May 5, 2021 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
Probably three fourth of Americans question or have concerns regarding the past voting cycle. It is the most controversial and distrusted election in U.S. History. Over 1000 whistle blowers signed affidavits under penalty of perjury that they witnessed fraud. Just because the controlled press no longer covers this, and censors all who do, does not mean that fraud was not witnessed by thousands.
Why an audit in Arizona, two reasons? Only 10,000 votes separate presidential contestants. And the Senate Republicans there are bold enough to cry, foul ball. (I am attempting to avoid words that are programed to censor this column—bear with me). Yet some facts still remain beyond reason. In Arizona 22,093 mail in ballots were “received” the day BEFORE they were mailed. How does that happen? In Arizona 33,400 illegal immigrants voted (a must see video https://rumble.com/vdp7df-share-unmasked-have-we-uncovered-the-truth-about-the-2020-election.html).
But the courts already established that there was no evidence supporting election fraud. Not so, several courts weighed in that plaintiffs had no standing (they themselves were not harmed), of which the Texas case was the most famous, but NO court looked at a single piece of evidence. No court ruling established that there was no evidence of corruption, only that they themselves would not look at it.
But some states already did recounts. That is true, but if you just do a recount of the same bogus votes, as in Georgia, wouldn’t you have the same bogus results? Wouldn’t you want to first remove the dead, illegal, and previously moved out of state voters? Or, those who voted multiple times? Or, flipped votes to the opposing candidate through computer interference. Or, votes on mail-in-ballots that were on counterfeit paper not issued by the government or had no folds indicating that it had actually been processed through the mail—instead just dumped by trucks, even from out of state as in a truck coming in from New York to Pennsylvania?
In Maricopa County, Arizona 1.9 of the 2.1 million votes were cast by mail. “That means that the election department folded the ballots three times, put them in an envelope and sent them to the voters. And then the voters after putting their votes on the ballot, folded them three times and sent it back. So they’re looking for folds in the ballot” (Stinchfield, May 3, 2021, Arizona Audit, Newsmax). If no folds than they are fake votes.
So how does this audit differ from other audits? Transparency for one thing, with nine live-streaming cameras recording everything which can be viewed in real time publicly and later for reference if needed. Viewers of each of the 2.1 million ballots are required to follow six processes. “A. Examine the physical ballot. B. Note any differences or observations about the thickness or feel of the ballot, and if necessary, attach thickness designator. C. If Election Day poll vote, note the presence of a visible fold. D. If non-Election Day. poll vote, note the absence of visible folds. E. Confirmed Fold Designator on the name is correct [designator]. F. Note any visible differences in the colors or text on the ballot. G. Place ballot under UV-B and UV-A source and compare for representative specimens ( Ep. 2466b – Are You Ready To Take Back Control Of The Country? The Silent Majority Will Reign, X22 Report Published April 30, 2021).
So why does it matter? Two reasons mostly; faith in future elections and, this issue is not gong to go away. First, if more than half of America saw this election as illegitimate, or stolen, it places in question all elections going forward and undermines our new president. If viewed as corrupt, why vote? And, if they did cheat, why would they stop cheating, the longer they hold power the more they are incentivized to censor and rid themselves of future opposition. How could we then say we differed from banana republics? To the benefit of both political parties, if found to be true, a mechanism must be in place to never let this happen again.
Second, supposed fraudulence was viewed by or participated in by thousands—far too many to ever go away. It will be questioned in the history books a hundred years from now. While we have all the ballots (the physical evidence), hundreds of affidavits, let every aspect of this election see light and every hearing or audit conducted. If this was the most clean election ever, as Democrats insists, they should be reassured. Why would they object, unless they know it wasn’t.
Let the forensic audit proceed. Democrats say they want to follow the science let it have its input with tests on ink color, paper thickness or weight, fold evidence and UV ray technologies brought to bear to give us proof positive that the individual occupying the White House, or those seated in the U.S. Senate in Arizona, were elected by citizens. Let us end this dispute with total confidence now.
But transparency is not what half of America want. Instead Democrat news outlets censor virtually everything in opposition to this step. A least 70 Democrat lawyers have gathered in Maricopa County to oppose every step of this audit. They have attempted to use the office of the Attorney General to do the same. It seems anything showing another side has been removed from the Internet. The only media coverage is seemingly in opposition.
Democrats act as though they have something to hide—like Richard Nixon in the Watergate burglary. They do if they cheated. If shown in Arizona, other states will follow with their forensic audits. I think this is why the opposition.
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.
Apr 29, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph.D.
The Democratic led House of Representative just voted 216-208, along party lines, to make Washington D. C. the 51st state in the Union. The bill now goes to the Senate. But there are two serious problems. The District of Columbia already has more House and Senate members living within it than any state in the Union, thus is the most represented city in the nation, and the Constitution forbids making the capitol a state without 3/4th of the states’ approval.
Democrats say that the District of Columbia is under represented but what they fail to mention is that D.C. is the only city in the nation governed by the whole House of Representatives. Moreover, few commute daily from their districts thus live in close proximity to the Capitol. Technically they are D. C. residents, eating, working, socializing and sleeping in that city many times more than in their residence’s in Florida, Maine, California, Hawaii or Alaska. They regularly frequent the city’s gyms, restaurants, clothing shops, beauty salons and barber shops. They care about its streets and utilities because they use them. They socialize with other representatives about the needs and environment of the city as much or more than any city in their districts. Name another city as represented as it? No city gets more attention from people with power than Washington D.C.
Now to the Constitutional concerns. “The Congress shall have Power … to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the government of the United States” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17). Again, Congress is specifically charged to govern the city thus it is the most represented city in America and the only city with direct access to the federal budget.
One may need to be reminded of why the District of Columbia was created. The cities of Boston, Philadelphia and New York served their purpose very well in the birth of the Republic but they were cities within existing governments. What the Founders had to have was a place separate from and not subject to the influence of a host state. The two governments, the states and the new federal government created by the Constitution, that would run America must be independent of the other. This would be the home of the federal government, it would operate on its own property not within another that could influence it or, in reverse, be dominated or favored by it.
This property must never be a state and must be too small to be thought possible that it should be; presently it is 1/20th the size of Rhode Island, America’s smallest state. The perception of a small and limited federal government was important and carefully preserved by the wordage “not exceeding ten Miles square.”
Another constitutional concern involves Virginia and Maryland, who donated the ten square mile block of land to the federal government for a specific purpose, a space for a federal government, that would not have been given for any other purpose—definitely not to be made into another competing state. Certainly Maryland’s claim on it, if not used for the purpose given in the contract (Constitution), is much stronger than its claim to statehood. It could be argued that the only other “right” use of this land would be to return it to Maryland since Virginia’s portion was ceded back in 1846 with dubious constitutional authority. Then, and today with Maryland, any change in the Constitution (contract) requires an amendment.
If not used as a part of the District of Columbia it should be returned to Maryland, then a bid for statehood would violate Article IV, Section 3. “No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State….without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
If made into a state then there is the necessity of repealing Amendment 23 of the Constitution, ratified in 1961, giving the District of Columbia three Electoral College votes because it wasn’t a state and now cant’t have six. Repeal requires 3/4th of the states. In the present climate of no bipartisanship this would require one side or the other to give up three Electoral College votes. Since Washington D.C. has been and will remain Democrat Party territory for decades the new state, “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” would get three Electoral College votes in perpetuity thus Democrats logically should forgo the three Electoral College votes still given to D.C. in Amendment 23 in addition to that given as a state—but will they?
Making the District of Columbia a city state would make this city, already the most represented city in the nation and probably even more so than any state as well, even more powerful. It also is unconstitutional because D.C. was specifically designed to not be a state. This cannot be changed by statue. This bill damages or alters two articles and one amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thus could require two new amendments and one amendment repeal in the Constitution. Each demand the use of Article V which requires a proposing process of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or the application of the legislatures of two thirds of several states followed by a ratification process of 3/4th of the several states.
Everyone knows the Democrat bid to make the District of Columbia a new state is equivalent to “packing the Senate” which would vanish if they, in doing so, were establishing two new Republican Senators in perpetuity. It’s clearly a power grab akin to packing the Supreme Court and can not be rewarded.
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.
Apr 21, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many may not remember their basic U.S. History courses as to why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety or hunting, these were already assumed. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. Our Constitution was founded with a healthy fear of government. Historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
One must remember that early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt. They argued in The Declaration of Independence, that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” coming from a much higher source than mere man and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” God is referenced five times in this document and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is the reason the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction needed but they had no intention of forfeiting the right to revolution they exercised giving us liberty in the first place. Nor did they assume that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction they used.
So passionate were they over this issue that they double protected it, first by making it a constitutional amendment. No presidential degree or congressional statute can alter an Amendment—only another amendment submitted through the states as per Amendment V. This requires a vote of three-fourths of the states in support. Second, this is the only amendment, that itself, specifically forbids change. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No piece of law is more secure. As far as we can ascertain, America’s Constitution is the only Constitution in world history that specifically prohibits its government from removing the right of the people to keep and bear arms and thus the means to resist its government tyranny—as was exercised against the British.
An armed populace twice proved its value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. First, many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans enroute, so they could retrieve their guns to use against the British, makes sense.
Second, the Battle of Saratoga preventing the conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne was stopped, not by the military, but by angry farmers with their own military styled “assault” rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to enter the war on our side. We would not have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns—even military issue—was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed,” but also, “they should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
But many fear our government today. We fear when tyrannical governors condemn to death thousands of senior citizens by sending COVID-19 infected patients into nursing homes, or when the Bill of Rights was openly defied and 1st Amendment protection rights denied their people. We fear: when statues of our Founding Fathers and great former leaders are torn down and those doing this are leaving our inner cities aflame, when a majority believe election integrity no longer exists, when a president rules almost entirely by executive decrees, when one party rule is largely established, when our borders previously secured are no more, and when one side of the political spectrum is largely censored or cancelled.
We fear Congress when it seeks to pass an Equality Act that insures inequality, or a Bill For the People Act cements permanent fraud in elections favoring one party in particular, or when they push to pack the Supreme Court or make DC a state—all to install one political party rule in America. This fear is demonstrated when people are fleeing for safety from tyrannical states to freer states like Idaho, Florida, Texas and Utah. How can anyone in their right mind agree to give up their right to resist the government should it become tyrannical? In some places it already has.
The Second Amendment is the Constitution’s final check on tyranny. We have the same right of revolution the Founder’s used, fully expressed in The Declaration of Independence. Widespread gun ownership has never been a threat to truly free societies. An armed citizenry keeps the government on short notice of the governs’ ability to resist should God given inalienable rights be taken from them.
A popular slogan runs. “I love my country but I fear my government.” Given the fear and unconstitutional antics noted above, perhaps we should hang on to the 2nd Amendment as designed as our final option against tyranny. An option we hope never to have to use again.
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.
Apr 7, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Neither the words equality or discrimination are found in the U. S. Constitution, nor inferred. Also, no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving either from a state to a federal jurisdiction, which is the required path detailed in Article V for enlarging the powers of the federal government. State delegates formed the U.S. Constitution and they gave the federal government no power over human association. We naturally discriminate between philosophies, organizations, and people we wish to embrace, date or avoid; even whom or what we like. We call this freedom.
Now the Democratic Party wishes to impose upon the people restrictions over human associations without a new amendment to the Constitution. Under the misnamed Equality Act it wishes to enshrine “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination respecting race or sex in employment, housing, and public accommodations. What it does in practice is to “allow the government to impose a belief system about sexual decisions and sexual behaviors on the nation.” The Act is “basically government-sanctioned discrimination against religious people” (CBN News, October 2018). If government is empowered to manage human associations it manages everything.
More fully how would the misnamed Equality Act violate the Constitution? Remember the Founding Fathers created a system called federalism which recognized the principle of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government, neither the master nor slave of the other—the states to have domestic dominance, the federal government foreign policy dominance. All power was divided in 1787 between these two governments. There exists no new powers to distribute.
The Constitution restricts the federal government, (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to the enumerated clauses housed in Article I, Section 8. In this it was restricted to four areas of federal law, these were: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and national defense. To restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two of the four grants of power, general welfare and national defense, each required an additional eight clauses giving greater restrictive clarity.
Neither equality or discrimination were named, or inferred, as a function of the federal government. The eight clauses of general welfare benefited citizens equally and at the same time. None made distinctions between types of people or human associations.
All powers not specifically listed, or added later to the Constitution by way of the Amendment process outlined in Article V, were left to the states. The states retain all power that they did not specifically give to the federal government. The federal government can only expand its power at the expense of the states by distorting or ignoring the existing list which is what it is attempting to do. This can only succeed when the people are ignorant of the Constitution or do not care. Proponents of the Equality Act include both.
Even with this clarification, states, fearing that the federal government might still attempt to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions on it, hence the Bill of Rights. But none of these housed either equality or discrimination. The Bill of Rights ends with the clarity of Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So neither equality nor discrimination are in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but the word equal (not the same as equality) is in the 14th Amendment. This was a Civil War amendment (1868) designed to ensure that the rights of ex-slaves were protected as the South was attempting to re-enslave them through legislation. It reads in part, “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” One cannot pluck out this phrase and give it new meaning outside the context of its origin, — to protect freed men from slavery—which is precisely what the Democrat Party is doing with their Equality Act.
But there is another problem with the broad use of the phrase “equal protection of the laws” used out of context, This phrase applies only to that law already constitutional, and that, has to have a solid base in the listed powers of Article I, Section 8 or in a new amendment to the Constitution ratified by three-fourths of the states as required by Article V. Any other interpretation destroys the Constitution as designed.
A great irony of our time is that the misnamed Equality Act “creates grave inequalities between those who simply want to live according to their religious beliefs and the reigning culture of political correctness. In short, it threatens our most fundamental freedoms of speech, religious exercise, and privacy. The Equality Act upends two centuries of First Amendment law that restrains government from forcing Americans to speak messages or participate in events that violate their deeply held religious beliefs” (https://firstliberty.org/what-is-the-equality-act/).
The Equality Act has no origin in the Constitution, and thus is unconstitutional. If passed it would violate a large part of the First Amendment more especially the free exercise of religion, speech and press. A mere act or statute cannot nullify a constitutional amendment. It opens up a myriad of new laws on human association, also without constitutional base. Neither equality or discrimination can be defined and certainly not guaranteed without Orwellian governmental control. Perhaps that is their intention.
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.
Mar 31, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
First they censored Alex Jones from his millions of followers for saying that socialism was coming to America and that censorship, coming with it, is opposite free speech and freedom, and I did not speak out—because I was not an Alex Jones fan.
Then they tore down statues of America’s earliest explorers: Father Junípero Serra and Christopher Columbus, and I did not speak out—because they were said to have treated the Indians badly, therefore they were racists. Then statues of President Andrew Jackson, an Indian hater, followed by Confederate Civil War generals: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson etc. and I did not speak out—because statues had no real meaning and they were said to be racist.
Then statues of the Founding Fathers: Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc. and I did not speak out—because some had slaves and therefore were racists. Then statues of Abraham Lincoln were torn down, the greatest abolitionist in U.S. History and still I did not speak out—because, well because I was not bright enough to know that he was not a racist but the opposite.
Then they set on fire St John’s Episcopal Church across from the White House. An Antifa leader next threatened to take down statues of Jesus Christ and burn the Bible and I did not speak out because—well they were just non-violent activities and these socialist anarchists were just expressing themselves.
Then they turned on all law enforcement beginning with ICE protecting our borders. Then on the police in our big cities, even promising to destroy them through no funding movements, and I did not speak out—because they were racists—even when the police units and city councils were themselves predominantly black.
Then for months they looted and set fire to downtown businesses of many large American cities: Seattle, Minneapolis, Portland etc. and I did not speak out—because my Democrat Party and my Democrat news outlets said that it was just right-wing propaganda and I believed them.
Then church attendance was banned or limited because of COVID and I did not speak out—-because I was not a Christian, actually I did not speak out either when it was the beaches that were closed or limited. I just believed my Democrat Party leadership and my Democrat Party controlled news outlets when they told me to wear two masks and that it was good for me to lock myself up in my home for more than a year, and I was so naive.
Then the 2020 presidential elections happened with hundreds of whistle blowers willing to perjure themselves testifying under oath that they witnessed massive cheating by the Democrat Party. Moreover, military intelligence documented that China had electronically switched millions of Trump votes to Biden giving him the presidency and I did not speak out—because it was only the Republicans that said this and my media always told me the Republicans, especially the nearly 75 million who voted for Trump, were all liars, racists and white supremacists and I believed them.
Then they censored a president of the United States, Donald J. Trump and I did not speak out—because my media and party told me that he was a racist, sexist, xenophobic and a white supremacist and I still believed them.
Then they censored everything negative against Joe Biden and I said nothing—because I believed my party and their media that we needed to stop disinformation. If only one side can express itself then there is only disinformation.
Then they attacked the Constitution that would have prevented all the above from happening had we just followed it as written and I still said nothing—because my party and news sources said that it was a racist document founded by racist white men to protect racism, and I believed them. Now it is nearly destroyed and so is freedom and I am a slave to the state. All who did not submit are now in reeducation camps or have been removed for spreading disinformation.
I should have defended these attacks on liberty but didn’t. Where there is no other side, there is no one left to speak for me because I did not speak for them. Now oppression and tyranny rule because people like me were the most gullible in American History. I could have spoken out but chose to be complacent instead and now liberty and the Constitution suffer for my ignorance. EXCEPT___
THEN THEY CAME FOR ME because I was white. They said all whites were systemically racist and whites needed to be reeducated and self condemning for what they had done to America. NOW I SPEAK UP—because it is a lie!!! I never offended anyone of a different race. Then my eyes were opened and I noticed that those saying and doing these horrifying things to America were also largely white and used mostly fabricated racism as a tool to make the least racist country on earth a socialist country. NOW I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH ALONG SIDE MY BLACK, BROWN, RED, AND YELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES ALL UNIVERSAL FREEDOM. I will no longer be a useful idiot for the socialist left.
(An American version of Paster Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came for the Socialists.” Niemoller believed his German neighbors, had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of fellow countrymen. Dr. Pease believes the same is happening in America.)
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.
Mar 24, 2021 | Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease Ph.D.
On March 15, 2021, Joe Biden signed into law the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Act . Not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted in favor of this legislation, as only 9% of which had anything to do with the Wuhan China Virus. This in light of the fact that a trillion dollars was not yet spent from the money previously allotted for COVID relief.
Prior to this the first spending package for the virus was last year March 27, 2020, when Congress added $2.5 trillion to the national debt with the The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) giving most adults $1,200. Most were jubilant to receive a stimulus check but to pay this single stimulus back today would cost each taxpayer $18,863 since about 50% of adults pay no income taxes (Compare U.S. Debt Clocks Nov. 2019 with April 2020). I would rather not have the $1200 stimulus if it costs me $18,863 later.
On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed a second Stimulus Bill of $900 billion giving most adults another stimulus of $600. We have not assessed what the payback for this particular stimulus will be.
These three stimulus packages ($2.5T, $900 B, $1.9T) added increased the national debt by $5.3 trillion in less than one year. This total is more than the combined cost of World War I, $334 billion, and World War II, $4.1 trillion “adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars” (“The Cost of U.S. Wars Then and Now,”Military History, by Norwich University, October 20, 2020). Such debt is a recipe for bankrupting America and those doing it must know this.
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. One mathematician gave us a very practical way of evaluating 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 thus far incurred by the coronavirus alone, $5.3 trillion, would reach to the moon and two-thirds back to earth.
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).
Who will pay these three coronavirus loans? Since we never liquidate our debt—only increase and pass it on to posterity—our grandchildren yet unborn, will be saddled with this debt plus the interest on it. How can I prophesy with such certainty? The United States has not been free of debt since Warren G. Harding 100 years ago (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)?
Yes the coronavirus is a massive rogue wave that has sunk thousands of businesses in its path but following closely behind it is a tsunami many times larger—the national debt—that is and will bring down this country because our children cannot pay it either. Our national debt has soared to $28.09 trillion (USDebtClock.org). This debt in one dollar bills laid flat atop each other, not just the COVID portion as mentioned, will now go to the moon and back almost five times. We are drowning in debt.
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 not just $37,726 for the coronavirus bailouts, but $224,456 per taxpayer—due immediately, they get angry (see USDebtClock.org). “Someone should have told me 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 and present generations 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?
Yes these are hard times and in such adding to a national debt is said to be justified. What isn’t justified is that in prosperous times, of which most of the last 70 years have been, we should, and could have, liquidated that debt. Then a $5.3 trillion debt to handle a virus could have been repaid in the next prosperous time or perhaps by the children, but not now. We have squandered our wealth in foreign endless wars, foreign aid and domestic welfare.
Both parties are responsible for this debt. I had hoped with the robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) that we could start paying off the debt but now chances of removing, even the coronavirus portion of the national debt enslaving us, is slim. Biden proposes $3 trillion for infrastructure updating. Trillions more debt Democrats plan for reparations for descendants of slaves, the green new deal, and free college for everyone. It is hard to believe that the Democrats are not purposely pushing us over a cliff destroying the once wealthiest nation in world history.
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.
