Apr 1, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph,.D.
This column is my 500th published column on liberty and the Constitution. I taught the Constitution and Current Events for forty years at the college level and therefore am qualified to pose the following question. “What if fake news is not the only thing that is fake?”
What if things are not as they seem, that we not only have fake news but fake history, education, science, and more? That our world is far more Orwellian than presumed.
Let’s begin with a not so fake history. What if after the Civil War certain enterprising and gifted men, such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J. P. Morgan, used the free market philosophy to gain great wealth and monopolistic power over oil, steel, railroads and banking. These men then funding the politicians that would protect their interests from “real” legislative control over their monopolies.
What if they saw even greater wealth and power in expanding their influence to the world arena and financed a president, William McKinley, who with a little help from “yellow journalism,” enticed the United States into war against Spain, which win, netted America rich, lush, and lavish colonial colonies? These possessions never benefited average America who had to provide the brawn, blood and money to keep the Philippines under subjection while the capitalists reaped huge benefits and profits.
What if these moneyed elite saw the need to create an influence organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), to make certain that they never lost their new found power to guide foreign policy and future presidents? For almost a hundred years this organization seated a third of the cabinets of all presidents yet it is never mentioned on globalist media outlets. This they did by infiltrating with CFR members the Republican and Democratic Parties and ignoring all other parties. J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller purchased all major media streams of news (information) so that the internationalist view alone dominated. Some form of managed news, fake news, has existed since 1921.
What if these moneyed interests came to the conclusion that to properly manage the world a type of world governance needed to be created which resulted in the League of Nations? But the Constitution, if interpreted as written, would allow no government over it and their efforts, accepted and implemented by internationalists in Europe, was rejected in the United States. Our failure to join eventually ended the League.
What if the globalists used World War II to reignite their world government effort with a United Nations, the Rockefeller’s even providing the property for it? Its function and purpose they knew would be enlarged with time until it would be the only real government. U.S. wars thereafter, the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, were UN—not U.S.—initiated wars. But America was still resisting allowing the UN total government.
Failing this, what if the new plan became to instead unite nations of Europe into the European Union and the nations of North American (Canada, Mexico and the U.S.), using the model of the EU, into the North American Union and likewise for 20 other regions of the globe into what is called regional government? Nationalism would be destroyed and these regions later would surrender sovereignty to the world government of the United Nations.
The plan required fake history, or at least history that did not link the above. Textbooks and history classes must be made to show the benefits of global union and the UN as a benevolent organization. No one should ever accept that we had been led by the moneyed elite to lose our Constitution as the supreme document of the land, as well as our freedom, sovereignty and independence, for a global government that guaranteed none of these things.
What if the plan required fake science, first global warming, which could not be confirmed over time, and thus was changed by advocates to climate change, which does change seasonally and over time, but still lacks clear documentation that man actually is the agent of that change? What is missed in the argument, and the probable reason it is still seriously discussed, is that it benefits the globalist. If viewed as a globalist problem it therefore requires a world government solution.
The plan required fake education at least in the above categories and peripheral areas of sociology and political science as well. As world government requires total control, first mind control through education then force for those not “properly” educated. A philosophy opposite limited government is the only government that could work. Socialism, which never worked in the USSR, China, North Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela or any other place on earth, must be made to be a part of the intended new world order. World socialism would allow no competing ideologies; no place to flee. This philosophy permeates university campuses today. I had few colleagues who did not advocate it.
The plan required fake news. All the globalist news outlets are owned by the moneyed elite and promote the fake history, fake science, fake education scenario as described above. Today parents send their young adults to college to be educated but instead they are largely propagandized and return home advocates of something their parents oppose. Perhaps it is time to drop the “what if” in the above scenario.
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 5, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Most think that the 2020 presidential election is almost two years away. Not so!! The first vote, the vote of the billionaires who choose our candidates, is happening right now. It happens every four years and Democrats and Republicans simply change places. This time it is the Democrats lining up with alms bowl in hand—not to their constituents or the little donors that used to be their base long ago, but the super rich who they pretend to be against.
Candidates each take their “dance” before the billionaire club and are picked by one or more of them. Almost everyone has noticed the dramatic shift to socialism made by the Democratic Party presidential candidates, not because their constituents necessarily demand such, but because their real bosses, the moneyed elite, do. Their moneyed sponsors, primarily George Soros , the leading funder of far-left causes and elections the past two decades, who is said to have spent $25 million on Hilary Clinton and other democratic candidates in 2016 and another $15 million in the recent midterms, and Tom Steyer, who “promised to spend at least $30 million to elect progressives this campaign season,” making him the “most important Democratic donor in the United States.”
Tucker Carlson reported last week on Fox News, “This coming Saturday, Sen. Cory Booker is attending a Silicon Valley fundraiser. It is hosted by Gary and Laura Lauder. They are heirs to the $14 billion Estee Lauder fortune. Kamala Harris just had a fundraiser in Beverly Hills that was attended by an army of wealthy studio execs. Kristin Gillibrand did not even start her campaign for president before asking the permission of Wall Street.”
Yes, Republicans do something similar when it is their turn to oppose a seated Democrat president. Trump was the exception as he financed his own primary making him the only presidential candidate since William McKinley that is not largely purchased by wealthy donors. There are more Democrat political billionaire activists than Republican, taken together Soros money and organizations, and now, Steyer’s money, easily dwarf that of the Koch brothers, said to be funding most of the right side of the political spectrum.
The billionaire club easily favors the Democratic Party and the far-left side of the political spectrum. What is far worse is that Soros and Steyer seem not to be promoting rank and file Democrats but instead radicals who want to upend our political system. It appears that the rich who initially controlled the Republican Party, then both major parties for over 100 years, now has much greater dominance over the Democratic Party. Should they succeed, we will become a socialist country.
So why are the super rich overwhelmingly progressive—code for socialist. Tucker Carlson argues “They love mass immigration — it brings them servants. They support federally-mandated snobbery, masquerading as environmentalism. Abortion is essentially a sacrament to them, especially when practiced in poor neighborhoods” (February 21, 2019).
What is certain is that essentially socialism allows them to command society with their money, to right all wrongs. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex is now wondering if society should limit its number of children. Everything is managed from cradle to grave. Other forms of government deny them this kind of control.
So if most of the billionaire club are progressives and Democrat why do they overwhelmingly fund the party and philosophy that purports to seize their wealth and control? Have not Democrats identified the enemy as “old white men,” which most billionaires are? Taxing is their favorite instrument of control and Democrats have been for higher taxes on the “rich” for decades. Cortez advocates 70%, Elizabeth Warren even higher.
Don’t they pay more taxes because they make more? Yes, but only to a point. The secret is that the rich will never pay more than 24% no matter how much they make. And they, being the financiers of the presidential candidates, will never be required to.
Carlson explains how it works“The top federal income tax rate stops at about 500 grand. So what’s the difference between someone making $500,000 a year and someone making $50 million a year? The answer: The richer one can much more easily evade paying full freight, and they do.”
The rich that the Democrats want to tax are not the “real rich,” only those who make less than $500,000 per year. Those making more are locked in to no more than 27% and the richest of the rich only 24%. “According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of Americans pay about 27 percent of their income in taxes. But the top tenth of 1 percent — that’s people who make $35 million a year — pay less than 26 percent. And the top thousandth of a percent — the absolute richest — pay less than 24 percent. In other words, past a certain point, the richer you are, the less you pay. That’s why billionaires back socialism. It doesn’t cost them much.
The first election is theirs as they fund the candidates who share their socialist views and get a tax cut as well. The show part of the election, the one acknowledged by everyone, does come in two years but well after their candidates are safely placed to win. The masses then salivate over which one of of the anointed the moneyed elite have preselected for us.
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.
Feb 26, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Our national debt just exceeded 22 trillion dollars. To pay this debt today each citizen owes $67,033. Since children pay no taxes, nor do about 45% of our adult population, each taxpayer actually owes $179,908. Our largest creditors in order are: Medicare/Medicaid $1,091,280,000,000, Social Security $1,005,651,000,000, Defense/War 676,814,000,000, Income Security (welfare) $293,531,000,000, Net Interest on Debt $350,206,000,000, and Federal Pensions $272,980,000,000 (USDebtClock.org).
Even with the present robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) this cannot continue to escalate. We are on a collision course with Armageddon which, at this late date, may not be avoidable. Any hope depends on three things (1) our ability to make significant cuts in the top six expenditures noted above, (2) our not electing a big spending congress or president in the next decade, (3) our not entering into any new big funding events such as war, infrastructure overhaul, or open borders allowing new groups to “eat out our substance” without having already paid their way.
Of this enslaving debt, four trillion comes from eight years of George W. Bush and ten trillion from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together. Donald Trump is responsible for over two trillion dollars in two years.
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 (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $10 trillion, would have reached the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $22 trillion in debt would take you to the moon and back three times and to the moon a fourth time and a third of the way home again.
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 of the debt is $67,034 and up to $179,908, depending on how many of their fellow non taxpayers they can get to pay their fair share (see USDebtClock.org), due immediately, they are 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 still in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children in order to have them.
The latest new theory to avoid fiscal responsibility and continue unlimited spending, used by Bush in late 2009 and Obama thereafter, is referred to as Quantitative Easing. Crudely it means printing more money out of thin air to cover our debt, but it is far more sophisticated than that. For Bush the money supply was greatly expanded by having the Federal Reserve purchase $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities (Harding, Robin. 3 November 2010, Quantitative Easing Explained. Financial Times). Obama purchased $600 billion of Treasury securities over a six month period of time beginning in November 2010 in what has been called Quantitative Easing or QE2 to distinguish it from QE1, the Bush expansion of the money supply (Cesky, Annalyn,3 Nov.2010, “QE2: Fed Pulls the Trigger” CNNmoney.com. Retrieved 10 Aug. 2011).
The biggest problem with expanding the money supply is that it reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My Camaro, purchased in 1968, cost $2,700, purchased today at least ten times as 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. They cannot return to their employer for a raise to compensate for the loss caused by their own government.
Still, with all the sophisticated “doublespeak,” as for example quantitative easement, it means that we will print whatever money we need to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we are imposing upon our children and grandchildren.
Democrats propose “free” college and a salary for everyone, whether they work or not, under their proposed Green New Deal. Donald Trump’s proposed trillion-dollar infrastructure program, also does not suggest a change. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked upon one another can go to the moon and back almost four times so long as the government fills our stomachs and, in the case of Obama, purchases our cell phones
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.
Feb 18, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
(Presidents’ Day, Article)
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Perhaps America’s most beloved and respected president was Abraham Lincoln, who now shares a national holiday—Presidents Day—with George Washington. Today most Democrats would oppose him, as they once did in 1860. He opposed slavery and socialism. He saw nothing in the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, worthy of emulation.
On the ownership of property Abraham Lincoln’s feelings were especially strong, he said, “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprises” (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, pp. 259-260). Lincoln might have added “which produces jobs for those not rich.”
To him there was no need to take by force the wealth of those who produce and give it to those less productive, as has always been the prescription of socialism. The “share the wealth” philosophy of socialism brought on by “envy politics,” so articulated by the Democratic Party today, was a foreign ideology to the Civil War president, who had read and rejected Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
The answer to ending poverty is not class envy, first identified by Aristotle some 2,500 years ago as being the natural inclination of those with less, a philosophy implemented by Lenin in Russia when the communists identified those holding property as enemies of the state and liquidated some four to eight million farmers, the “Kulaks” (“The Russian Kulaks,” InDepthInfo.com). Then, they wondered why the country had such a horrific famine in 1921-1922 when millions starved.
No money was set aside for, or provided to, any class or special interest group in our Constitution. The power distributed benefited all equally and at the same time. The federal role was as referee only. Our Constitution does not redistribute wealth; it leaves the individual to do that for himself by his work ethic. It remains the fairest way.
Will income inequality be the outcome? Yes! Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. But all will have more under capitalism than had we instead forced income equality by taking from those who produce and giving it to those who do not. We remain anxious to share our wealth producing philosophy with our less prosperous neighbors and the world so that all can have more, but individuals stealing it from us, or using the government to do it for them, known as legalized plunder, is just wrong and disincentivizes those who produce.
Lincoln’s answer to the poor, from which he sprang himself, “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence….” Unfortunately, many in our society have forgotten the “labor diligently” part of his phrase and have come to expect the government to provide, from the industry of others, their every need. On that score Lincoln said sarcastically. “You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.” He viewed this principle as a form of tyranny/slavery on those who work. Today approximately 47% of the adult population pay no federal income tax; many actually receive benefits for which they have paid nothing.
Watching others acquire wealth was, in fact, a sign of a healthy economy for Lincoln. “I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.” Nor would he have supported the hundreds of laws that we have today that disincentivizes a man trying to acquire wealth.
His view sounds similar to those expressed by President Trump in his 2019 State of the Union Address. “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination and control. We are BORN FREE, and we will STAY FREE. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.”
The new calls for socialism in our country referenced above were recently dropped by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s long-awaited Green New Deal endorsed by recently announced Democratic presidential candidates, Senators: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand seemingly each attempting to “out socialize” opponents.
Paying the estimated $7 trillion price tag required would result in a 90% tax take which, ironically, is the definition of slavery—the very thing Lincoln is credited as having ended. It would end air travel and radically effect every other aspect of life. It would also redistribute vast new sums of less valued printed paper money making all equally poor.
Socialists may hate the “Walmarts” or the “McDonalds” all they want, but these provide the poor tens of thousands of jobs. Do not bite the hand that feeds you, then wonder where the jobs and prosperity went, as did the early Russian socialists. The “share the wealth” philosophy, which Lincoln opposed, and endorsed now by the Democratic Party, has never brought long term general prosperity for any people, any place, or any 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.
Feb 11, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
I flew to El Paso, Texas to see for myself what was going on at the border at the height of the partial government shutdown standoff between Pelosi/Schumer and President Donald Trump. I wanted to interview those on the ground who really knew; thus bypassing entirely the Republican presses that said we were in a border crisis and the Democrat presses that said we weren’t and that we do not need a wall. El Paso, over 800,000 population, and Juarez, Mexico, over 1,400,000, one north of the border, the other south, seemed to be an ideal location to ask the experts.
This is what I learned. Mexican cartels, not the Mexican government, control entry into the United States. They are the de facto government south of the border. Cartels have carved up the important crossing locations and migrants do not get into the United States without first paying at least $100 per person to the controlling cartel. They enforce their rules.
Agents do not seek-out illegal aliens as they once did. Aliens come to them. Most illegals, perhaps 80%, are referred to as OTM’s (Other Than Mexican). Mexicans, when caught, are simply returned to Mexico but the OTM’s have the right to have a judge hear their cases, thus they remain until that happens.
Caravans are a new phenomenon. These are financed, we were told, by billionaire George Soros. his groups organize and instruct perspective migrants in their rights. After crossing Mexico, these people approach the border in small groups of nine to twenty and immediately seek a border patrol vehicle to approach and surrender, “Here I am!” They know that they will be taken to a holding center and cared for. These centers, designed for 80 to 90 migrants, now hold 200 to 250. They are so crowded that there exists virtually no room between migrants.
They know they will be released into the general population after receiving a NTA (Notice To Appear) before a judge, but they also know not to appear as 90% will be sent home because they do not qualify for asylum. But now they are in the United States. The game changes to “hide and seek” until the United States changes its laws. Why? One officer told us that they were awaiting the expected “paradigm shift.” He did not explain what he meant but I inferred that Trump will be removed from power and their group enormity will force a path to full citizenship. He added, “When this hope of being able to stay, is removed—this incentive—the flood will end.”
Agents invited us to visit three unsecured areas within thirty miles of where we were. One was Mount Cristo Rey located between the two cities but a good distance within the U.S. side. It was identified as a place of danger. The sign posted on the 12-foot-wide well-trod trail going up the hill to the statue warned, “If you’re going to tour Mt. Cristo Rey please contact police department at (575) 589-6600 or at 1000 McNutt Rd..” Why would an area, within the country, and close to Border Patrol headquarters, be too dangerous for Americans to visit without first notifying police? Because it is also a corridor for drug and human trafficking between the two countries and you might disappear, be raped, or robbed.
A second was a construction site on the U.S. side of the border accessed by an opening in an 18 foot tall border wall through which construction trucks and workers frequently passed, this with no visibly mounted cameras. An almost dry Rio Grande River just south of the construction site had no barrier of any kind to prevent a crossing from either side and then through this opening.
A third site, some 25 miles west of El Paso, was the connecting point between a high fence, perhaps 18 feet, and a four or five feet high fence thereafter. The much shorter fence was designed to stop only automobiles and Mexico was easily accessed from both sides over the top or sliding under it. I had one foot in Mexico and another in the United States simultaneously. Picture very large steel X’s every ten feet with three horizontal cross beams connecting them. This fence was said to continue this way for some distance west but replaced with mere barbed wire thereafter.
The fence was marked as having been built in 2008 but it was no barrier to drug or human trafficking or coming across unnoticed at will. We were totally alone for a solid hour before we saw a helicopter flying the line. There was no evidence of technology either and we were but 20 miles from one of the most populated areas on the entire border.
We also learned that often the countries from which immigrants come do not want them back as they were happy to rid themselves of their impoverished or criminal class. Twenty years ago the border could be controlled by 5,000 agents now 35,000 agents are required. Even U.S. troops are needed to assist.
No one argued that this was not a very serious crisis, nor that a border wall was not critical in ending it. Border patrol agents confirmed “there is no border security outside a wall.”
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..
Feb 4, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
By now Beto O’Rourke’s unflattering comment referencing the Constitution, “Does this still work?,” is old news. He was suggesting that government is now too complicated for it to deal with 21st Century problems. What isn’t old news is that there was no backlash from the Democratic presses or Party regarding this ill-informed comment, nor pressure on O’Rourke to end his intended run for president because of it. Such would have ended the run of any contender twenty years ago. Do Democrats now oppose the Constitution?
Neither major political party has followed the Constitution, as first consideration, in more than 50 years. Of the two, Democrats rarely cite the document and seem almost contemptuous of it. In fact, most of what they propose is easily argued to be outside the Constitution. They once defended parts of the Bill of Rights but I no longer see much of this. Republicans sometimes carry the document on their person but do not hold to it and thus much of what they propose is also outside the Constitution.
Constitutional ignorance is so prevalent. Have we reached a day when a major political party is openly against it ? President Barack Obama came close when he told the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014, referencing the U.S. Constitution. “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century.”
The obvious dig shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1), but Democrats did not wish to rebuke or confine their president. Still, Obama’s phrase was a mockery of the Constitution and should have been unacceptable to every American, whether said by a Republican or a Democrat. Ironically the Constitution is designed to harness presidents just like him, just like his predecessor George W. Bush, and his successor Donald Trump, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for their own constitutional abuser as also has happened for over 50 years.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution (whether ignorantly or intentionally), which is based upon time-tested human nature and natural law which do not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those who wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power at the expense of the people. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do and they will always need to be harnessed to that list. There will always need to be division of power and checks on each branch of government and presidents will always, as James Madison said, “have a propensity for war” and wish to use military power without consent. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can, in effect, purchase elections by “gifting” voters.
The magic of the Constitution is that it, as designed, does not distribute benefits or preferences to anyone. These are the reasons that it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. Lawmakers having problems with the Constitution are those that do not wish to be restricted in their governance of us and thus they belittle it and seek to convince us to give them more power in another one. Thus the ignorant comments regarding it by O’Rourke.
One of my favorite college courses to instruct was Contemporary Political Topics. Students were given a copy of the Constitution and required to problem solve with it and natural law rather than political party or philosophical persuasion. This base is justified because every politician has sworn to “protect, preserve and defend” this document. It is the instrument by which everything should be judged. The students loved it. Amazingly, from food stamps to climate change, we never found an issue that the Constitution did not address. Century, language or culture were irrelevant because human nature remains the same.
The “rule book written in a different century” is still as reliable as before. What we need today are presidents legislators and judges that know its limitations, love and interpret it as written. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply. Why?
Constitutional principles were once taught at every level of education and stories of the sacrifice of our Founders frequently recited with admiration. Today few schools teach these principles in grade school and fewer still in high school. In college the Constitution is tucked in the back of textbooks as an appendix in U.S. History and Political Science courses, hence very few actually read it. The history of the Constitution’s origin is housed in a chapter but constitutional principles seemingly have only informational value.
Constitutional illiteracy is almost universal to the point that those qualified to defend the Constitution as designed are becoming extinct. Students are not likely to defend it if they have never experienced it being defended. A real danger exists that if too few know or value its principles we will lose it—perhaps we already have. Some, like O’Rourke, say it is no longer relevant for our times. They couldn’t be more ill-informed.
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..
