Dec 3, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No one has been more outspoken against globalism than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the antithesis of their plans for world government. This is the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, especially The New York Times and Washington Post, oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists now praise Trump’s USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades-old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe, first economically, then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 USMCA rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with USMCA? It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…” Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018).
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our Republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism except his USMC Agreement—everything else he has done demonstrates otherwise. He has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he called “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own. And in time will be linked with the Rockefeller’s and George Soros as having helped bring about world government.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 26, 2019 | Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
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,” applied in practice more than two centuries before Karl Marx first penned the above quote. The result, “share the wealth,” then and now was, and always will be, shared poverty.
William Bradford, Plymouth colony’s governor its first 30 years, wrote of the agreement between the 102 Pilgrim Mayflower 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. Half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed by the contract. 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 contract, 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. 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….” to alleviate the prevailing condition of hunger.
The “feast” of the first Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common. Harvests were not bountiful in that year nor the next. Why did this happen? Because they had fallen victim to the socialistic philosophy of “share the wealth.” This dis-incentivized the productive base of society.
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.”
Then suddenly, as though night changed to day, the crop of 1623 was bounteous, and those thereafter as well, and it had nothing to do with the weather. Bradford wrote, “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” He concluded later, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
One variable alone made the difference and ended the three-year famine. They abandoned the notion of government (or corporation) owning the means of production and distribution in favor of the individual having property and being responsible to take care of himself. Before, no one benefited by working because he received the same compensation as those who did not. After the change everyone kept the benefits of his labor. Those who chose not to work basically chose also to be poor and the government (corporation) no longer confiscated from those who produced to give to those who did not.
In other words, the free market (capitalism) is a much greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work because they got to keep the benefits of their labor.
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 immediately from their midst, as it is for us today as well. May we have the wisdom to do so?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 25, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Both major political parties had the power to control or end enslaving national debt the last fifty years. Both failed. Neither even try anymore. Neither party had the intestinal fortitude to say no to government gifting and now offer only more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. The hard truth is, there will be no Social Security for the children of today. The present path offers only loss of liberty and bankruptcy.
Our national debt exceeds 23 trillion dollars. To pay this debt today each taxpayer owes $186,578, immediately. Our largest creditors in order are: Medicare/Medicaid $1,253,523,000,000, Social Security $1,044,752,000,000, Defense/War 673,433,000,000, Income Security (welfare) $301,114,000,000, Net Interest on Debt $374,060,000,000, Federal Pensions $287,602,000,000, and Food / Agricultural Subsidies $151,840,000,000 (USDebtClock.org).
Even with the present robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) it has continued to escalate by four trillion dollars the last three years. We face economic Armageddon which, at this late date, may not be avoidable.
We have indebtedness, because both political parties failed to keep their oath of allegiance to the Constitution to follow it. If we do not get back to the Constitution with a strictness that we are not accustomed to, the new slaves (those encumbered by the debt of those before) will not even have freedom. If the Republic falls because of this national debt threat the new tyranny will not restore the government gifting programs responsible for the fall—the above programs disappear either way.
Yes the expensive programs will go, at least on the federal level, regardless, but we can yet save the Constitution and liberty, if we have the will. All power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or elsewhere in the document, or added by way of amendment to the Constitution thereafter, is a state power. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of the seven highest creditors listed above only Common Defense was specifically authorized in the Constitution. Constitutionally the others should have necessitated Article V authorization, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the states. This did not happen. Most of the programs of the 20th Century, most policies presently advocated by the Democratic Party, and the infrastructure program advocated by President Trump, are outside Article I, Section 8 and are state prerogatives as per Amendment 10, thus cannot be implemented constitutionally without state permission. The hard truth, they lack specific constitutional authority. All six others, although now seen as “sacred cows,” are entwined with government gifting which has accelerated beyond our ability to control.
The Legislative branch was limited to only four areas of law-making power: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These are laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 prior to the first semi-colon, so essential to the proper interpretation of Section 8. To tax needed one qualifier that such must be “uniform throughout the United States” but in the same article, Section 7, Clause 1 the power to tax was given to the House of Representative to originate. To pay the debts needed no qualifiers. But no one in the Constitutional Convention trusted Congress with a free hand in deciding the two other powers, general welfare and common defense. Either could mean anything to a power grabbing federal congress. Each of these needed eight additional qualifiers for clarity so Clauses 2-9 were the law-making powers of Congress with respect to general welfare and Clauses 10-17 respecting common defense.
The long 18-paragraph sentence (yes, sentence) ended with Congress having the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…,” those listed. Congress was never given power to make any law they thought desirable but only within four perimeters and 17 qualifiers. Section 8 is the most ignored, most abused, part of the Constitution. The hard truth, Congress was not empowered to make any law outside the 17 qualifiers without Article V permission of the states—even if every member of both houses approved.
A careful read of Section 8 reveals that the Founding Fathers gifted no individual or group. It only provided a level playing field enabling citizens to gift themselves by their work ethic and talent.
So what is the constitutional solution ending enslaving national debt? End government gifting!! Begin by initiating a bill or amendment that requires all future requests for gifting to accompany the constitutional wording that authorizes such. If such wordage does not exist the new bill cannot proceed.
Next begin to remove all existing gifting measures of the past that are not specifically identified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1-18, or added by a constitutional amendment thereafter—even those longstanding and sacred. These should be transferred to, and entirely funded by the states as soon as possible. States that wish to retain portions of the gifting are not prevented from doing so under the Constitution as written, nor are states that wish not to do so prevented. But each state must fund their own programs.
There is hope. The Constitution can save us but only if we have the resolve to use it as written.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 11, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In listening to the 2020 Democratic Presidential debates or President Donald Trump’s many addresses to the American people, you would not know that we have exceeded 23 trillion dollars in debt and that to liquidate this debt $186,577 per taxpayer is due immediately (see, https://www.usdebtclock.org/). America cannot pay its existing bills.
Four trillion of this debt is from eight years of George W. Bush and nine from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone doubled the national debt and accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together. The major reason is government gifting to buy elections. Each election year more freebies are offered.
In the second democratic presidential debate held in Miami, June 28, 2019, Free healthcare . In other words, anyone in the world who comes to this continent and crosses our border, although it is against the law to do so, will be given free healthcare thereafter paid for by the American taxpayer. This one freebie, by itself, would bankrupt America, let alone free college and all the rest they have promised.
In late October, 2019, presidential front-runner Elizabeth Warren, released her Medicare For All plan. Its cost, 52 trillion dollars over ten years No such assets exist.
Democrats want everything free or subsidized— healthcare, housing, food, even free college. They can’t give away enough. Where will all that money come from?
So what is a trillion dollars? To begin with a trillion is the number one followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to 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 . If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $9 trillion, would reach the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $23 trillion in debt today would take you to the moon and back almost four times (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009).
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).
I ask 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 share to liquidate this debt is $186,577 per taxpayer —due immediately. (see USDebtClock.org), they get angry. Someone should have told them that government handouts are not free.
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 to have them. 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 U.S. History?
The favored method to deal with this problem is print more fiat money. But expanding the money supply just reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My Camaro bought new in 1968 cost $ 2,700. Had I instead put the money under a mattress and tried to purchase a Camaro today it would cost more than ten times that much. In this instance money has lost 90% of its value since 1968 Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as if a thief had lifted their wallet or purse. Those on pensions cannot receive a raise to compensate for the value loss caused by their own government.
The last president to fully pay for his government was Warren G. Harding in 1922. Thereafter all presidents added to the debt by spending more than they received. Deficits from Ronald Reagan on exceeded a trillion or more (US Debt by President by Dollar and Percentage Who Increased the U.S. Debt the Most? Depends on How You Measure It. By Kimberly Amadeo Updated November 04, 2019).
We print whatever money we want to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we have imposed upon our children and grandchildren. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked atop one another can go to the moon and back almost four times, or that pensions loose their value, or that we haven’t fully paid our debts in 98 years, so long as the government fills our stomachs and the new slaves pay for it.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Sep 30, 2019 | Economy, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Under the traditional definition of socialism that requires government ownership and distribution of the means of production, the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are not socialist as Democratic presidential contenders insist.
All are free market economies. None have government mandated minimum wage laws. These are set by unions. The Fraser Institute which ranks countries of the world on economic freedom based upon limited government, property rights, and sound money value, not socialist attributes, ranked Denmark 14, Finland 20, Norway 26 and Sweden 19. The United States was12. Socialist countries normally take the bottom of the 180 countries ranked (Economic Freedom of the World Index).
As to rankings with respect to the ease of doing business, all four countries ranked in the top 17 countries out of 191on the planet: (Denmark 3, Norway 7, Sweden 12 and Finland 17). The United States is ranked 8 (The World Bank, DoingBusiness Measuring Business Regulations). Socialist countries do not rank high on this index either.
Yes these countries, after becoming comparatively wealthy through the free market system at the end of the 19th Century and most of the 20th, did become welfare states in the 1970’s. As Nima Sanandaji, the Swedish author of Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism, wrote in 2015: “Many of the desirable features of Scandinavian societies, such as low income inequality, low levels of poverty and high levels of economic growth predated the development of the welfare state. These and other indicators began to deteriorate after the expansion of the welfare state and the increase in taxes to fund it” (Jim Geraghty, “Ten Reasons We Can’t, and Shouldn’t, Be Nordic,” National Review, March 12, 2018).
By the definition above defining socialism, it may be possible to be a welfare country without the government ownership of the means of production—the Nordic Model. But if they gather the wealth through confiscatory taxes and redistribute it through gift-giving to those who had not created the wealth, how can they escape the charge of socialism?
In the seventies the Swedish government “instituted a scheme to confiscate corporate profits and hand them over to labor union.” The socialist “golden years” of the next two decades “weren’t so golden for economic performance. Entrepreneurship plummeted. Job creation and wages sputtered” (Rich Lowry, “Sorry, Bernie — Scandinavia is no socialist paradise after all,” New York Post, Oct. 19, 2015). The Nordic model crushed startups and the growth of new companies. As of 2000, Johan Norberg wrote: “just one of the 50 biggest Swedish companies had been founded after 1970” (“Ten Reasons We Can’t, and Shouldn’t, Be Nordic”).
The Scandinavian story since the late eighties “has been a turn against socialism. Taxes have fallen and markets liberalized.” A backlash “against welfare dependency in Denmark” followed (“Sorry, Bernie — Scandinavia is no socialist paradise after all”).
In countries which already have wealth because of a free market philosophy, evidence of which is the existence of a the middle class which spawns economic equality for all who choose to work for it. They can afford the free college, healthcare, welfare and etc. so long as immigration, also wanting everything for free, is very limited.
These four countries, because of the presence of the free market socialists seek to destroy, apparently could afford to expanded their “free” offerings. Because they did, and entitlements and free stuff is a favorite lure for reeling in the industrialized world, made rich through the capitalist philosophy, socialists world-wide look to the “Nordic Model” to emulate. But socialists ignore how they got their wealth. This did not happen by nationalizing industries (like General Motors) and subsidizing favored ones (like Solyndra) as we did under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. So the lessons of the Scandinavian countries is to keep the government out of managing the economy—thus away from socialism.
While Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are pushing America to embrace socialism these four countries are pulling back from the free stuff philosophy. In the 1990’s Sweden adopted a universal school choice system “allowing families to use public funds, in the form of vouchers, to finance their child’s education at a private school, including schools run by the dreaded for-profit corporation” (Corey Iacono, “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism,” Foundation for Economic Education, February 25, 2016).
Nima Sanandaji, observed: “In recent years, they’ve tempered the damage of their big-government policies by scaling back their welfare states and setting limits on their fiscal burdens. Their governments have adopted more work incentives, lowered taxes and allowed for more flexibility when hiring and firing workers. They’ve opened their public schools and health care to more competition, and Sweden partially privatized its pension system. They may not be free market quite yet, but they’re no socialist—or even liberal—utopia, either” (Veronique De Rugy, “Does Socialism Work for Sweden? That’s the Wrong Question,” Reason, Sept. 1, 2016).
The welfare state is not sustainable over time, in any country in any time. Inevitably it will attract immigrants who also want the free stuff without having contributed to the foundation that made this possible before implemented, as had the Scandinavians. It is impossible to have open borders and a welfare state without eventually impoverishing all. This is what all the leading democratic presidential contenders offer in the election of 2020.
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
Jul 28, 2019 | Economy, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
With all Democratic Party 2020 presidential candidates seemingly embracing socialism we could vote for socialism, Austria did. In the 20th Century at least a fourth of the world became socialist. Austria was the only country that acquired it by ballot rather than revolution. Once fully in place there are never again free elections with options other than socialists. Austria chose it because it promised to end dire economic conditions and died as a free nation for so doing. Kitty Werthmann, whose account is herein summarized, was an eyewitness to the vote and resultant suffocation of all freedom in Austria in 1938.
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 implementing some of the above socialism by false promises, as did they, too close? Hopefully we will not waste our vote on the failed promises of socialism that delivers only slavery and shared poverty.
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
