Apr 13, 2020 | Economy, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
When President Donald Trump mobilized a health squad to advise him and the nation on the seriousness of the coronavirus epidemic he was given projections of death vastly exceeding the number of Americans who died in the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic. Initially these numbers were 2.2 million Americans. These later were reduced to 240,000. The latest IHME model, just out, has it at nearly 82,000 by August 1, 2020.
Now let’s be clear! All these numbers are unacceptable and involve real people: fathers, mothers grandparents and occasionally a child but always someone loved. Life matters. Any death is serious, of course, but this is only 20,000 more than death from the flu season of 2017-2018.
Why does this matter? Because it was these extreme projections of 2.2 million that were used as cause to shut down the economy and increase our indebtedness by perhaps $4 trillion dollars—an indebtedness more than all wars combined in American history.
What also concerns me is that most Democratic media outlets fed these panic inducing death counts from day one, even before evidence confirmed them. They now seem almost disappointed 1) with these new lower numbers, 2) that a drug used to treat malaria, hydroxy-chloroquine, is able to treat also the coronavirus, and 3) that this crisis is going to go away far too early. Democrats still can not give Trump a win on managing this crisis. They loaded Congress’s 2 trillion dollar relief bill with pork that had nothing to do with the virus itself, but did prolong passage of the bill designed to help millions of Americans desperately needing it.
My biggest concern, however, remains the weaponization of death projections seemingly to keep hysteria alive and well—and for what possible purpose? Who benefits from this hysteria? The media in modern history have never focused on the body count of flus that take thousands each year.
I am writing this on April 8, using the newly released death projections for April. By the time newspapers print this column on April 10 the projected death rate will be 22,239. By the time LibertyUnderFire subscribers read this April 14, deaths are projected to be 34,068. One week thereafter, April 17, it will be 43,279. By April 21 they are to be 54,857 By April 24, they are to be 62,089 and by April 28, they will be 68,938. Projections to Aug 1st will be 81,766 dead Americans. Deaths per day are to peak April 16 at 3,130 (IHME, COVID-19 Projections assuming full social distancing through May 2020, United States of America view at https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america). Readers can compare these numbers against reality as we approach these dates.
Still, the reduction of death by the panicked media is, for the rest of us, manna from heaven compared to the projections just 10 days before of 2.2 million dead Americans. The latest projected death in the United States of 82,000 in three months is unlikely to be reached. It might turn out to be even less than the 61,000 who died of influenza in the 2017-2018 season. Most of us may never know anyone who actually died from it. Body count of the deceased did not lead the news every night causing us to hunker in our homes wondering if we would be next.
So here are the facts that are underreported or ignored by the panicked press The odds of you getting this virus are much smaller than the hype, “based on the population tested, … rates can vary from, at most, eight-tenths of a percent in New York City to two-one-hundredths of a percent in Phoenix.” The few out of 330 million Americans that actually get this virus at least 98% will recover from it. There are models showing 50% of the population may have already had it, never knew they had it, and recovered (“An Advantaged Disease, Indeed.” By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn, April 06, 2020). With these facts accurately reported it is unlikely that we would have shut down the economy.
They did not tell us of the 34,000 who died of influenza in last year’s 2018-2019 flu season, nor that we lose PER MONTH “about 54,000 Americans to heart disease; 50,000 to cancer; 14,000 to asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema; 12,000 to stroke; 10,000 to Alzheimer’s; 7,000 to diabetes; 5,600 to drug overdoses; and 4,700 to influenza and pneumonia.” These deaths give us over 157,000 deaths PER MONTH” and no-one shuts down the economy or cries out for a $2 Trillion stimulus package. Apparently only the coronavirus, amplified by the Democratic press, alerts the panic response.
Again all life matters and these too are horrifying unacceptable death numbers involving those we love. The media have no right to drive a panic without accurate, proportional (including the omissions noted above), supporting evidence that potentially could damage the economy beyond repair for years.
One piece of knowledge that would have helped reduce the media hysteria for young people is that only 7% of those who got it were under 50 years of age. We knew this early on. Allow them to return to work ASAP. Perhaps a better response to this epidemic would have been rather than shut down the economy, quarantine those over 65 and tell those younger not to visit them for a time.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 7, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D.
I taught the U.S. Constitution and Current Events simultaneous at the college level for forty years using the Constitution as written in solving controversies or problems—so well designed was it. Students quickly discovered that there were no issues that could not be resolved. So how should the Coronavirus crisis be resolved under the Constitution? States would be taking the lead.
The overall principle of free government and the Constitution as written is to never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level. Problem solving should begin with the individual and proceed in sequence from him to the family, city, county, and state and elevated only if a lower level of government could not do it. Outside the family all are elected, can tax for its needs, and each is reasonably accessible to the individual. Who says government further away and less accessible performs better or freer?
Notice in the problem solving sequence the federal government was not included. In the Constitution this was purposeful. States were sovereign outside foreign policy. The states were required to be republics (Article IV, Section 4) and were independent of the federal government except for the powers given it listed in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18; essentially the power to tax, pay the debts, and provide for the general welfare and common defense—the last two limited by eight clauses each. All other authority not specifically identified by amendment was left to the states as per 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.”
We live under two political systems: one (federal) centered on foreign affairs, the other (states) primarily domestic. It’s called federalism, the two share power, neither subservient or above the other and each with separate duties; like a good marriage, a team. This is why President Donald Trump has been encouraging more state involvement. Federal involvement in our lives is supposed to be minimal.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States serve as laboratories of experimentation. States look to sister states for models and borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation benefit everyone.
In the case of the Wahun China Virus (coronavirus), the federal government, led by Trump, controls the border under common defense—those coming in. Trump is not constitutionally empowered to mandate national behavior. Constitutionally states have borders and manage themselves. Taxing powers enable them to fund anything they wish and governors have broad powers to experiment, or not, on different solutions.
Nevada, Wisconsin and New York governors inhibited using hydroxy-chloroquine in the treatment of the virus, others encouraged its use. The virus apexes in different places at different times more especially in crowded areas and summer (getting outdoors) comes earlier in southern states. Each state would decide what measures were best suited for it regarding “shelter in place” or when to return to work. Trump, or Congress, would have little to do with these decisions.
As of March 25, 2020, New York had 10 times the number infected compared to the next in line state New Jersey, and 15 times the number of third in line California. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly developed a plan of action to slow the virus and simultaneously ramp up the beds, staff, and equipment. He initiated “mandatory playground social density,” and no close contact sports. He also sought dormitories and former nursing homes to facilitate more hospital beds.
Moreover, he expressed some unique ideas as well, such as splitting ventilators (for two beds instead of one) and developed a “surge healthcare force” of retired nurses and doctors, hopefully 40,000 strong, as a backup for tired healthcare workers. He created a Mental Health Professionals Sign up Program together with a Hot-Line. He suggested a “rolling deployment” of equipment and practitioners serving New York first then “rolling” to different hot spots as each state enters its apex. Federalism was exercised as 49 other governors did similarly rather than dump all responsibility on Trump.
Under federalism states have the responsibility to be prepared for emergencies and have in place their own programs of assistance and funding. But Governor Cuomo, although commendably now doing something, should have planned for this predicted emergency his first term in office rather than his third. Ventilators, masks, and reserve funding for emergencies, plus a plan for reserve medical staff, should have already been in place. They weren’t! In emergencies when states do not perform their responsibilities they force power to the next level of government as was such in this case. Trump had to provide ventilators, a medical ship, and build three makeshift hospitals in Central Park at federal expense.
Although the Constitution is designed to deal with the coronavirus, states have allowed themselves to become subservient and wards of the federal government. They now hold “alms bowl in hand” begging the federal government to do things for them. They allow whomever is president to have power over them. Many states have larger populations than many countries and have their own tax base and authority. Fumbling this responsibility should never happen. Constitutionally, once the borders are secure, under federalism 50 governors should be on the front lines ahead of Donald Trump.
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 30, 2020 | Economy, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
By the time this column is published we will be ending our third week of isolation denied the privilege of attending church, social and athletic events as the Wuhan China Virus spreads across the country. Restaurants are closed as are entertainment areas and the only populated areas appear to be grocery stores. Schools and universities closed sending their children and students home. Airports and airplanes are virtually empty. It is eerie. President Donald Trump asked groups assembling not to exceed 10 persons to inhibit the spread of this unseen “killer.”
What is most concerning is that last year 34,000 people died in the United States from the flu and the media outlets never said a word. Nor did they the year before, 2017-2018 season, when 61,000 died of the flu, likely a less number than will die of the coronavirus in the U.S. this flu season. Indeed, it is estimated that 12,000-61,000 deaths occurred annually from the flu in the U.S. since 2010 (“This Is How Many People Die From the Flu Each Year, According to the CDC.” By Claire Gillespie , Health, February 11, 2020 ).
Why is this a pandemic and those every year preceding it not also pandemics resulting in closing down the economy, air travel and schools? Why did the media not respond as hysterically to the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic in 2009 under Barack Obama when it killed approximately 17,000 Americans—far more than the coronavirus is likely to kill? (“Swine flu has killed up to 17,000 in U.S.: report” Maggie Fox, February 12, 2010).
Is the establishment media responsible for this pandemic of fear? Not the disease, of course, new strains are expected, but the unprecedented 24/7 hype driving everyone into isolation potentially bringing about a recession just before a presidential election that can only hurt President Trump?
The Center for Disease Control, CDC, reported as of February 11, 2020, 13 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the US. and no deaths. By March 25, 2020 that number was 60,881 total U.S, cases and 838 deaths so the spread in America is significant, and serious, but compared to previous years, not abnormal.
So what is the death rate? The UK places it between 0.5% and 1% and Germany “less than half a per cent,” also not comparatively abnormal (BBC News “Coronavirus death rate: What are the chances of dying?” By Robert Cuffe Head of Statistics, March 24, 2020).
The Atlantic in a March 22, article, “Red and blue America aren’t experiencing the same pandemic,” wrote of the “disconnect” between the two parties regarding the virus noting that “States with Republican governors have been slower, or less likely, than those run by Democrats to impose restrictions on their residents.” They observed that the same is so concerning rural verses urban communities.
But the real reason for the divide, not mentioned by the Atlantic, but noticed by virtually everyone on the right side of the political spectrum, centers on the establishment’s intention to remove President Donald Trump from office at any cost, thus far short of assassination. This might include the politicalization of a flu virus, heretofore taking thousands of Americans annually but hardly mentioned by the press—any press!
Republicans simply do not trust the establishment media. It has been behind nearly four years of constant coup attempts against the president and was responsible for hyping this virus to panic levels before a single American had the virus, certainly before an American death from it.
Let’s review these attempts. Three happened simultaneously before Trumps took office. Spygate and the Trump Tower wiretapping, Demonstrations in cities all over the United States flared up, presumably funded by George Sores, to refuse the results of the 2016 election with signs “Not My President” and finally, the Republican “Never Trumper” movement erupted. Once inaugurated the effort to get someone in his administration to declare him unfit so as to use the 25th Amendment to remove him followed. Then the Russia Hoax and the resultant 2 1/2 year Robert Mueller Investigation. This followed by disclosure of the FBI/CIA Coup attempt to unseat him, next the Ukrainian Hoax, followed by the failed Impeachment attempt. Nine easily documented attempts to remove him.
Trump endured four Congressional investigations, the Mueller and Horowitz Reports, each exonerated him, and the US Senate Impeachment trial acquitting him. Trump suffered more unjustified opposition/persecution than all U.S. presidents combined.
All major news outlets: MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the affiliates of the above, supported all the attempts to destroy this president, thus totally destroying their credibility with the right side of the political spectrum. All pipe the same hate Trump rhetoric. All are globalist establishment media outlets. All favored Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election. All have become the media arm of the Democratic Party. All panicked over the Wahun China Virus piping only hysteria sending Americans into hoarding and hiding and potentially causing unemployment in the millions, perhaps to destroy the economy before the election.
So why shouldn’t Republicans and Independents consider media overreaction—even weaponization—of the Wahun China Virus, yet another coup attempt to unseat their president? Establishment Deep State coverage of him is hostile no matter what he does.
Mar 23, 2020 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
This is my 551st column on liberty and the Constitution, I know no-one more published on this topic. I lived under 13 presidents of the United States, all gave lip service to the Constitution but none followed it closely. Of these I voted for only two Republicans. Those who least followed it were Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama. I spent a lifetime lecturing on these and the presidents before them. I dislike political factions (parties) as did George Washington. Readers know I call things as they are and defend the Constitution as written.
So with this background I am qualified to say, “Trump haters,” (Bushites, Clintonites, Romneyites, Holywood misfits, secret combinations in both majors political parties, coup conspirators in the FBI and CIA and finally fake news outlets notably MSNBC, NBC, New York Times and the Washington Post) who have conspired to take out Donald Trump. “Isn’t is time to lay down your arms?”
Four Congressional investigations, the Mueller and Horowitz Reports, and the US Senate Impeachment trial exonerated and indeed acquitted this man. Trump has endured more unjustified opposition/persecution than all presidents combined.
In the upcoming 2020 presidential election you offer only hate Trump rhetoric and freedom and prosperity destroying socialism. You are destroying the Democratic Party, perhaps America. You make Democratic President John F. Kennedy look far right. You offer nothing to build, strengthen or edify this country. Republicans before Trump were awful but you are much worse.
Please cease inspiring the crazies in our society to intimidate MAGA haters, innocent Catholic high school kids visiting DC, or worse, driving vehicles into tents housing Republican campaigners or shooting Congressman Steve Scalise while playing baseball with fellow congressmen and staffers. Cease supporting Antifa and MS-13 gang violence by not condemning them.
So what has Trump done for you that should command your respect? The list is extensive but let me identify in order my favorite six.
He defends the Constitution as written. Unfortunately Trump is a conservative, not a constitutionalist, but he follows the Constitution more closely than any president since Calvin Coolidge. He adamantly defends the 1st (religious and free speech freedoms), 2nd (freedom to protect oneself and neighbors—even from the government), and 10th amendments (states’ rights). No president has defended the rights of the unborn more than he. He nominated two supreme court justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, that appear to follow it and has placed, with Senate confirmation, 187 judicial nominees on the Federal bench who attest that they too will follow the Constitution as written. This is monumental as the Constitution is the reason we are free.
He opposes the globalist plan to first create regional governments of all nations, through trade deals that transfer economic, then political sovereignty, such as the European Union, then merge them into world government. He has made speeches to that end, on the campaign trail and even in the United Nations, which are never covered by the establishment (globalist) medias. His opposition to world government is, and always has been, why he is so hated by them. We have published on this before. Finally, the U.S. is first consideration in his “America First” pledge.. We are no longer nation builders or the world’s policemen. He wants to cut foreign aid (foreign welfare) spending it in the U.S. instead.
He stimulated the economy as no president has in decades. Manufacturing companies have and are returning to America. Almost 4 million new jobs have been created since his election. Reportedly, unemployment claims have now hit a 49-year low. African, Hispanic, and Asian American unemployment are at the lowest rates for decades or ever recorded, as are women and youth unemployment. He promised to dump two regulations for every new regulation but instead dumped eight. This returned companies to America, freed and stimulated the economy as never before resulting in an energy boom placing the U.S. as number one oil and natural gas producer in the world. Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are better off financially since Trump took office.
He is securing our southern border. New agreements with Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras required them to stop the flood of illegal immigration through their countries, or face higher tariffs. Now deadly drugs and violent criminals are not flowing as easily across our borders and into our communities. According to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics 976 alien gang members were apprehended at the border in FY 2019, including 464 aliens affiliated with MS-13. ICE arrested 143,099 aliens in FY 2019, 86 percent of whom had criminal records.
He has done more than all presidents combined to expose and stop child sex trafficking. By executive order Trump declared it a national emergency Dec. 21, 2017. Just last year ICE arrested 2,197 criminals associated with human trafficking and freed 428 victims. To encourage other countries to meet more strident standards eliminating trafficking, he signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
He destroyed 100% of ISIS caliphate.
So Trump haters, you have been wrong on most everything the last three years. I too criticize Trump in print occasionally but isn’t it time to notice that he has been one of our best presidents and lay down your hate and arms? Others think so, his rallies now comprise 20% Democrats.
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 16, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Michael Bloomberg credited himself as having, through his donations, changed the majority of the House of Representatives to Democrat returning Nancy Pelosi to power. He said: “They talk[ed] about 40 Democrats” needed to return the House to power in 2018, “Twenty-one of those were people they [Bloomberg’s group] spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge, and gave the Congress the ability to control this President, I boug[ht]… I got them” (Dan Merica, “Bloomberg catches himself from saying he ‘bought’ House races in 2018,” CNN, February 25, 2020). Despite the rhetoric Democrats love the money provided by the rich.
No one should be able to purchase a seat in any election, state or federal. This must never be allowed to happen again. But it will happen again if not blocked by an amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in our nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “All election funding, outside a candidate’s personal wealth, in all elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”
But Bloomberg is not alone in purchasing elections, for some time we have been reporting the influence of the moneyed elite, the billionaire club, notably George Soros and Tom Steyers, in choosing our elected officers from the White House down to local races. This happens when money flows in from outside where the candidate will serve allowing those of wealth, to replace constituent influence thus effectively purchasing the representatives from outside the voting districts. If constituents have lost their power to decide their leaders, how can we pretend any longer that we have a democratic republic?
In 2018 Both George Soros and Tom Steyer bankrolled far left candidate Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor hoping to flip the state from red to blue anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. Gillum “courted Soros’ organizations and spoke at a number of their gatherings.” When they met at San Francisco, “he promised to back Gillum’s gubernatorial run.” Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run” (Ingraham Angle, August 29, 2018). An activity that was targeted to get Gillum elected; hence would be denied Soros and Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he spent on the midterms. Both Soros and Steyer are California, not Florida, residents.
But what about billionaires buying their own political office, even the presidency, to the tune of half a billion as Bloomberg did? Such buyout is openly known. People do not like anyone purchasing elected office if known. But when Bloomberg purchased 21 House of Representatives seats in 2018 it was hidden until he bragged about it in the February 25, 2020 Democratic Party Presidential debate. If it did happened again we would suggest another constitutional amendment to limit such self funding.
Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This would not stop the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, so long as all monies used in such originates from voters within the district served by the candidate. The word originates is designed to stop donation transfer from outside district sources to inside donors to circumvent the amendment.
Why have we not stopped this? Because both political parties benefit from it. On the congressional level, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a threatening contender, or worse, handoff their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another state to favorably impact elections often adverse to the will of its citizens. These outside influences have to stop.
As we have seen from Bloomberg, more funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy an opponent or get a message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. Bloomberg flooded the airwaves. Candidates with the most money and publicity usually win and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote, therefore they dominate the result. In many cases more money originates from outside a voting district than within. If no candidate could receive money from outside his district, it would stop much influence peddling.
Under this amendment the Clinton Foundation monies could not be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Under this amendment no contribution could be made to influence any contest to which the contributor could not personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only THEIR congressman or senators —not a large group of them.
Congressmen from “safe” districts could not “handoff” their unneeded donations to a like minded candidate in another district. Nor could they holdover funding from previous victories to “nuke” a future opponent. Contributions are a form of voting normally intended for this candidate only, and for this election only, and they could only be accumulated since the last election for that office.
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 9, 2020 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
For three years the Democratic Party media outlets: MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS railed against old, white, rich, men. These, represented by Donald Trump, were viewed as the enemies of the people. But look at their presidential contenders, mostly old, white privileged, rich men.
President Trump took office at the age of 70, the oldest president in U.S. History. But on the Democratic stage of February 7, all seven still debating were old or white privileged. Ironically all claiming racial injustice by their own race, something none had personally experienced. Of these: Bernie Sanders 79, Michael Bloomberg 78, Joe Biden 78 and Elizabeth Warren 71, all would be older than Trump when he took office.
What about wealth? In the February 7, presidential debate Mayor Pete Buttigieg announced himself,“As the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire.” This was confirmed by Forbes Business Insider who reported the net worth of those still running, including spouses, as Michael Bloomberg $64.2 billion (the 8th most wealthy individual in the U.S), Tom Steyer $1.6 billion, Elizabeth Warren $12 million, Joe Biden $9 million, Bernie Sanders $2.5 million, Amy Klobuchar $2 million and Pete Buttigieg, $100,000. Mayor Pete’s husband Chasten’s wealth was not included so his total is yet unknown(Grace Panetta, Feb. 29, 2020).
Bloomberg credited himself as having, through his donations, changed the majority of the House of Representatives to Democrat returning Nancy Pelosi to power. He said: “They talk about 40 Democrats” needed to return the House to power in 2018, “Twenty-one of those were people they [Bloomberg’s group] spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge, and gave the Congress the ability to control this President, I boug[ht]… I got them” (Dan Merica, “Bloomberg catches himself from saying he ‘bought’ House races in 2018,” CNN, February 25, 2020). Despite the rhetoric Democrats love the money of the rich.
So Democratic presidential hopefuls are vastly white, rich, and men, three among the oldest and richest contenders in U.S. History, but are they Socialist? Bernie Sanders is the only one who openly admits he is a socialist. He spent his honeymoon in the USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republics) and has demonstrated a long history of favoring communists countries, notably Cuba and Venezuela. Outside support of violence (excepting Antifa which he does not denounce) to obtain his objectives their is little difference between marxist ideology and his. This is why Democratic moderates do not want him representing their party.
Even Pete Buttigieg in his February 7 debate said respecting Sanders, ”It’s true that I was into Bernie before it was cool,” emitting a chuckle from Sanders and the crowd. “The qualities I admired then are qualities I still respect a great deal,” His primary criticism of Sanders was how he was going to pay for Medicare for All, not the program itself. Elizabeth Warren is the most ideologically comparable with Sanders. But aren’t they all socialists?
“We Are All Socialists Now” said the front cover of liberal magazine Newsweek, Feb. 16, 2009, eleven years ago. Editors Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas wrote, “Whether we want to admit it or not, the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state,” toward socialism, they observed, “even before Barack Obama’s largest fiscal bill in our history.” The magazine cover had a red hand (Republican) shaking a blue hand (Democrat) in favor of socialism. Both parties accepted the “growing role of government in the economy,” they observed. “The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries.” Moreover, “it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly.” The “sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world,” they noted.
Newsweek associated the “growing role in government” as the most accurate measure of socialism. Under Barack Obama and Joe Biden such accelerated dramatically as the federal government obtained a controlling interest in General Motors, absorbed 1/7th of the economy under Obamacare, and expanded the power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to oversee most homes in America. This does not count the controlling influence over all businesses by the Obama administration’s eighty thousand new pages of bureaucratic rules and regulations descending upon businesses annually that effectively managed most everything else.
None of the remaining contenders on stage would disavow any of the above. All would expand the role of government in our lives, as for example, the Green New Deal and Medicare for All—even for those coming into our country illegally. Thus there are no moderate Democratic Party Presidential contenders remaining. They may not openly embrace socialism but they also do not openly oppose it. Bernie Sanders is just the most honest socialist running.
Today the four remaining Democratic Party candidates are still what the Democratic Party media’s said for three years they most hated—the oldest in U.S. History (average age 76.5), white, socialist, rich, and mostly men. Except for socialism, which the Republicans under Trump vigorously oppose, they are in these variables worse than the Republican Party they oppose.
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.
