Jun 18, 2018 | Liberty Articles
Trump Too Delays JFK Assassination Files! Why?
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No president has insisted on the release of the secret John F. Kennedy Assassination files more than President Donald J. Trump. Last October 17, he tweeted, “Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.” Then six days later, “After strict consultation with General Kelly, the CIA and other Agencies, I will be releasing ALL JFK files other than the names and addresses of any mentioned person who is still living.” When the CIA and FBI refused to comply he gave them a deadline of April 26, 2018. When they still refused his direct order on the basis that release could harm “identifiable national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns” Trump extended the date by three years to October 26, 2021. Why?
Based upon what we know now the assassination was a conspiracy. The vast majority of those old enough to remember the assassination believe it to have been, the over 2,000 books written on the subject show or argue that there were other bad players in the event, Dr. Charles Crenshaw an operating surgeon who placed Kennedy in the coffin at Parkland Hospital testified the neck wound was an entry wound proving more than a single assassin, among the vast number of other testators. Thirteen years later The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1976 concluded: “President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.”
The Warren Commission sealed the unpublished portion of their findings for 75 years (one life-time) and the House Select Committee, 50 years. Intentionally withholding evidence is conspiratorial.
No government agency seals something this long, now 55 years, unless it is huge. The CIA is an accomplice! They are the ones refusing to surrender the data. Perhaps this is so big that it includes a former president potentially damaging a political party and thus would be headlined news for weeks. Why would we not want all accomplices brought to justice even more so if a president and his CIA were involved? Trump agreed to have “the names and addresses of any mentioned person who is still living” redacted and presumably everyone involved is already dead. So what could possibly be the problem?
The problem is that it is huge enough to dominate the news for sometime distracting potential mid-term voters from the best economy in two decades, unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics and women perhaps the lowest ever, the lowest tax cuts for the middle class in decades, unprecedented reduction of bureaucratic regulations, the destruction of the invincible ISIS, unprecedented breakthroughs with Korea, returning factories and jobs to America, restoring fair trade with nations whose trade balances have robbed so much of our middle-class wealth, exposing the deep state and its contrived fake Russia Collusion to destroy the presidency of a duly elected president, and finally bringing to light the Clinton Email, Foundation, and Uranium One Scandals, to name a few. Like Trump or not, in 18 months he has done more good for this nation than the two previous presidents combined.
The problem is the establishment media refuses to cover these historic achievements and the Trump momentum. The Kennedy Assassination story was concealed for 55 years by the Deep State, what is three more years compared to that now being accomplished? Most already know that our government was at least complacent. Such can wait until Trump is safely reelected and the story does not have the potential to derail this momentum, which benefits most Americans. Exposing the corruption in our government 55 years ago, outside of helping us harness the Deep State, does little. Those protected are probably safely dead.
Still, as the year’s fly by, and new data surfaces from the hundreds of books on the subject, it is increasingly more difficult to dismiss, as an accomplice, Lyndon Baines Johnson and his CIA/FBI friends. Especially revealing are three noteworthy books: Blood, Money, & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip Nelson and Texas in the Morning by Lyndon Johnson’s long-time mistress, Madeline Duncan Brown. Brown “takes you to the meeting the night before the assassination. She reveals the identities of the men in that room. She shares the story of Lyndon Johnson coming late to the meeting, then emerging in a fury, grabbing her by the arms so hard it hurt, and swearing in a rage, ‘After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedy’s will never embarrass me again—and that’s not a threat, that’s a promise!’ ”
The link to Johnson is not a new theory. More and more theorists have centered on Johnson for numerous reasons including his being the leading beneficiary of the death of his presidential predecessor and his immediately placing himself in charge of assembling the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination—even allegedly picking the individuals to serve thereon. Congress, with no vested interest in the outcome, should have formed the investigating committee. Johnson gained the most coveted office in the world. It is no secret that Kennedy planned to remove him from the ticket in the next election.
If the destroy-Trump media did not have to cover Trump’s accomplishments they wouldn’t and the president is not likely to give them a valid reason not to. We can wait.
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.
Jun 11, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Iowa is the 15th state to reject the proposed Article V Convention of States thus far this year. Going off the established process of constitutional change is too radical for most. They remain comfortable with both houses of Congress proposing one amendment at a time followed by its ratification by three fourths of the states.
But Article V does allow a second method should Congress refuse to make needed change. “On the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” This is thought to be necessary primarily because Congress will not authorize an amendment to force itself to balance its budget and failure to do so allows destructive unrestricted spending by both political parties. Congress has not proposed a constitutional change since the 27th Amendment in May 1992.
But instead of states using Article V to force an amendment to balance the budget activists from both the right and the left say, in effect, we have a number of other issues that also need amendment power. But this creates the problem of multiple amendments to consider simultaneously without sufficient venting of each.
Constitutionalists say lets continue to propose just one change at a time so that it gets a full review and we do not open the floodgates of unintended consequences for what we do not want. The 14th Amendment is criticized today because it allowed multiple issues in one amendment, which opened the door to the most vague interpretations and thus law never intended by its founders. Constitutionalists welcome a balanced budget amendment by itself but that is not now what Conventionalists are proposing.
Once the Convention of States is formed, and amendments to the constitution are proposed, these changes are ratified by state power alone—the federal government may propose but it is excluded from the process of enlarging or reducing its power. Ratification requires three-fourths of either state legislatures or state conventions (a process that opens participation to the public) “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Congress selects the mode presumably common for all states.
But a convention of states method was only tried at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. To make it open ended is risky. Whatever happens creates legal precedent for the future and thus the danger. Many see the convention process as returning to what the Founders did when they were commissioned to repair the then existing Constitution. Once together they chose to instead dump The Articles of Confederation creating a different constitution, what they had not been commissioned to do. Congress, after receiving their report, simply forwarded it to the states and in that act legitimized it.
Common knowledge that the existing constitution was not repairable, the Federalist Papers explaining the new constitution’s natural law and human nature base, and belief that God was assisting, made success possible. Today I cannot name 55 (the number signing the Constitution) persons in all of government, federal or state that I would trust to design a better Constitution than now exists.
Convention enthusiasts, mostly Republicans, believe that they can hold at bay the proposals of opposing parties or that Congress can somehow control the proposals and their specificity, but Congress has nothing to say once gathered, any more than it did in 1787. Even had Congress such power, enthusiasts have too much faith in Congress doing the right thing. The call for a Convention of States is based upon their long history of NOT following the Constitution as written. Were Congress to return to the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 there would exist no need for another convention.
Enthusiasts also have too much faith in states having management power over convention delegates before and during the proposal convention or delegate removal power should a delegate go rogue. But what if they all go rogue as in 1787? The states also have a long history of NOT following the Constitution as written. The Constitution itemizes the powers of Congress as noted above. All unlisted powers remain with the states as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Were the states to uphold this one amendment they could force the federal government to uphold the Constitution ending the need for another convention.
Somehow convention enthusiasts believe that if they get delegates and office holders pledged by oath to uphold new amendments the changes will follow but all federal, state, county and city officials are already so pledged and such is ignored. Article IV, Section II reads: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” If these already violate their oaths on a regular basis what evidence exits that they will not violate the new oath? The call for a new Convention of States is based upon the fact that they dishonored their oath to uphold the Constitution.
No wonder Iowa and 14 sister states rejected this dangerous and unpredictable method of constitutional change.
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.
Jun 5, 2018 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
Put bluntly Democrats vastly support extermination of their unwanted preborn and Republican support is less likely. Two recent issues have forced a wider gulf on abortion than ever: science has shown a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy and many taxpayers oppose funding extermination clinics. If we followed the Constitution abortion would not be government approved in all states and the practice would not be federally funded.
Republican Iowa governor, Kim Reynolds, just signed a law banning abortions when a heartbeat can be detected, normally about six weeks of pregnancy. The new law, set to begin July 1, will replace a 20-week law passed last year. Exceptions to the law include some cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life, otherwise it is pretty firm. Acknowledging that the law may be litigated she said: “This is bigger than just a law, this is about life, and I’m not going to back down.” Mississippi already has a similar law banning extermination after 15 weeks.
Opposed by Democrats and supported by Republicans, a string of other states are poised to legislate it in. When the term to justify extinction was “viability” of the fetus (even full-term deliveries are not viable without human intervention) elimination appeared “reasonable” to some until science showed the existence of a heartbeat at 16 weeks, then it seemed more like a human baby—like killing humankind. Especially when most physicians believe fetus pain is present.
The other issue, funding primarily extermination centers like Planned Parenthood, with forced taxpayer dollars through Title X seemed wrong and unjust to those who view abortion as killing their own. For years those for abortion have gotten away with terminology suggesting that what existed in the womb was a mere glob of cells or just tissue, the result, conditioned public insensitivity. Forgive my intended bluntness to shock even the most insensitive into understanding the issue.
Many who work in Planned Parenthood centers admit that perhaps 80% of what they do is exterminate underdeveloped humans. This is not family planning; it is instead the destruction of the family. Nor are such centers primarily for women’s health unless you can argue that pregnant women are unhealthy because they are pregnant. Abortion is not healthcare.
If women’s health were the real issue, redistributing the annual $260 million in Title X grants, now given to Planned Parenthood, to instead hundreds of genuine comprehensive women’s health clinics would better serve vastly more women. But funding extermination centers remains the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood.
Since Roe Vs. Wade we have aborted 60,449,039 in the U.S (http://www.numberofabortions.com/). A review of abortion pictures on the Internet often show tiny human body parts separated from the whole body when a scalpel was used to cut up the body making it easier to expel.
Sadly abortion would not be a federal issue if both political parties followed the listed limits of federal power in the Constitution as designed. The word abortion is not found in the Constitution, nor inferred, and no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving it from a state power (where all powers not specifically identified in the Constitution as federal reside) to a federal prerogative. Instead, from its inception, the Constitution housed the philosophy of federalism, (shared government), the federal government to manage foreign, and the states domestic, policy.
Without constitutional perversion to original intent the Supreme Court cannot rule, as it did in Roe Vs. Wade in 1973, in such a way as to create new law in an area where no federal law first existed or was subsequently added by way of a constitutional amendment. That we have traveled some 45 years from the Constitution in this particular area is not authority to extend that travel.
Article 1, Section 8 lists federal powers. This clause divides all federal power into the four following areas: to tax, pay debt, provide for the general welfare and common defense. So as to restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two grants of power of the four each had an additional eight clauses giving clarity to what was meant by general welfare (clauses 2-9) and common defense (clauses 10-17). Outside these qualifiers the federal government has no power to tax, spend, legislate, administrate or adjudicate.
Even with the clarification of the list, states fearing that the federal government might still like to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions harnessing it more fully to the enumerated powers, hence the Bill of Rights. These end with the handcuffs of Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding or assuming powers clearly not on it is that each time it does so, even once, the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. The result, in this case, is that mothers, encouraged by their federal government, exterminated over 60 million of their own; about ten times the number of Jews killed in the Nazi holocaust death camps, universally condemned.
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.
May 28, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most people ignorantly refer to our political system as a democracy although this word is not in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any document given to us by our Founding Fathers. Our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag identifies our form of government as a republic.
Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” A republic has seven major components each specifically designed to keep it from becoming a democracy as democracy eventually destroys liberty.
First, the importance of majority rules is recognized but limited. Is the majority always right? No! Mother made this point when her teenager asked to smoke marijuana on the basis that everyone was smoking it. “If everyone jumped off a bridge would you?”
Second, minority rights (less than 50%) are protected from the majority. In Franklin’s analogy the lamb had the right to exist even if the majority, the wolves, said differently. A lynch mob is a democracy, everyone votes but the one being lynched. Even if caught in the act of a crime the defendant is entitled to the protection of law, a judge, jury, witnesses for his defense, and a lawyer to argue his innocence; all necessary but expensive. Then, if found guilty, hanged. Because democracy only considers majority rules it is much less expensive. A rope tossed over a tree limb will do.
Third, a republic is based upon natural inalienable rights first acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence. This document asserted to the world that we acknowledge that humans have rights from a source higher than mere man. A reference to deity is mentioned five times. If there is no God there can be no inalienable rights coming from him and we are left with man as God. What man is good enough?
Fourth, a republic emphasizes individual differences rather than absolute equality, as democracy does. We are not equal, even from the womb, and never will be if equality means sameness. One baby with a cleft pallet needs three surgeries to look normal. Some come out of the womb with a laptop, others with a basketball, and the real tough deliveries are those bringing their golf clubs. One of my first great insights in life was that everyone was better at everything than I. The second was that life is not fair and never will be. Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. Genetics makes one fat, another bald, and gives yet another terminal cancer in his youth.
Even economically it is not possible to be equal. Should I give each student a million dollars in exchange for everything they now own, shave their heads, and give them identical uniforms, to approximate sameness as much as possible, with the only requirement that they return in five years with some ledger of net worth. Would they be the same in what was left of the million? No! Why does government try so hard to do what is impossible? A republic, unlike a democracy, looks upon our differences as assets.
Fifth, limited government is also a major aspect of a republic. Centralized government is good so long as it remembers that when it oversteps its bounds it becomes the greatest obstacle to liberty as it pulls decision-making power away from the individual. Excessive government, as the cause of the American Revolution, is never forgotten. The Constitution as created handcuffed the government from dominating our lives by listing the powers of the federal government (Article I, Section 8). The Founders understood that the more government at the top the less at the bottom and that was the opposite of freedom.
Sixth, a republic has frequent elections with options. Frequent elections happen in some socialist countries, so this alone does not ensure liberty. In fact, it may be somewhat deceiving as it fosters the notion that we choose, thus deserve, our elected officers. It also assumes that the people are correctly informed, which assumes a free press and equal access to all information. The part of the phrase “with options” is the part that ensures liberty. Elections under socialism provide choices but often no options when all participants are from the same party.
Seventh, there is a healthy fear of the emotion of the masses and of its potential to destabilize natural law upon which real freedom is based, as for example the notion that some one else’s wealth belongs to them. Such destroys freedom as it had in Athens and Rome. We need a caring, sensitive, compassionate government but emotion must not be allowed to overwhelm reason and time-tested natural law constants. Aristotle taught that the poor will always envy the rich and the rich will always have contempt for the poor. A republic will not allow the poor to destroy the rich in their quest for the wealth of the rich, but does incentivize the poor to increase their wealth thus becoming the middle class, which in time become the largest body.
As explained, democracy does not protect liberty. In Ben Franklin’s analogy it would have allowed the wolves to have eaten the lamb simply because the lamb had been outvoted. No wonder our Founders rejected democracy in favor of a republic.
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.
May 22, 2018 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We drove down a quiet country road, trees and green meadows in every direction. Mount Carmel, the famous Branch Davidian compound/church, was a sharp turn to the right. Gone was the mailbox at the entrance with Branch Davidian Church clearly written on it in big black letters where the once 100-plus residents of a devout break-off of the Seventh-day Adventist Church received their mail.
Once on the grounds, we were met with two simple memorials each telling us that something very significant and violent had happened here; one to the four ATF agents killed in the February 28, government raid. A few feet away was a shrine of sorts with a name on a plague for each of the 76 Davidians (19 men, 34 women, 23 children) who lost their lives in the fiery furnace in their place of residence 25 years ago, April 19, 1993. Sympathetic visitors had left money on one of the shrines.
A gravel road, less than a fourth of a mile long, lay in front with a couple of buildings to the right. The second of which was the home of the only actual Branch Davidian a part of the group now available, disaffected at the time of the raid, but now the minister of the sect now renamed The Branch. The road wound down curving to the left and ending in front of a newly built chapel placed on the exact same corner as once stood the chapel part of the Branch Davidian structure; the double entrance door precisely placed where the original double doors once were. Davidians argued that bullet holes in them came from outside and ATF agents that they came from inside. This would prove the origins of the assault, but the doors have disappeared. The famous structure was gone but cement foundation remnants were still clearly visible.
It was hard to imagine Abram tanks encircling the building running over trikes and bikes of the children destroying all in their path where now a freshly planted garden exists. Is this the place where military helicopters at one time sprayed bullets into a church/home? Dick De Guerin, David Koresh’s lawyer, who spent 30 hours in the compound during the 51-day seize, told Dianne Sawyer of ABC News, of bullet holes in the ceiling—one presumably wounding David Koresh himself (Harold Pease, The Waco Massacre: We Did It For The Children, video, 1994)
Was this really the site of loud music being played at night, presumably to frighten the residents, sometimes accompanied with sounds of squealing rabbits being slaughtered? Most chilling was probably the lyrics of Nancy Sinatra’s song frequently played, “These boots are made for walking, and that’s just what they’ll do. One of these days, these boots will walk all over you.” And, “You keep playin’ where you shouldn’t be playin,’ and you keep thinkin’ that you’ll never get burnt. Ah, I’ve just got me a brand new box of matches, yeah and “ what he knows you ain’t had time to learn.” Really!?!
A Congressional investigation identified incendiary devices on the property suggesting the government started the fire, not the Davidians as the government and their complacent media asserted. With winds blowing through the structure all life was destroyed within 20 minutes, including the little children, yet today only Branch Davidians have served jail sentences (Waco: Rules of Engagement, Congressional Investigation, video, 1997). At the trial of survivors many felt the wrong people were on trial.
Was this really the place where deadly CS gas was pumped into the complex for two hours? The vast majority breathing the poisonous gas were mothers and children. It hardly seemed possible. Now birds chirp away and the grassy meadow gives the place exquisite serenity.
Is this the place where FBI snipers were shooting Branch Davidians as they tried to escape a certain fiery death, presumably to burn and erase all evidence of their blunderous, even unlawful, conduct, as alleged? In the dining room of the Davidian complex at least 17 bodies had bullet holes in them. Subsequently empty cartridge shells have been found in one of the three-sniper positions now known to exist in the back of the complex. Is this the place where many of the children were taken into the church’s cement record vault room (referred to as the bunker) to escape the fire, which new evidence reveals was penetrated from above by a military explosive device, probably immediately killing the mothers and children huddled together inside (Video, “Waco: A New Revelation,” 2011)?
A new Branch member, serving a caretaker role over the property, told me of federal agents returning to the scene asking forgiveness. One sorrowful agent admitted to having assisted the snipers with a telescope. The caretaker ended saying, “There will be others.”
Video coverage show tanks with mounted U.S. flags attacking citizens also flying a U.S. flag in front of their burning church/home. How is this possible? Shown also are helicopters with mounted machine guns and the use of Delta Force personnel on the property. How can anyone believe that this happened in America in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act forbidding the military any function in law enforcement? Yet the evidence is overwhelming that it did, in this now quiet, serene, and beautifully “meadowed” environment with birds chirping the sounds of peace 25 years later?
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.
May 15, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease
In electoral contests today almost everyone, in both major political parties, advocate democracy but our Founding Fathers ran from the word as fast as they could advocating instead a republic. We need to do the same if we really understand liberty. Those using the term “democracy” either intentionally use the term to undermine individual liberty or show themselves as ignorant of the basics of our government. In either case, we are wise to reject them in preference to candidates rejecting democracy.
Given our continual drift from a republic to a democracy, it might be well to review what historical philosophies most favored democracy as a form of government. The Founding Fathers and the socialists were total opposites on the word democracy, one distained; the other loved.
Of those who favored democracy: the most blunt was Karl Marx, the father of communism (the most violent form of socialism). He wrote, “Democracy is the road to socialism,” implying that one cannot have socialism without first having democracy.
Vladimir Lenin, the socialist revolutionary bringing it to Russia, agreed. In his 1905 work, Two Tactics of Social Democracy, he saw democracy as a strategy leading to his desired socialist revolution. “Social-Democracy, however, wants, … to develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.” In a letter to Inessa Armand in 1916, he added, “We Social-Democrats always stand for democracy, not ‘in the name of capitalism,’ but in the name of clearing the path for our movement, which clearing is impossible without the development of capitalism.” Class conflict and the philosophy “share the wealth” were, and remain, central to the empowerment of communism.
Those who abhorred democracy: as far as we are able to ascertain, included all the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Years later, when Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, a woman inquired of him, “What form of government have you left us?” the brilliant Franklin answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The phrase expressed some doubt as to whether man could understand the value of a republic enough to protect it from becoming a democracy.
So, once again, what is wrong with democracy? James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in his Federalist Paper, No. 10, wrote, “In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” Thomas Jefferson agreed but was more blunt; “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” On another occasion he reasoned that the Republic would “cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson’s supposed political archrival, saw it similarly. “We are now forming a republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.”
Now we understand why the word democracy is not found in any of our original founding documents, not even in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Our system, a republic, protects us from the less informed masses, which is always the majority. This is why, until the perversion of the Constitution by the 17th Amendment, the state legislature selected their two U.S. Senators—not the people. This is why the Electoral College selects the president and why the people have no voice in the selection of Supreme Court members.
If one calls this undemocratic the Founders would agree. Their review of history showed them that democracy in Athens and Rome led to tyranny by the majority that then destroyed liberty in both places.
Recent census reports show about half of our adult population pay no federal income tax. When that number exceeds 50% we will join the fallen republics of Athens and Rome with their “bread and circuses” as examples of the majority voting to feed their wants from those who produce. When the “rich” are destroyed by socialism, as in the former USSR, and cannot provide the customary free stuff any more, the majority, who came to believe that it was owed them, take to the streets in anger. The majority will then vote for whatever tyrant promises them security. This historical record is clear.
This is why socialists and communists loved democracy and the Founders decidedly did not!! Alexis de Tocqueville, a visiting French philosopher in 1840, is alleged to have told us when our republic would fall. “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the ‘publics’ money.” We are unable to document the quote so, if not actually said by him, I now say it and am happy to be quoted hereafter. That day is today. Both parties must return to the Constitution, which preserves the republic, or we will lose both the republic and the Constitution. A good start is to avoid political candidates advocating democracy.
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.
