May 7, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
With election signs everywhere it is well to note that it is unrealistic to expect national candidates to follow the Constitution when we did not insist that they did so in local and state elections. After all, many simply move up to higher office. Some may even view the Constitution as irrelevant at these levels.
Several years ago at a public debate for county supervisor in California the public was invited to offer written questions. I did so and watched the debate monitor, with a puzzled look on his face, sideline my question in preference to others. I presumed it was because it raised a constitutional concern, which unfortunately, is considered by many an irrelevant topic at the city, county, or even state levels. You are supposed to ask what “goodies” from taxpayer funding are you going to give me and is it more than your opponent?
So what does the Constitution have to do with local or state issues? Everything!! First, it is the only document that every elected public servant swears by oath to uphold. So the Founders must have thought it relevant at lower levels.
Second, candidates at lower levels successfully rise to higher levels because of the name recognition obtained at lower levels and eventually become members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, often without ever having read the Constitution they are specifically under oath to protect. When I worked as a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate years ago, I was certain at least 50% had never read it at any level of government. Today I would be surprised if those who had read it exceeded 10%. No one asks candidates while campaigning when they last read it.
So again, why does this matter? Historically, the two major enemies of freedom are: 1) it is the nature of all governments to pull decision making power upward to the seat of government and, 2) the more apathetic and indifferent the population becomes the greater the tendency of the people to push decision making power upwards to the seat of government. When these two forces work together it always leads to the central government eventually having most of the power. The Constitution is full of “handcuffs” to keep decision-making power from getting to the top thus maximizing it with the individual. The Founders overriding philosophy of government, if it could be penned into one sentence, was, “never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level.”
Even a casual look at the Constitution reveals the separation of powers on the federal level into three distinct branches the legislative, executive, and judicial—each with a specific list. For Congress it was a list of the four types of law they could make (Art. I, Sec. 8), for the president it was the types of executive functions he could execute (Art. II, Sec. 2-3), and for the Supreme Court the types of cases it could adjudicate (Art. III, Sec. 2). The lists exist to both restrict them and to prohibit the concentration of power into one branch. The only type of federal government authorized by the Founders was decidedly a limited one. States, counties, and cities have all the powers not listed, as per Amendment 10.
When these limitations are not understood and protected at lower levels of government, the federal government is constantly tempted to steal authority from the states or counties as per its confiscating, environmental, health, and education issues, which are constitutionally 100% non-federal government issues. States, counties, and cities should use the Tenth Amendment to tell the federal government to “butt out.” “You have no constitutional authority.” When Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act, December 31, 2012, both states and counties should have written Congress and the President. “You may not void Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8, of The Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus for our citizens.”
Sixty years ago it may not have made much difference if a county supervisor/commissioner, or city councilman, swore allegiance to a Constitution that he had not fully studied, or worse, even read. The federal government had not yet absorbed his area of jurisdiction. Now it has! There is hardly an area where the federal government does not have its tentacles embedded, from school lunches to cross gender bathrooms. Over thirty years ago a city councilman complained to me that a third of what he voted on was already mandated because sometime in the past the council had accepted the “free money” which now obligated him. School districts are notorious for having done the same thing.
City, county, and state leaders, you are our buffer from the federal government taking from you your areas of jurisdiction. They have done so for many years because you were complacent, or ignorant of the Constitution. Consequently you have lost a large portion of our liberty. Today your understanding of the document must be known BEFORE we place you in power.
This election let us find leaders with constitutional fire in their bellies to undo the precedents that their predecessors created. All issues on the city and county levels are directly or indirectly constitutional issues. We now expect leaders to know, and abide by, the document that they swear to uphold.
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.
Apr 30, 2018 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Voters might be confused by the difference between a caucus and a primary, each state offering one or the other to find the right contenders for the general election in November. We will treat both.
In a primary the overriding principle is that everyone should vote regardless of how informed or ill-informed one is. Television is the major—often the only—source of information for older voters and social media for younger voters. Neither source by itself is enough. Candidates can submit a word statement, often a paragraph, promoting themselves on the ballot, but rarely is enough given for voters to make an intelligent choice. This is the only free coverage allowed a candidate. Candidates seeking the office of judge rarely leave any information on the ballot from which to evaluate them. Many voters just guess.
In a primary voting choice may be but a whim. There exists nothing to protect us from the non-informed. One giving only 10 seconds of forethought may erase the vote of someone spending six months studying an issue or candidate. The whole system is an ignorance paradise. Voter preparation may take twenty minutes.
In a primary the candidate “buys” the office. Serious candidates know that they must hire a campaign manager who develops campaign strategies, never gives specifics (if the campaign slogan cannot fit on a postage stamp it is too complex) and spends tens of thousands of dollars on media ads mostly defining the opponent as unfit. Of course, those who give large contributions expect access to the winner after the election so he/she mostly represents them. The poor, outside being used on occasion for street demonstrations or envy politics, have no real representation in either major political party.
In primary elections it is not a matter of how well informed, experienced or qualified one is. What is absolutely critical to winning is whom you hire to promote you. Money, not knowledge, is primary. The rest of the campaign you become a professional beggar asking everyone, always and endlessly to contribute to your campaign. Running for office is not the model of Abraham Lincoln riding the caboose of a train making speeches at each stop. Today candidates give their messages to special interest groups who can deliver votes and money. Far more time is spent asking for money than explaining views. Regular voters only know of a candidate by way of television, print or social media.
The following is representative. In the greater Bakersfield, CA area campaign, where I once resided, manager Mark Abernathy was the “king maker.” Those in the know realized this. In a conversation with him he named virtually everyone holding public office in the area as his and boasted of his winning at least 90% of all elections the previous ten years. He often ran several candidates for different offices simultaneously. Those he brought to power were expected to endorse his future candidates. Rarely did anyone beat the “Abernathy machine.” He is certainly a pleasant fellow, dedicated to his philosophy, and skilled and ruthless in the art of getting someone elected but at a hefty price. In a phone conversation with me he said, “I perceive that you do not have money,” meaning $100,000 or more. I agreed and he selected another candidate to support. Thus in 2010, I failed to secure a seat in the California State Legislature before a single vote was cast.
In a caucus state such as Utah there is protection from the “drive-by” voter. Neighbors gather together and select from themselves those who have earned their respect. These spend whatever time is necessary at candidate activities visiting with candidates, reading their literature and more to differentiate between the candidates before voting. Citizens accept that all voters cannot devote such time and energy in the effort. Each of 2235 precincts in Utah choose from one to five state delegates to differentiate between state candidates and thousands more to do the same for all county candidates. Thousands of state delegates, at their own expense, meet in the Salt Lake City area and county delegates somewhere in their county the following month.
In that 30-day time period before a vote is cast candidates seek to impress these selected delegates with their credentials for the office wanted and delegates can meet with and ask probing questions. This is a far better vetting process than voting based on sound-bytes and hunches.
With respect to issues, caucus delegate voters are far more informed than the general public because the public selected them to probe. There exists no public acclaim for delegates. They have to take off work with no compensation for meals and/or travel for a weekend. They do it to ensure liberty.
In a caucus no one “buys” the office as in primaries. Since candidates do not have to appeal to the less informed, only to delegates, much more interested in details over generalities, they normally do not have the vast expenditures of money needed in a primary election. A candidate with modest means can compete for any state or federal office, which is far more democratic than in a state utilizing the primary system for selecting candidates. The representatives of the people choose their leaders rather than “king makers” as in primaries. Candidates can put priority on issues rather than on fund raising and appealing to the moneyed class.
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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 23, 2018 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Syrian civilians were reportedly gassed in April 2017, killing 80, and again April 2018, killing 70. President Trump responded to the first with 60 Tomahawk missiles on one location and to the second bombing three separate locations said to have been development or storage sites. In neither are we indisputably certain that Assad did the gassing.
Protecting our “national security interests” (wordage not found in the Constitution) is the phrase most used to justify both US attacks. Side-stepped entirely is the fact that only Congress, under Article I, Section 8, has the constitutional authority to “declare War” but globalists argue that these bombings are not “real war,” only limited war, which the president possesses under Article II as “commander and chief.” But bombing a sovereign nation twice without provocation to us is an act of war. No such argument could be made were Moscow or Beijing bombed. So, an act of war is now constitutional if the victim country is too weak to defend itself.
Unfortunately this interpretation can only come from intentionally misrepresenting Article II: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States,” but only Congress has the power to call the military into actual service.
Other than conducting the war once declared, all military powers are housed as common defense under the legislative branch of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 9-17). These include all power to declare and finance war, raise armies, “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,” and even determine the land that the military may use for training purposes. Nothing was omitted.
Under the Constitution there can never be an unpopular war as the peoples’ representative (The House of Representatives) has total power over raising and funding the army. They must consent to the war by declaration (because they provide blood and brawn for it) and they alone authorize the treasure for it. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate” with them (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Cla. 1).
Moreover, Congress was to monitor the war at two-year intervals through its power of the purse just described. “But no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years” (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cla. 12). If Congress is not happy with the progress of the war it can require the generals and the president to account for why total victory has not yet been obtained and reduce or enlarge funding, with time restraints, to keep them on a short lease with respect to the war declared.
Why did the president get none of these powers? Because he “had the most propensity for war,” James Madison argued in the Constitutional Convention. Kings traditionally had sole war power. Not so under the Constitution. One man would never have such power. A declaration of war gave clarity to a wars beginning and victory or defeat its only ending. It could never be a casual thing as it has become.
Both major architects of the Constitution, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were clear on this subject. Madison wrote Hamilton, “the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #69 that the president’s powers are confined to “the direction of war when authorized or begun.”
Constitutionally the military functions under Congress, not the president. The president’s power to make war (outside immediate self-defense as in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) can only follow the legislature’s power to authorize war. Congress declared war on Japan the following day.
World War II was the last declared war so how did we lose such constitutional clarity allowing us to denigrate from invasion to justify war to “national interests,” which could be almost anything. They did so incrementally. It is the old adage one perversion justifies another. Both the Korean and Vietnam wars were United Nation’s Wars wherein the globalists argued we needed no declarations, being a part of a higher authority, the UN.
When the UN was not the major justification for war, globalists next favored working through coalition forces, which inferred that agreement among participating nations that a country was deserving of punishment justified acts of war. Requiring congressional approval for limited war would stifle flexibility. This could be made constitutional in public perception provided they enlarged the concept of “commander and chief” well beyond original intent, while simultaneously excluding constitutional wordage “when called into the actual service” and dismissing entirely all the war powers listed for Congress. Who really reads the Constitution anyway, the few who do could be “drummed” out by the ill-informed majority?
Coalition forces were employed in Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf Wars, then ISSIS, but coalition countries too eventually grew tired of perpetual war and began declining participating to the point that only Great Britain and France were willing to provide warplanes against Syria. War technology also advanced sufficient to administer punishment without boots on the ground. Such was the case with Syria last weekend. None of this changes the fact that there exists no constitutional authority for the president to bomb another country without congressional approval.
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.
Apr 16, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The 2016 presidential election was the greatest political revolution in a century leaving no globalist-supported president occupying the White House since Herbert Hoover. But the mostly “secret combination” is poised to return.
Previously we identified the “real” establishment as those rooted in the international banking fraternity, powerful multinational corporations and media elites who support globalism. Those who have been bold enough to identify it publically fear to be more specific preferring to use generic names globalists, the establishment, money trust, and the Washington cartel. Their most visible and largest organization is the 97-year old Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). These people have power.
Probably the most descriptive voice of this influence came from Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State under Barack Obama. Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, then dedicating a branch CFR sub-center in Washington D. C., she said. “Thank you very much Richard. I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Notice that she was on a first name basis with Richard Haass, president of the CFR, and admits having been guided by him over the years. While a presidential candidate she addressed the CFR in New York City on January 19, 2015, and November 19, 2015. Hillary is also a Bilderberger as is Bill Clinton but he adds the Trilateral Commission to his list of globalist organizations. Indeed, there exists few persons more establishment than she, yet when asked as a candidate if she was a part of the establishment she answered; “I don’t know what the establishment means.” Her opponent, Bernie Sanders, was not part of the establishment.
Like Hillary, Jeb Bush was the designated CFR Republican candidate years before the election. As in every presidential election for most of 100 years we were to get only establishment approved presidential candidates. Typically we have at least twenty political parties offering presidential candidates but the establishment press covers only two of these. All other choices are gradually phased out. But in 2016 the Democrats preferred Sanders with three times the crowd size as Hillary and the Republicans did not want another Bush. Both major political parties appeared poised to reject the globalists.
With this rejection the establishment media was baffled. They had influenced/controlled presidential elections since Woodrow Wilson by how they covered candidates—even more so with the advent of television—first by limiting coverage to only their two political parties. Essentially, if not covered by them you were not a serious candidate. Second, the media demonstrated preference by time given, comments supporting or not, questions asked or not, and placement in debates (whomever gets coveted center stage automatically gets more spotlight coverage) and etc. The first election is always the medias as they alone define serious candidates. Globalist interests get attention no matter which political party is elected. Control of foreign policy is never out of their hands.
Historically presidents got their advisers from the same Wall Street special interest group, the CFR. They all supported extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 800 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. They all supported international trade agreements (NAFTA, GATT, and most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership) that enhanced the power of the United Nations over the U.S. and exported jobs formerly held by Americans. They all supported the bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers private Federal Reserve Bank and opposed its being audited. They all preferred problem solving on the federal or international level rather than the state or county levels. Until now neither party supported a southern border wall enough to have one.
In these items the major political parties mirror the other as did Clinton and Bush. Either, once president, would have filled their administrations with Council of Foreign Relations members. In either case the next UN Ambassador, Secretary of State, Ambassadors to both Russia and China would come from this organization, as would a third of his/her cabinet, as has been the case for most of the last 97 years.
Such has been the case since the Council on Foreign Relations was founded by its international banker creators J.P. Morgan and et in 1921. It is the special interest group of Wall Street, supported by grants from the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford foundations. Its journal, Foreign Affairs, is “considered throughout the world to be the unofficial mouthpiece of U.S. foreign policy. Few important initiatives in U.S. policy have not been first outlined in articles in this publication.” The CFR promotes sovereignty transfers from all nations to the United Nations; indeed its end goal is world government.
Donald Trump’s surfacing as the Republican nominee for president despite universal globalist hatred from his own party and Hillary’s rejection at the polls left the globalist without an approved president occupying the White House since Herbert Hoover. It was the most profound political revolution in the last 100 years.
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.
Apr 9, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
At no time in U.S. History was globalist rule challenged more than in the 2016 presidential election in both major political parties. Democratic enthusiasm clearly went to Bernie Sanders, not an establishment candidate, and not to long-term establishment candidate Hillary Clinton who is believed to have used the DNC to eliminate opponent Sanders who had three times the crowd attendance. Had the race been fair it is plausible that the Democrats would not have had a globalist candidate.
Republicans kept electing more Republicans to undo the perceived blunders of primarily the Barack Obama administration but nothing ever changed. They had a long list of things that should have been corrected as Republicans retook, first the House of Representatives and then the U.S. Senate, but weren’t. The Republican base felt betrayed and establishment politicians, justly blamed, became toxic to voters. That is why Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee were not able to get traction despite vastly outspending those not considered the establishment. They were viewed as the problem.
Immediately outsiders, those said not to be the establishment, skyrocketed in the polls, notably Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Ted Cruz, was able to rise because the establishment hated him even more than Trump and he was seen by the Republican base as one loyal to the Constitution. Rubio was seen as having sold his soul to the establishment and Democrats on immigration as a member of the so-called “gang of eight” and thereafter could not be trusted. Polls soon showed Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, collectively holding almost 60% of the expected voters, as they were seen as the most believable and likely to make the changes demanded by the Republican base. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina (also an outsider) began to fade.
The globalist/establishment only cover two of the more than 20 political parties in every presidential election that forward a presidential candidate. Informed voters must get the names of other party candidates from the Federal Election Commission directly, which I have always provided students. The establishment picks winners and losers long before public exposure and guide them through the election process to victory by the money and exposure they allocate.
They have been the most powerful force in elections since Mark Hanna financed William McKinley for president 122 years ago. Payback for them is their ability to guide the nation as they see the need, immunity from any negative influences on their financial empires, and market favoritism should they need it. Benefits include being well connected and the largely secret power that they hold over the government and their crowned candidates.
The crowned 2016 Democratic candidate was Hillary Clinton and had been since 2008. For Republicans it was Jeb Bush since 2013. Both the establishment and Bush were shocked when Trump entered the race and Bush could not ignite a movement for the reasons cited above. Over $100 million dollars was used to entice a following, to no avail. Jeb returned to Council on Foreign Relations headquarters on January 19, 2016, but could not get additional traction. Nobody in recent presidential elections spent this kind of money this early as he. Nobody was more establishment than Bush and Clinton. They were to be the 2016 presidential contenders. This strategy had always worked; no matter who won the election, the globalists won.
By early November 2015, the moneyed establishment was pulling back from Bush and coronating Marco Rubio. He too flooded the airways with millions in attack ads against Trump to raise his poll numbers, which worked to some extent. Still, Trump supporters dwarfed his numbers and the establishment knew that they had to destroy Trump at all costs and by any means. Their media attempted to show Donald Trump as, a joke—certainly not a serious candidate, not a real conservative, a flip-flopper on the issues, anti-women, anti-immigration, insulting to everyone, a braggart, only into himself, least likely to beat Hillary Clinton, only attractive to white males, and not in touch with reality with respect to the Middle East, and more. Certainly the constant barrage of but a third of these charges would have easily destroyed previous candidates.
Virtually everything was tried and failed. They conceded that, barring a major misstep by Trump, one of two men Trump or Cruz (neither owned by them), was going to be the Republican nominee for president. The globalist establishment hated Trump but they despised Cruz. But there existed a big difference, Trump, although formerly not a team player for them, and a bit of a rogue, could be counted on to make deals to get things done, Cruz could not. For the first time in a century they would have to work with someone not fully in their camp. But Trump is of the wealthy class so some of their goals he could be counted on to support.
From that point on the vilification of Trump by the globalists was non-stop. Still, they managed the media who would keep their “little globalist secret,” and felt confident they could make Hillary Clinton the next president anyway—too confident. Trump removed 16 Republican contenders and won the nomination despite incredible opposition from the globalist/establishment forces in both parties, probably the most opposition in U.S. History. For the first time in a century the globalists were denied their Republican presidential candidate.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 31, 2018 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
As established in previous columns, the globalist managed to place people sympathetic to their world dominion view as presidential nominees of both major political parties for most of the last one hundred years allowing them to win the presidency no matter who was elected. This has resulted in our having over 800 military bases to manage the globe and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the leading globalist organization in the U.S., to place 190 of their journalist in top positions in the leading media organizations in America, resulting in citizens being largely unaware of this controlling influence.
Donald Trump said that the 2016 presidential election was “rigged” in favor of Hillary Clinton. A strong case can be made for the elimination of Bernie Sanders who garnered half the Democrats in the Iowa Caucus from long-term establishment candidate Hillary Clinton and whose crowds tripled hers.
But political scientists know that they have been mediated for decades by deliberate media exclusion of other political party candidates. The one percent richest Americans heavily finance both major political parties. Some realize that neither represent, as first consideration, the poor or the middle class.
I write the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) every October of every election year to find out who is running for president as the establishment media has largely not told me of contenders other than in their two political parties. The FEC requires that anyone running for president spending or collecting $5,000 or more on his/her candidacy for president file with them. There are always over 200 persons who do so. In every presidential election there are at least 20 political parties offering a presidential candidate.
Part of the mediated system is the agreement among the mainstream media to cover only Republicans and Democrats and only those favorable to globalism. I have always provided this list to my students. The real establishment is the moneyed elite capable of bringing to candidates the millions of dollars that are needed to win. They pick winners and losers long before public exposure and guide them through the election process to victory by the money and exposure they allocate. Voters salivate on cue over their party’s nomination with no idea how they were managed.
The Libertarian Party, for example, has offered a presidential candidate in every election for decades and are on the ballot in over 45 states in every election but are seldom mentioned and never invited to the “big debates.” They hold their own, never covered by the establishment press. One may argue, “but they do not have enough voter strength to warrant inclusion,” but in fact, they do not have sufficient voter strength because the establishment media did not cover them.
When the establishment press wishes to advantage a candidate it suddenly allows inclusion, such as when Ross Perot was “allowed” real participation in 1992 because he would take more votes from George H. W. Bush than Bill Clinton giving Clinton, the then media favorite, the White House. Ross Perot was on the ballot in every state only because he received sufficient media attention by them to be there.
Such would be the case today for anyone else running. The media vote first by its collective exclusion of those not registered as Democrats or Republicans. In political science we learn that the first election is theirs. We get to choose from those they have not excluded. The wisest, most experienced, most gifted and most honest person in America could not be president of the United States unless he/she was a Democrat or Republican.
Media corporate owners have allowed media collusion and, as we have said in other columns, they are overwhelmingly also globalist. Trump survived this media filter by running as a Republican, and vaulting over the establishment by funding his own primary campaign enabling him to call it as he saw it and win over the majority of Americans who also felt excluded by Washington DC.
So what other political parties normally offer candidates for president on the ballot? They follow: Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party of the U.S., Party of Socialism and Liberation, Reform Party USA, Socialist Party USA, and Socialist Workers Party. These political parties, with far less media coverage, still were able to get through the different state hurdles designed to reduce choices on the ballot. No one wants forty names to choose from.
Other political parties with no national media coverage offering a presidential candidate on the ballot vary from election to election. These often limit themselves to a state or an issue. They were: Approval Voting Party-Colorado, Constitution Party of Idaho-Texas, Revolutionary Party-California, Prohibition Party-Pennsylvania, American Solidarity Party-Michigan, Workers World Party-New York, Nutrition Party-New Jersey, American Party of SC-South Carolina, America’s Party-Iowa, Veterans Party of America-Texas, Independent American Party-Michigan, US Pacifist Party-Illinois, Legal Marijuana Now Party- Minnesota, and Socialist Equality Par-Michigan.
Most Americans know that something is wrong—really wrong. Today Independents, those refusing to align Democrat or Republican, are about 40%, stronger than either party. Most Americans feel lied to by both parties and the media. Presidents from either party are strongly disliked by the time they finish their second term. The people feel deceived when they elect politicians to restore the Constitution and the economy and these same politicians appear to join the globalists as soon as they arrive in Washington D.C.
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.
