough?
The promise to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, to not raise taxes, and to actually cut future spending, are each a part of the finished agreement because of the insistence of the Tea Party members of Congress. As a group only the Tea Party saw the looming financial problems ahead if we did not seriously live within our means and scale back our debt. NOW!! With our debt credit down grade and near stock market crash of this week can anyone seriously question Tea Party philosophy now? Still, there are voices in the land aimed to discredit them.
Republicans have shown themselves to have no fire in their bellies and have thus caved-in to the run-away spending plans of their adversaries every time. Sometimes, as under the Bush Stimulus, they have shown themselves as leading the charge for debt enslavement. In short, modern Tea Party Patriots gave the Republican Party enough fire so that they did not cut and run so easily.
Did the Tea Party get what they wanted? No! Definitely not!! Were that the case they would have had an actual Balanced Budget Amendment, actual spending cuts, and our credit rating would not have been down graded. Reducing the rate of increase is not the same as reducing spending. The deal did nothing to stop the growth of our debt and resulting bondage of our children. In fact, it did just the opposite. Still, opponents were forced to listen and give some attention to the Tea Party Patriots—a huge victory especially given their small size in Congress and governments nature to spend without restraint. We just need more of them in Congress. Returning to the Constitution is the only answer and they are the only ones saying it.
Hopefully, more Americans will see the Tea Party Patriot movement and our defense of the Constitution as the same thing. Until now they have been a somewhat lone voice in the wilderness as far as Congress was concerned but with this victory should merit our greater confidence lending to greater support resulting in even bigger victories to come.
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.
