Jan 23, 2019 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Mid December 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last year ending the individual mandate’s penalty, which is the heart of Affordable Care Act, also made Obamacare unconstitutional without it. Nineteen other state attorneys general joined in the lawsuit Texas v. Azar. Likely this is headed to the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court essentially resolved this question June 2012 with the same five to four composition of the Court that now exists, when Justice John Roberts changed sides ruling that the individual mandate was a tax, not a fine, therefore making it constitutional, a position denied by Democrats previously. But it saved Obamacare. Justice Roberts could be again the deciding vote. If he betrays original intent of the Constitution, as before, he may again do heavy damage to the Constitution.
Prior to Roberts unanticipated vote, Anthony M. Kennedy had been the unpredictable swing vote on the Court. Justice Kennedy, not happy with the Roberts’ switch saving Obamacare, said: “The court majority regards its statutory interpretation as modest. It is not.” Then, not hiding his distain for it added. “It amounts to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.” He called it “judicial legislation” and accused Chief Justice John Roberts of trying to “force on the nation a new act.”
Judicial activism is when a law of Congress is interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a way as to give it new meaning, which is what Justice Roberts did. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address of the inclination of government to do so. “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Usurpation, in his day meant twisting things around to extract meaning that was initially not there.
So what did Justice Roberts twist, or legislate, that changed the National Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) as passed by Congress? At the top of the list, his rewrite called it a tax when Congress never passed it as a tax and the political party passing it, and their President, Barack Obama, emphatically resisted any description of it as such.
Rich Lowry, a political commentator, said it best. “Obamacare as passed by Congress had a mandate to buy health insurance and a penalty for failing to comply. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court has an optional tax for those without health insurance. Obamacare as passed by Congress required states to participate in a massive expansion of Medicaid, or lose all their federal Medicaid funds. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court makes state participation in the Medicaid expansion optional.” In short, “Obamacare as passed by Congress didn’t pass constitutional muster. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court didn’t pass Congress” (The Umpire Blinks, by Rich Lowry, The Corner, National Review Online, June 29, 2012).
Judicial Legislation or Activism is not new. The desire for the Court to “legislate” through decisions expressed itself more fully the last sixty years as it attempted to “right” perceived wrongs instead of sending the faulted legislation back to the legislative branch for correction by the peoples’ representatives. By altering legislative law it has moved into state prerogatives such as education, state residency requirements, and imposed federal standards of procedure on local police to name but a few. In broadening its power base, far beyond constitutional restraints, it has almost destroyed the idea of two co-equal governments, one federal the other state, known as federalism.
In the National Affordable Healthcare Act the Supreme Court has effectively restrained further encroachment (mutilation) of the Commerce Clause, formerly used to increase its power, but opened wide the interpretive door that the federal government can control anything it taxes. So, does this mean that if the federal government wishes to control free speech, press, assembly, religion, guns, or any other activity, it first simply levies a tax on that activity? Apparently judicial legislation creates a “need” for additional judicial legislation. God help us!!
We must return to our foundation, the U.S. Constitution as written, without all the judicial or executive alterations that go beyond this document. According to Article I Section I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is no authority for either of the two other branches of government to make law—any law— and law made by Congress is specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 where 18 clauses identify the very limited powers of the federal government. So, even Congress cannot make any law they like.
The issue of health is not listed and is therefore, as per Amendment 10, entirely a state issue. The Supreme Court majority ruling ignored this long-term clarity and instead chose to violate the document they are charged with upholding.
Judge Reed O’Connor’s ruling rendering Obamacare unconstitutional may give the Supreme Court a chance to return to the Constitution as written. Unfortunately the deciding vote remains again with Roberts who can’t be trusted constitutionally and so Obamacare could still stand.
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.
Jan 14, 2019 | Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Hugo Chavez proclaimed December 6, 1998, when he was elected president of Venezuela, “Venezuela’s resurrection is under way and nothing and nobody can stop it.” At the time Venezuela had one of the best economies and highest per capita incomes in Latin America. The lure of socialism, where the government controls and distributes most everything, overwhelmed the country.
Twenty years later three million have fled from Chavez’s “new and improved” socialism and his people are starving. Public latrines are overflowing with urine, escalators do not work, public water systems and street lighting are not reliable and citizens eat from the public refuge. The average citizen has lost 20 pounds in the last several months. Today nearly 90% live in poverty and hyperinflation is nearing a million percent. The once oil-rich country now has the appearance of being war-torn. Socialism destroyed Venezuela.
The lure of socialism, something for nothing, first necessitates villainization of those who have. Those who produce become the “public enemy” class. Once this is accomplished the public, whose numbers are always the majority and poor, support the asset confiscation of those who have and produce—this usually by confiscatory taxes or outright governmental takeover.
The prosperity class is the group that risks capital loss to fund experimentation that produces businesses that results in jobs for the masses. When has a poor man created employment for others? Yes they are profit motivated which sometimes makes the investor more prosperous. That is the carrot that elevates society. But should they miscalculate they are the most hurt. When government makes prosperity unlikely through confiscatory taxes they quit investing. Government is inefficient by its nature. There exists no individual penalty for their mistakes once they are in power. Socialism destroys the creative investment class.
Chavez was right “nothing and nobody can stop it.” Once the productive class is destroyed it is all down hill. Fuera Maduro, the new president, could only offer more of the same socialist remedies that have never worked where socialism has been intrenched.
Beware of politicians who wish to do “good” with someone else’s money. They are abundant in both major political parties but have overwhelmed the Democratic Party, more especially the freshman class led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and will destroy liberty for us too. Here is why.
Under socialism vote power favors those who want things for free: food, welfare, housing, healthcare—even free college, as they in time become the majority. This process is accelerated, and corrupted, when politicians link government gift giving with being elected. This has happened in America too.
As the poor, as a class, always tend to favor government intervention and thus financial favors from government to their benefit, and since all government money comes from the middle and upper classes through ever increasing taxes, (presently 47% of the adult population pay no federal income tax and a good share of these make up the non-productive class) they eventually destroy the productive base of society as government takes over more of the economy by confiscation or regulation. The overriding principle is, the more socialism the higher the taxes and burden on the producing class.
Those who feed off the labor of others need to know what they are doing to a country by pushing for the “freebies.” An unknown author nailed the problem when he wrote.
“The folks who are getting the free stuff don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff. And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.
“And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting. Now, the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
“So, the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.
“We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.”
Ultimately voters learn that they can purchase members of Congress who will take from those who have and give it to them. Legalized plunder. As those who have are disincentivized to invest further, the poor class grows as does their cry for even more from those who have, thus the managerial and funding class are extinguished. The middle class is now seen as those who have and are next to be extinguished by the increasing strength of the poor class until all remaining are poor. This is Venenzuala now and the United States too soon if it does not change direction.
This is Economics 101 but many freshmen Democrat Congressmen appear oblivious to this. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s advocacy of a 70% income tax on Americans would escalate our economic demise.
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.
Jan 7, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
The United States is quickly becoming divided into the globalists and the patriots. They are at total war against each other. Since they are ideologically incomparable only one side can win. In time all will support one side or the other side. Readers already are, whether they are fully aware of what they support or not.
The globalists, often called the establishment or the deep state, prefer world-wide open borders, the eventual transfer of all political power to international levels, and eventually world government. National sovereignty is their enemy. The patriots prefer freedom from excessive government, independence from any governing entity other than Congress, patriotism, and today, the Constitution as written. The choice is uncannily similar to the choice given Americans in 1776.
The globalists, deeply imbedded in our parties and establishment medias, hated the following address and consequently minimized coverage of it in their print outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post, and network medias. If followed it would shut down their New World Order and world governance aspirations. It would spell a different foreign policy than practiced since World War II but far more in harmony with that of the Founding Fathers.
Chances are very good that readers missed important parts of what President Donald Trump told the United Nations September 25, 2018. It could be summarized in 12 words from it. “We reject the ideology of globalism and accept the doctrine of patriotism.” Adding, “America is governed by Americans.” Directed squarely at the globalists in the room, he effectively said, “We will keep our sovereignty and expect other nations to keep theirs as well.”
He told them. “We are standing up for America and for the American people. And we are also standing up for the world. That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination. I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions.” Then amazingly, in total contrast with every president since World War II, “The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”
Trump rejected one international organization in particular, created by the globalists to undermine our sovereignty, “The United States will provide no support in recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process.” He then added what most patriots wanted their government to say to the United Nations since its inception. “We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” He encouraged other nations to protect their sovereignty as well, “Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination.”
Imagine what the globalists in the room thought. The United States had been the lead founder and funder. Moreover, David Rockefeller donated the property to house the infant world government organization that since increasingly absorbs control over all nations of the earth. The United States is the principle reason the United Nations exists. All presidents have supported it. No president has spoken this way. Ronald Reagan alone opposed its growing power over the sovereignty of nations. He reduced US funding for it from 33% to 25%. Patriots cheered the Reagan move but now want more, which Trump seems ready to give. Most want removal from the organization altogether.
Trump turned to illegal immigration and human trafficking as threats to sovereignty also. “The United States is also working with partners in Latin America to confront threats to sovereignty from uncontrolled migration. Tolerance for human struggling and human smuggling and trafficking is not humane. It’s a horrible thing that’s going on, at levels that nobody has ever seen before. It’s very, very cruel.”
He addressed why the United States refused to participate in the new UN Global Compact on Migration. “We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests, just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same — which we are doing. That is one reason the United States will not participate in the new Global Compact on Migration. Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.”
Finally he spoke of the foundation of freedom as being national sovereignty, which must be preserved . “To unleash this incredible potential in our people, we must defend the foundations that make it all possible. Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.”
Trump ended, “So together, let us choose a future of patriotism, prosperity, and pride. Let us choose peace and freedom over domination and defeat. And let us come here to this place to stand for our people and their nations, forever strong, forever sovereign….”
The UN, the heart of world government and globalism, never had an address delivered like this; certainly the most important address of 2018.
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.
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.
