Nov 19, 2018 | Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The pilgrims realized that some kind of governing document was needed for the new colony, “as human nature is prone to disunity and differences that could be disruptive of peace.” Governor William Bradford thus described the circumstances under which the agreement came about.
“This day,[November 11, 1620] before we came to harbour, observing some not well affected to unity and concord, but gave some appearance of faction, it was thought good there should be an association and agreement, that we should combine together in one body, and to submit to such government and governors as we should by common consent agree to make and choose, and set our hands to this that follows, word for word…”
In other words, we agree to remain one body and to abide to common consent in deciding what is best for our community–even “word for word.” A democracy, if you will. That was a giant step for the time and a prelude for what would follow—eventually a republic. The idea that the peoples’ vote even mattered was revolutionary.
The Mayflower Compact contained just three sentences, the middle sentence is the heart of the document. It established a pure democracy. All have a common voice. All must obey the will of the majority. None can go their separate way if disaffected.
It read: “We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”
The actual landing of the Pilgrims occurred December 21 and work began on building houses two days before Christmas in the harsh New England winter. Women, children and the infirm remained on the Mayflower for another two weeks. Starvation, scurvy and lack of adequate shelter took 45 of the 102 emigrants the first winter. Of the 18 adult women 13 died the first winter, another the following May leaving only four alive for the 1st Thanksgiving the following Fall. Moreover the starving times lasted two additional years. Why?
What is not said, but resulted none the less, was the end of private property, and the free market system. No reason to excel if excellence is disincentivized. All were forced to accept the collective will with no opportunity, if disaffected, to take themselves out of it. The result, the colony almost starved to death. The Compact might well have said “Each will produce according to his ability and each will receive according to his need,” which phrase is the heart of socialism. Pure democracy (the collective will) tends to degenerated into socialism, which reduces or destroys incentive to produce or excel, which leads to shortages, which leads to the masses demanding an equal share of the less that is produced, which leads to an impoverished society.
This Thanksgiving Day we think of the Pilgrims enjoying abundant food, but this was not their real reality. Few focus on the starving times the first year in 1620 when nearly half died. Harvests were not bountiful in that year and the next two. Plymouth was beset by laziness and thievery. Governor William Bradford, in his History of Plymouth Plantation, reported that “much was stolen both by night and day” to alleviate the prevailing condition of hunger. The mythical “feast” of the first Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, he reported, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common. Why did this happen? Because they had fallen victim to collective will and the socialistic philosophy of mandated “share the wealth.” This dis-incentivized the productive base of society.
Then suddenly, as though night changed to day, the crop of 1623 was bounteous, and those thereafter as well, and it had nothing to do with the weather. Bradford wrote, “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” He concluded later, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
One variable alone made the difference and ended the three-year famine. They abandoned the notion of government (or corporation) owning the means of production and distribution in favor of the individual having property and being responsible to take care of himself. Before, no one benefited by working because he received the same compensation as those who did not. After the change everyone kept the benefits of his labor. Those who chose not to work basically chose also to be poor and the government (corporation) no longer confiscated from those who produced to give to those who did not. No government food stamps here.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 12, 2018 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most constitutional experts know that there exists no birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. LibertyUnderFire and others have made this case for many years. Unfortunately House Speaker Paul Ryan, represents the class of politicians least informed on this subject when he said “As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear,” If he were a constitutionalist he would know better.
Currently the Democratic Party leadership do not care whether it is, or is not, constitutional as they view all illegal immigrants as future democrats. The ignorance of the establishment press too is overwhelming. So we make the case once again.
Most have sympathy for those who were infants or born here when their parents illegally crossed the border and have lived here all their lives and know no other country. The 14th Amendment seems to validate such sympathy IF WE IGNOR SIX WORDS: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” A more careful read, however, shows that such was specifically and purposely denied, not supported. Consider the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The purpose of the clause was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, (already residents) and their descendants after the Civil War. It had nothing to do with immigration. Recipients were already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and while here have a baby. That baby, (excluding the six words) then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegal’s born in the U.S. rages on with virtually no one going to the source of the alleged authority—the crafters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment, (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom), to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and [already] subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
It was he who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted. Those crossing our borders illegally are clearly foreigners not residents, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus are specifically exempt from citizenship. Notice also the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here. The record of the Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment shows no other interpretation.
There is no such thing as automatic citizenship from this amendment without serious distortion of it. In fact, Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, addressing the definition of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” asked, “What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Those crossing our borders illegally have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere and thus cannot have birthright citizenship. How can a child of such a parentage have what his parents clearly do not have?
How many are born illegally in the United States per year? Statistics are difficult to validate but the Pew Hispanic Center study estimated 340,000 in 2008 alone and recent research has doubled illegal entry from 11 to 22 million, so births from illegals are also presumed double. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated the annual cost providing healthcare, education, and food stamps for many, and all other incidental costs at $2.4 billion—and that was based upon the presumed 11 million.
Citizenship was denied Native Americans until 1924 as they owed allegiance to their Sioux or Apache or Blackfoot, or whatever, Indian nations and thus were not yet “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the nation they lived within. Certainly one must cease to be at war or conflict with the conquering country. So just being on U.S. soil did not make them citizens automatically until the “jurisdiction thereof” part of the Amendment was satisfied..
Many of our Mexican friends send portions of their pay checks home to Mexico and plan to return to their native land upon retirement with pensions and/or social security sent to their “first” country from the country they extracted their wealth—the United States. Some vote in Mexican elections from here. It is indeed hard to argue that they are not instead subject to the jurisdiction of another land other than the United States–and most admit it. The 14th Amendment specifically denies birthright citizenship.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 1, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Every other year we are subjected to a national election, it is the price we must pay for our liberty and our Republic. Freedom is not a normal human experience. Most of humanity never had it. There are always those who would rule us tyrannically. Once empowered they normally rule for life and it takes bloodshed to get rid of them.
Unlike people of most countries, we have the opportunity to turn away those who would undermine our personal liberty or limit our free speech. Those who want to “force change” our government from a republic to a democracy and finally to socialism. Those who do not value or understand the Constitution but still wish to rule over us. Those who encourage politics of confrontation and intimidation. Those who do not honor our border, even encouraging illegals to break it down. Unfortunately, we have empowered enough of these types already.
Theoretically just one ignorant generation or one collective “bad vote” could lose it for generations to come. For most, filling out a ballot and the weeks involved in studying the issues and voting intelligently is not fun, but is a small price to pay for liberty.
With time we forget the price our forefathers paid for us to have more personal liberty than any other civilization in world history and the prosperity that emanates from a people free from excessive government. As a political science professor I often advocated a field trip living for a time under The National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI), yes socialism, under Adolph Hitler, or under socialism as practiced in the USSR by Joseph Stalin, or socialism under Fidel Castro in Cuba. Or, today, the results of it as practiced in Venezuela.
People fled these countries to have what we have. One could not publicly condemn their leaders, distribute Bibles, or attend church without being arrested, tortured, and given long prison sentences. Our veterans died in foreign lands protecting us from socialism. Now politicians bring it to our doorsteps and we vote for it. My point, freedom is not free, never has been and, worse, can be lost by votes.
So should I vote when I am unfamiliar with the issues. Yes, but only on the issues that you have paid the price to know.
Having said this, it is also true that in some voting categories, such as judges, it is unlikely to be totally informed. These are appointed and uncontested seats. No political ideology preferences are cited. The only way an intelligent voter could discern would be to have been in the candidates courtroom as an observer, victim or one accused of a crime. These instances are unlikely for 90% of the voting population. Thus there is no shame in leaving voting to those that have had “real” experience.
The county sheriff may be the most important official on the ballot because he is the only elected law enforcement agent standing between you and the federal government. Does he know this and will he choose to protect you should such a clash happen? Few will, but in 2013 most sheriff’s in the Western States did stand against the Obama Administration’s attempt to redefine the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Support a sheriff who will protect your constitutional rights!
Some propositions or proposed constitutional amendments too are so complex and full of legalese that many voters are not qualified to vote intelligently. Most voters get their views on these issues from 20 second pro or con political ads—hardly reliable sources. In a republic we hire those we feel to be qualified to understand these deep concerns through elections. For 40 years I asked my students how many months, weeks, days or hours they studied a proposition. If less than a day, unless you have expertise in the area, why should you feel qualified to have the same power as one who spent months. Leave it blank. Let those who have invested this kind of time make this decision.
Bond issues are complex only in that many people do not associate bonds as debt. If they did far fewer would be approved. Whatever the bond, largely education, you are agreeing to be taxed for some lengthly period of time. Often these are somewhat dishonest. Those pushing bond issues almost always show the most impoverished circumstances as normal for their districts thus portraying the children as victims and those who oppose as “against education.” Our culture lavishly funds high class educational facilities. As an educator,I have not seen a situation where a little “belt tightening” was not possible. Prepare to be called a heretic, however, if you oppose this “sacred cow.” Finally, there are never any bonds proposed to assist charter or home schooling which is increasing the choice of many parents. These folks are forced to pay for the government schools and home schools.
I hope these suggestions help in this or other elections. Realize, however, that you may be a better citizen by leaving blank the things that you have not personally studied, —otherwise your vote could make you dangerous to the concepts of a republic, the Constitution, and liberty. You do not want to be the one ignorant generation or one collective “bad vote” that lost it for generations to come.
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.
Oct 29, 2018 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Presently money for elections can come from other countries, states, counties, or districts other than from where the candidate will serve allowing outside sources, those of wealth—even billionaires—to buy influence.This often diminishes the power of the citizens themselves to choose their own representatives.
Moreover, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a popular 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.
More funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy your opponent or get your message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. The candidate with the most money and publicity usually wins 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 or influence from outside their district, it would stop much influence peddling.
LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in our nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the Constitution. “All election funding, outside candidate’s personal wealth, (individuals or organizations), in all federal elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”
Billionaires or organizations could still fund causes but not candidates. Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This would not stop, nor is it intended to stop, the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, funded by perspective voters within the district.
Under this amendment the 1996 Bill Clinton campaign could not have received money from China to influence the election; nor from any individual not eligible to vote for president, nor could Clinton Foundation monies be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Some of us still remember the Bill Clinton Chinese Fundraising Scandal involving DNC finance chairman John Huang and Chinese nationalist Johnny Chung. The DNC was forced to return more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals, largely from China to gain favor in the Clinton Administration.
Neither could the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who fund many Republican Party candidates on the right side of the political spectrum, and George Soros, or Tom Steyer, who fund Democratic Party candidates on the left, influence any federal contest to which they cannot personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only THEIR congressman or senator —not a large group of them.
Both Soros and Steyer bankrolled far left 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 [Steyers home town], 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 Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he promised to spend on the midterms.
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. Laws presently limit the amount of individual contributions but the “rich” find loopholes in donating as in the case of Gillum.
The “rich” have been involved in influencing elections at least since the 1896 “giants of the Industrial Revolution” buyout of William McKinley for president when they used their money to bury opponent William Jennings Bryan. This amendment would not have stopped that as all citizens elect the president—only a rigorous enforcement of present law governing individual contributions could do that.
Nor would it have stopped J.P. Morgan’s1915 purchase of the 25 leading newspapers in the United States establishing “Morgan editors” over each, presumably to influence public opinion favorable to his interests ( Oscar Callaway, Congressional Record, February 9, 1917, Vol. 54, pp. 2947-48.). Nor would it have prevented Morgan and David Rockefeller’s 1921creation of The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) organization to steer the country into “Wall Street” dominance and global government, which now is self propelling although its founders are deceased. The CFR has provided much of the leadership of both major political parties and major news outlets.
Nor will it today stop all of George Soros’ 11 major influence groups, some of which sponsor activities that border on treason. Funding Antifa, Kavanaugh “Hearing disruptors,” and those accosting Senate committee members may have to wait for other solutions. But the amendment will prevent most billionaire election buyouts. Expect enormous billionaire 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.
Oct 23, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In a recent column “Billionaires Battle to Get Your Vote” LibertyUnderFire documented leading funders for the right side of the political spectrum in the 2016 election as the Koch brothers, Charles and David. Those on the left side of the political spectrum were David Rockefeller (recently deceased) and George Soros. A new billionaire, Tom Steyer, has emerged outpacing both the right and the left in funding elections. But influence from the wealthy is nothing new.
The “rich” have been involved in directing public opinion for over a hundred years, first noted in our history textbooks, when Mark Hanna, who made his fortune in the iron business, paid off Congressman William McKinley’s personal indebtedness of $100,000, and elevated him onto the stage for president. He next “shook down” the giants of the Industrial Revolution, banking, oil, steal, railroads, and etc. who wanted markets and “spheres of influence” overseas.
Capitalizing on their fear that they would lose their influence over government and money to someone like William Jennings Bryan, who would actually represent the common people, Hanna raised an enormous slush fund, the largest in U.S. History, of 16 million to Democratic opponent William Jennings Bryan’s mere one million. This enabled the giants of the Industrial Revolution to unite to “buy” the presidency for William McKinley in 1896.
With Mckinley’s successful conquest of much of Spain’s colonial holdings (Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam) colonialism and world influence became the Republican Party’s foreign policy. When it became much less popular due to its needing to be defended by American troops, wall street influence went underground.
President Woodrow Wilson spoke of this hidden force in his book The New Freedom (1913), when he wrote: “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and others later united the class of wealth into the Institute of International Affairs in 1919, then two years later changed the name to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) thereafter providing the leadership and foreign policy of both major political parties and globalism took root in each. Rockefeller nephew David, in 1973 spread the wall street influence over Japan, Western Europe and North America in an effort to unify those three regions in his Trilateral Commission. This was the foreign policy of both major political parties and much of the West and Japan until Donald Trump’s election in 2016.
Although David is recently deceased, his organization, the CFR, is the most influential political organization in the United States and will be for decades to come. Moreover, the leadership of The New York Times and Washington Post, like the government, is filled with its members ensuring a wide dissemination of their globalist messages; a message emulated by hundreds of other newspapers.
Enter CFR member 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 so far another $15 million in the present midterms. His specialty is not gradual influence toward the left and world government as has been the influence of the CFR, but hard-core socialism and globalism. No one has as many organizations as combat ready and as highly financed, as does George Soros. These include: ACORN, the Tides Foundation, Sojourners, The Quantum Fund, Media Matters, The Open Society Institute, Friends of the Earth, The Center for American Progress, The Apollo Alliance, The American Constitution Society and, MoveOn.org.
Enter San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer who “promised to spend at least $30 million to elect progressives [popular synonym for socialist] this campaign season” making him the “most important Democratic donor in the United States.” Steyer is openly urging the presidents removal through impeachment, even funding a video to that effect, and has, with Soros, bankrolled far left 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. Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run” (Ingraham Angle, August 29, 2018).
The 100-plus year generational influence of the Rockefeller’s, John and David, and their organizations, principally the CFR, together with that of 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.
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.
Oct 15, 2018 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Most do not fully understand the influence of the billionaire class on our elections—many times more than Russia or China put together. Before voting in the midterms it might be wise to assess what billionaire influences you support.
Liberal news outlets, which are all the major networks except Fox News, and some radio talk shows, want followers to know that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, unduly fund Republican Party candidates and causes on the right side of the political spectrum. Liberal newspapers include almost all big city newspapers and most major national news magazines.
Conservative news outlets often fail to mention the Koch brothers and speak only of George Soros as the big funder for most liberal outlets. Neither mentions the other, leaving the impression that only the other is buying elections. Candidates cross and crisscross America with alms bowls in hand begging the mega-rich to buy them.
First let us consider George Soros. His money, exceeding $32 billion, is targeted for influence and political power over this nation and the world—all directed to the far left side of the political spectrum and the globalization (code for world government) of the world. Prominent among his myriad of well-funded socialist organizations are: ACORN, the Tides Foundation, Sojourners, The Quantum Fund, and Media Matters. Some of these organizations operate in other countries, as for example, The Open Society Institute (spends 425million a year on socialist causes) and Friends of the Earth, designed to build support for an international network of organizations dedicated to the environment. The Center for American Progress schedules their “experts” for talk show events even developing talking points for them. The Apollo Alliance played a major role in the development of the Stimulus Bill in 2010. The American Constitution Society defends far-left interpretations of the Constitution. And, MoveOn.org organizes action alerts to followers via the Internet.
Likely no other one person, outside deceased David Rockefeller’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (organizations remaining the most powerful special interest groups in the U.S.), each also promoting the left and world government, has as many organizations as combat ready and as highly financed, as does George Soros. He hosted fundraisers for President Obama and made numerous visits to the White House. There is reason to believe that Soros greatly influenced the Obama presidency on: The Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade, opposition to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and banking reform.
Even now he is believed to be financing the communist/socialist/anarchist Antifa, the hundred or so demonstrations against President Trump the past two years, and the present impeach Trump and Brett Kavanaugh demonstrations. Most of the “yellers” in the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings and those pounding and scratching the doors of the Supreme Court to force unlawful entree, just days ago, are believed to be funded by him. Still, the left side of the political spectrum fails to see this as threatening and dangerous to our republic.
Now for the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who built Koch Industries making it one of the largest privately held corporation in American. Their semi-annual summits attract the candidates, who discuss policy, and likeminded donors. “Freedom Partners is the central hub for the Koch-backed network that includes groups like the activist-recruiting Americans for Prosperity, the millennial-targeting Generation Opportunity and the Hispanic-wooing Libre Initiative. Taken together, the Koch-endorsed groups make up a political machine that raises and spends more money than any other republican outlet.
Democrats accuse Koch-backed groups of airing tens of millions of dollars in negative ads against incumbent Democratic lawmakers in the past and of helping the Republicans win a majority in the Senate. They also accuse them of funding the Tea Party movement—a charge without foundation. As far as we can document the Koch brothers have not funded demonstrations, street violence resulting in property damage, or confrontation with police and followers do not wear face coverings to hide their identities, like Antifa.
Obviously funding candidates and founding organizations pushing ideology is the game of some billionaires on both sides. The candidate with the most money and publicity usually wins and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote. Some may argue, since both sides are doing the same thing that it is, in this respect, fair. But both parties project the image that only the other party invites billionaire influence.
This columnist, however, is unable to find the right side of the political spectrum, funding a single riot, or “yeller” dragged out of a committee hearing for disruptive behavior, or mob activity in the streets blocking traffic or damaging automobiles, or driving out of restaurants conservatives (even Senator Cruz) dining with their spouses, or cornering senators in elevators threatening them if they do not change their vote , or attempting to force entree into the Supreme Court. None!! So although billionaire candidates and organizations dominate both political parties there remains quit a difference.
So the question is, what billionaire buys your vote? One problem, however, is that since the media personnel haven’t themselves, as a group, voted less than 80% for a Democrat in the White House for the last 50 years, most Americans only hear about the Koch brothers as buying elections.
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.
