Dec 3, 2018 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Civil wars first begin with words. There is now little decorum or civility on the medias of both political parties who now openly call opponents liars and traitors; hostile words not previously used in respected media outlets. Is a second civil war coming? A July 2018, Rasmussen Reports survey poll reported most voters fear that political violence is coming, with 31% believing that a civil war will ensue within the next five years.
Ironically both major parties share this fear; 37% of Democrats and 32% of Republicans. This is stunning but even more stunning is the poll finding that “59% of all voters are concerned that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence, with 33% who are Very Concerned.” Not said, but implied in this statement, is that the Democrats, those most opposed to Trump policies, will start the violence that results in the civil war. Rarely does a Democrat senator vote for anything supported by Trump so hostile are they to his policies. The divide in Congress is almost total.
Many years ago at a county fair I saw a fist fight between adult males. It did not start with punches but words. Each referred to the other in derogative terms, followed by name calling, followed by arms to the side chests expanded almost touching, like roosters in a barn yard, this followed by descriptive phrases regarding the other’s mother, then by flung fists. Each “upped the anti” by succumbing to the next level of angered expression.
I see the same thing in the media and today’s political world. In the 1980’s Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather pretended to be objective but never were; careful viewers still knew, but civility was honored. No one openly described their opponents as liars, traitors or murderers as they do now. Then followed the segmentation of news into Republican (mostly Fox and talk radio) and Democrat news (MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and NBC), each with clear bias and no pretense of both sides or even of a middle. Viewers now choose networks that support their opinion and seek no other side.
Unfortunately Democratic politicians have been encouraging violence in their words. Former Vice President Joe Biden wants to beat up Donald Trump “behind the bleachers.” Senator Cory Booker wants his followers to “please get in the face of their congressmen” with their issues. Maxine Waters’ words suggest the same with mobs. “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she yelled. Adding later, that Trump and his team should be “absolutely harassed until they decide” to change their minds.” The Democratic Party chorus for the last two years has been to resist and obstruct any thing that Trump did and to impeach him. There was no other real message.
Several, presumably Democratic, movie stars, playwrights rappers and rockers too are promoting violence with their words and images, and thus a civil war, some seemingly inviting the assassination of President Trump. Rosie O’Donnell promotes a “Push Trump Off a Cliff” game. Madonna told a crowd that she had “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” Robert De Niro wants to “punch him in the face.” Comedian Kathy Griffin produced photos of her holding a fake bloody, decapitated Trump head. The NYC Public Theater modernized their play “Julius Caesar” with a Trump-like figure playing the title role being stabbed to death by a band of angry Senators.
Johnny Depp to an overseas crowd in the UK made an ill-considered joke: “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” An obvious reference to actor John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of Abraham Lincoln in the last Civil War. Rapper Big Sean in his new album “I Decided” rapped “And I might just kill ISIS with the same icepick/That I murder Donald Trump in the same night with.” Finally, Pearl Jam of the Seattle-based rockers released a cartoon poster “that featured a bald eagle picking at the rotting corpse of President Trump on the White House lawn” (“15 Stars Who Imagined Violence Against Donald Trump, From Kathy Griffin to Pearl Jam (Photos)” The Wrap, Aug. 15, 2018).
Unfortunately the nation has now moved beyond insulting words to aggression, incited by Democratic networks, politicians and stars, and many citizens have good reason to believe that things are escalating to a point of no return. In 2017 Senator Rand Paul, while mowing his lawn, was attacked and beat up by his neighbor over his conservative ideology. -James Hodgkinson opened fire on a congressional GOP baseball practice, injuring five, almost killing House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Numerous members of congress have been accosted or received death threats for their support of Trump. These include: Tom McClintock, Dana Rohrabacher, Tom Garrett, Martha McSally, David Kustoff, Kevin Cramer, and Claudia Tenney.
Breitbart has compiled a site called The list is now up to 258 which documents ongoing “acts of media-approved violence and harassment against Trump supporters.” As of November 5, 2018 it was 639 and climbing fast. For these victims the anticipated civil war has already begun having moved from words to violence and injury.
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 27, 2018 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Birth tourism, presently running rampart in the United States, is where foreigners intentionally coordinate their delivery dates with tourism ensuring that the birth happens while in this country. They remain the weeks necessary for the new birth certificate to be used to generate a passport for their newborn. Maternal centers, some sleazy others high end, created to accommodate the wait, run lucrative businesses (perhaps $50,000 per birth) encouraging “clients” from China, Russia, Turkey, Taiwan and Mexico primarily. Their “tour” ends with their child having citizenship and a passport with only a few weeks invested in this country. They return to their country with the child raised having dual citizenship.
Why is this attractive to them? Mart Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, shared four reasons for its popularity. First, if things go bad in one’s country at least the child, with a passport, can get out. Second, when the child is an adult he can sponsor his folks for immigration. For them “It is a “kind of retirement program,”with benefits. Third, it is a way for the chid to get cheaper tuition in American colleges as“foreign students have to pay more than U.S. citizens.” Fourth, it is a way for the child to avoid the draft in his home country, he simply goes to America. All of this for a little tour in the U.S. while having a baby (“The Ingraham Angle,” October 30, 2018).
But this practice is specifically forbidden by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which reads in part: “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.”
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 Howard who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted.
Notice also the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here. If diplomats of high honor are specifically exempted from birthright citizenship, mere tourists, without any specific distinction, certainly would not have it. They not only have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere but are specifically identified as ineligible, and thus cannot have birthright citizenship.
On birthright citizenship President Donald Trump is on solid constitutional ground as expressed by the Founders of the 14th Amendment. Because this is a Civil War amendment designed to keep previously rebelling southern states from prohibiting ex-slaves, or their children, from having citizenship and because of the inclusion of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” there exists no other interpretation without serious distortion of the amendment. Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment show no other interpretation. Birthright citizenship cannot be taken from those already citizens or their children.
Indians did not get citizenship until 1924 because they were not yet clearly, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government. One “cannot owe allegiance to anybody else,” argued, Senator Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. That would most certainly exclude those proudly carrying their native flags in the recent caravan invasion of our border.
So how should Trump proceed in getting America back to the Constitution as written? First he must immediately issue an executive order ending the practice of birth tourism based upon his oath of office to defend and preserve the Constitution and by the specific ambassadors exclusionary clause of the authors of the 14th Amendment itself. He can count on the enemies of the republic to sue to block the execution of the order. Such normally take many months to process. This allows immigration and the wall to remain lead issues in the election. America demands closure on this issue and it will reelect him.
A statute solution through Congress in favor of ending the perversion of the Constitution with respect to birthright citizenship for anyone illegally crossing the border is the much preferred solution. Should the courts rule against a Trump executive order on birth tourism he will know the timing is not yet right for the same on the bigger immigration issue. Should they follow the Constitution as intended, he will, with the birth tourism issue in his favor, immediately do the larger issue by executive order as well, more especially if the opposition party, which supports open borders, retains the House, or looks to retain the House in 2020. This also would result in a suit so if in late 2019 a Republican retake of the House is probable, without obstruction from his own party, it might be better to wait for a statute solution through Congress.
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 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.
