May 9, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In listening to the three remaining presidential candidates Trump, Sanders and Clinton, one would think that each actually has the power to do what he/she says will be done. Trump will nullify and replace Obamacare, build a wall along our southern border stopping illegal immigration that Mexico will pay for, send back the 11 million that already illegally crossed, end Common Core and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ban most foreign Muslims from entering the US, open to surveil mosques in the US, create a database of Syrian refugees, bomb ISIS, target and kill the relatives of terrorists, shut down parts of the Internet to prevent ISIS recruitment, reintroduce torture (waterboarding) to extract intelligence, to name a few.
Bernie Sanders also has his “pie in the sky” promises notably free tuition at public universities, universal health care coverage, legislation to change the climate, and he opposes trade deals that take advantage of the poor labor of other counties. He would end income inequality, establishing a $15 minimum wage, and close the gender pay gap. He advocates investing a trillion dollars over five years to rebuild our infrastructure, and will drastically reform the campaign finance system. He calls the free market a “rigged economy.” At least he is honest in labeling his proposals a “political revolution.” “Today … we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally,” said Sanders.
Hillary Clinton has vowed to continue the Barack Obama agenda. She speaks of a more inclusive society; early childhood education and child-care accessibility, and higher education reform, student debt relief, universal automatic voter registration. She also will focus on substance abuse, and mental health issues, campaign finance reform, breaking down barriers of race, gender, and sexual orientation in America. She promises to break-up banks “if they deserve it,” work to end racism, sexism and discrimination against the LGBT community and welcome immigrants overnight.
The list for each is long and candidates add to it on a whim. Unfortunately most, if not all, of these things the president has no constitutional power to implement. His powers are listed in Article II of the Constitution and have not been expanded by way of amendment as required in Article V of that document, thus they are totally unconstitutional for the president to do without congressional, and some times state, approval. Some few may be constitutionally forbidden even with permission of the legislative branch.
Presidents, in their thirst for power and /or proclaimed expediency, have empowered themselves to the point of “kingship” with their worshipful, unchallenging, party followers (whether democrat or republican) quite willing to look the other way as government grows beyond its ability to be constitutional or efficient. At any time a president could remind the people of his real constitutional powers but he will not as that would drastically reduce his perceived power that is beginning to look limitless.
Under Article II of the Constitution the president has but eleven powers. Let us identify them: 1) “Commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States” including the militia when called into actual service of the United States; 2) supervise departments (cabinet), each presumably established by the Congress (George Washington had but four); 3) grant reprieves and pardons; 4) make treaties with the help of the Senate; 5) with Senate help appoint positions established by law such as ambassadors, ministers and judges; 6) fill vacancies “during recess of the Senate;” 7) make recommendations to Congress on the state of the union; 8) convene both houses on special occasions and handle disputes with respect to convening; 9) receive ambassadors and other public ministers; 10) make certain that “laws be faithfully executed;” and, 11) “commission all the officers of the United States.”
Simply stated the president has two supervisory powers over existing organizations and two shared powers with the Senate, otherwise he pardons, recommends, appoints and entertains. That is it! Notice the absence of power to make any rules and regulations on us. This is the job of Congress alone.
Thus a prospective president sets his constituency up with unrealistic expectations and eventual disillusionment. When unable to implement promised changes he quickly becomes unpopular as has happened to his predecessors. Since he has NO law making powers he must persuade Congress to agree to his proposed changes. When they do not, as in the case of Barack Obama, he is tempted to make law himself to keep face with his promises and constituency. The practice is a most serious violation of the Constitution and is impeachable. In the case of Obama, Congress is afraid to pursue the blatant offense to the Constitution. Unchallenged it opens the door for future power grabbing presidents to do the same and the president replaces Congress as the major law making branch of government. All three of the remaining presidential candidates will resort to executive orders rather than disillusion their expecting followers.
The term executive order, used by presidents to make law, is not found in the Constitution. Executive orders were initially nothing more than inter-departmental communications between the President and his executive branch with him requesting some action on their part. Constitutionally they have no law making function. Congress must reign-in any executive that uses them to make or alter law. Article I, Section I gives only Congress law making power. Impeachment is a proper response for any president who subverts or threatens the separation of powers doctrine, as his oath requires that he “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” I advocated such for the last two presidents and will do so again whichever party, or whomever candidate, does so.
May 2, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
Presidential candidate Donald Trump has made no secret of his intention to use enhanced interrogation techniques in order to collect intelligence the government considers critical to protecting the United States. “The enemy is cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind,” he has repeated numerous times. Polls show that perhaps two-thirds of America agrees. Perhaps they should rethink this view.
Techniques to extract information from an enemy are not new. An acquaintance shared with me what was required of him to extract information from the enemy in the Vietnam War. If the enemy did not disclose the information requested he was thrown from a helicopter in flight. His friends, riding with him, watched with horror until it was their turn to be thrown. My acquaintance, whose job it was to throw them, said that they usually had the information needed before the last prisoner. But the Vietnam War ended 41 years ago.
What is enhanced interrogation today? According to ABC News, the CIA has used the following techniques: waterboarding, hypothermia, stress positions, abdomen strikes, slapping, and shaking. In waterboarding the prisoner is “bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over it, asphyxiating the prisoner,” who believes that he is drowning.
In hypothermia the prisoner is “left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water in order to increase the rate at which heat is lost from the body. (A water temperature of 10 °C (50 °F) often leads to death in one hour).” In stress positions the prisoner is forced to stand, handcuffed and with his feet shackled to an eyebolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours, causing his “weight to be placed on just one or two muscles. This creates an intense amount of pressure on the legs, leading first to pain and then muscle failure”(ABC News, CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, Brian Ross, Nov. 18, 2005). Violent abdominal strikes, slapping, and shaking are self-explanatory. A bipartisan Congressional Report issued December 2008 added forced nudity and sleep deprivation up to 40 hours to the list that we have used.
The George W. Bush administration, which engaged in enhanced interrogation, did not define these techniques as torture. The rest of the world did, however. In two separate pronouncements the United Nations “denounced the U. S. abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture” on Feb. 16, 2006, and on May 19, of the same year it viewed “the U.S.-termed enhanced interrogation techniques … as a form of torture” (UN Calls for Guantanamo Closure, BBC, Read the Full UN Report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2005).
Only one man in Congress actually knows what torture is and that is Senator John McCain and he opposes the practice as the information extracted is unreliable (the victim will say anything to ease the pain) and it is just plain wrong. He says that we should be on a higher plain. He was shot down over Hanoi, Vietnam sustaining two fractured arms and a broken leg sustained in the fall, then was bayoneted and beaten by villagers who first found him. Although these wounds were not torture inflicted they were not treated for some time thus they became torture related. His beatings and interrogations lasted periodically for five years and included two years in solitary confinement. At the height of their attempt to break him he was bound by tight ropes in very painful positions and beaten every two hours for four days, breaking teeth and bones (Politics in America, by Thomas R. Dye, 2009, p 280). He finally broke.
In regards to our locating the secret courier leading us to Osama bin Laden by enhanced interrogation—it never happened. McCain asked CIA Director Leon Panetta if that were true and he said: “The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda” (CIA Director Leon Panetta to Sen. John McCain: “Torture Not Key to Finding Bin Laden” by Joan McCarter, May 16, 2011, Covey Views).
With such controversial results enhanced interrogation should not be considered. Even if enhanced interrogations were the reason that we found and removed Osama bin Laden, I cannot imagine any of the Founding Fathers endorsing such practices. This argument is countered with theirs was a different time and culture.
But there exists natural law that proclaims, “Vengeance begets vengeance.” Yes, each can do terrible things to the other and follow this with even more horrible, unspeakable things such as punishing the relatives of terrorists, which has already been suggested by Mr. Trump. But why degenerate to their level and further accelerate the degeneration? Some of us still want God on our side. How can that be if we are no different than they? Fortunately the Constitution prohibits the “Corruption of Blood” practice (punishing relatives for the behavior of one of their own) in Article III, Section 3, Clause 2, but perhaps “the Donald” does not know this.
Apr 25, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
With the media so locked on “Donald Trump productions” for the last several months they missed a serious precedent setting double jeopardy violation of the Constitution last winter. Two men, father and son ranchers, are presently again sitting in jail for the same crime after having completed their sentences and been free for more than a year. Not for a new crime but because the Justice Department, thinking the sentences of a the previous District Court not harsh enough, appealed to the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which resentenced both to longer terms.
Both then were rearrested, reconvicted and re-incarcerated because the federal government did not like the ruling of their own federal judge—and, again, this after the previous sentences had been served. How is this not double jeopardy? The 5th Amendment to the Bill of Rights reads in part, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This cannot be allowed to stand or we all lose this part of the Constitution, left uncontested, past practice tends to set the new parameters making it so much more difficult to get back to the Constitution as designed.
This case has another strange twist. It allows someone adjacent to federal land that burns unwanted debris, the fire from which accidentally burns a portion of federal land, to be convicted as a terrorist with a mandatory five-year sentence. Dwight and Steven Hammond, law abiding, patriotic and model citizens in their community, are serving second sentences as terrorist for precisely this reason. Their 2001 control burn got out of control consuming, in addition to Hammond property, 150 acres of federal land. The burn, mostly grass, did not destroy actual property.
Judge Michael Hogan, understood and factored in the above conditions and offered leniency giving Dwight (74) three months and his son Steven (46) one year and one day. They also settled on paying $400,000 on firefighting expenses. But he felt that The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, of which they were charged, which required a minimal sentence of 5 years in prison, defining the Hammons as terrorists, was grossly excessive thus violating Amendment 8 of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting “cruel or unusual punishment” because of the excessive length of time mandated and the “terrorist” label thereafter attached to the defendants. Thus the sentence of arson, rather than terrorist, as mandated by the faulty law, was rendered.
Undermining the authority of Judge Hogan a Ninth Circuit judge, despite the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment, reinstated the 5-year sentence and the two were rearrested. It was Bureau of Land Management Field Manager and Refuge Manager for the Malheur Refuge, property adjacent to the Hammon’s, that filed the appeal. The Malheur Refuge would benefit because BLM had benefited from other ranches they had had a hand in forcing to sell, thus enlarging the Refuge, and they expected to do the same to the Hammond property.
The Hammon’s went back to prison peacefully and today are in a minimum-security facility in Los Angeles. If the government really thought that they were real terrorists they would never have given but minimum security. In their case the Obama Department of Justice denied justice and violated the Constitution in both the 5th and 8th Amendments. A law, in this case The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, is never to trump the Constitution but has.
The event refueled the range war with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as hundreds, incensed by similar heavy handedness by federal agencies on properties all over the West, hoped for injustice exposed. Some few of these descended on Oregon taking over the Malheur Refuge and illegally occupied it for the next several months, which unfortunately provided the media with a story with far more drama than the “rancher squeeze” story. The Hammond’s were largely forgotten. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal, probably because of the Refuge Standoff, thus allowing the appellate court’s unconstitutional ruling to stand. This compounded the injustice.
The Hammon family experience with BLM tyranny is similar to that of Cliven Bundy whose Nevada Standoff, two years ago, got great publicity. Both families had been ranchers for generations long before the BLM (1946) existed. They were both survivalists from decades of federal government “rancher squeeze” since the 1970’s. Part of the squeeze was to drastically reduce gracing permits for ranchers dependent upon them for their livelihood and significantly raise grazing fees for those still remaining. In both instances, and in hundreds more, ranchers were force to sell at fire sale prices and in these two instances the Hammon’s and the Bundy’s were essentially the last to stand. The Hammon’s differed only in that the BLM and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) coveted their property since the 1970’s expecting to enlarge the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge with it, as they had the property of other ranchers that bordered them.
In the case of the Bundy’s only Article I, Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution dealing with federal land has been violated. For the Hammon’s the same violations exist plus Amendment 8, “cruel and unusual punishment” and Amendment 5 being “subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” known commonly as double jeopardy. How can one serve a sentence and then be retried and given a larger sentence, but it happened.
Apr 5, 2016 | 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. So let us 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 primary—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. Voting may take twenty minutes.
In a primary the candidate “buys” the office. Successful candidates know that they must hire a campaign manager who develops campaign strategies, never gives specifics (if the campaign slogan cannot fit on postage stamp it is too complex) and spends tens of thousands of dollars on media ads mostly defining the opponent as evil. 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 second. 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 from town to town giving speeches to those gathered 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 manager Mark Abernathy is the “king maker.” Those in the know realize 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.” I agreed and he selected his own candidate to run. Thus in 2010, I failed to secure a seat in the California State Legislature before a single vote was cast.
In a caucus there is protection from the “drive-by” voter. Some precincts in the Utah caucus, as our example state, allow the presidential vote to take place first, thus voters wishing to participate only in selecting the president can choose to leave. In others they are not allowed to vote for president until the end of the evening thus they also influence county and state offices.
Beyond this everything changes for all other offices in a caucus state. Those more interested remain and nominate from their neighbors those they view as better qualified to differentiate between the candidates. They want their most qualified to choose for them. They accept that all voters are not equal. Each of 2235 precincts in Utah choose from one to five delegates to differentiate between state candidates and a larger number to do the same for all county candidates. Thousands of State delegates meet in the Salt Lake City area and county delegates somewhere in their county the following month. In that 30-day time period 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 for this quality. 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 for love of country.
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 poor candidate 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 sharing what they might wish to do rather than on fund raising and appealing to the moneyed class ignoring the poor.
Mar 28, 2016 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No one is informed enough to do it all. “So tell us who will tell you what to do.” Ted Cruz did just this March 17, submitting a list of 23 persons as his national security team to advise him giving some preference to Elliott Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State, Andrew McCarthy, former U. S. Attorney, and Jim Talent, former Missouri Senator. Problem is, Elliott Abrams is a Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a high profile position in the organization, and is as “establishment” as it is possible to be. Insider Elliott Abrams was an assistant secretary of state to Ronald Reagan and a deputy national security advisor to George W. Bush. So much for Cruz not using the “Washington Cartel.”
Cruz went on to announce the rest of his team, 20 others to advise him, two of which, Stewart R. Baker and Michael Pillsbury, are also Council on Foreign Relations members. Baker served as assistant secretary for policy at Department of Human Services and as general counsel of NSA. Pillsbury was a Reagan campaign advisor in 1980 and served as assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning. He is also author of three books on China.
Cruz said of the 23 proposed advisors, three of which are CFR members (13%), “I am honored and humbled to have a range of respected voices willing to offer their best advice. These are trusted friends who will form a core of our broader national security team.”
All this after Donald Trump admitted two weeks previously that he too had selected the most establishment group in America to advise him. It appears now that all three of those who would advise him, Richard Haass, John M. “Jack” Keane and Jack Howard Jacobs are CFR members. Insider Haass has been CFR president the past 13 years. Trump did release five additional names on March 21, of which only Carter Page is CFR.
Thus far Trump’s CFR advisors are four of eight or 50%, with the organization president involved personally. So far the establishment group least influences Cruz at 13%, all specializing in foreign policy. Hillary Clinton’s long standing affection for the organization, and her husband and daughter’s membership in, plus her previously stated admission of having Haass as a key adviser as Secretary of State, show us that the “establishment” would retain strong influence in her administration. None of these candidates are non-establishment.
Notable political scientist Lester Milbraith observed in his work Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, page 247, that “the influence of the CFR throughout government is so pervasive that it is difficult to distinguish the CFR from government programs.” Prominent political scientist Thomas R. Dye in his textbook Who’s Running America? The Bush Restoration, page 188, wrote “The history of CFR policy accomplishments is dazzling” then traced in detail their dominating role in foreign policy accomplishment from the 1920’s through the George Bush Administration from their own boasts of success in Council on Foreign Relations Annual Reports.
I have told my students for over 30 years that the next UN Ambassador, Secretary of State, Ambassadors to both Russia and China will be from this organization, as will a third of his/her cabinet. Not might be!! Will be!! Also no one gets to be president without CFR approval. No exception!! We get to choose which one of their approved party finalists we want, but the first election is theirs. I make the same prediction today for whoever replaces Barack Obama as president.
Such has been the case since its Wall Street creators J.P. Morgan, Colonel Edward M. House, Elihu Root and other internationalists in 1921, founded the Council on Foreign Relations. 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,” says political scientist Thomas R. Dye.
So why support a Cruz presidency if he too has establishment influence? He is the only presidential candidate in this election year cycle that has publicly condemned the CFR. He recently called it “a pit of vipers” and a “pernicious nest of snakes.”
It might be useful to compare his CFR influence (13%) against that of 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney whose 20 person pre-election advisory list, more than half of whom, eleven to be exact, were members of the elite, semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations—the most establishment organization in American history. For decades the CFR has been the special interest group, “think tank” if you prefer, that provides a majority of the “experts” in every administration, Democrat or Republican. It is our shadow government.
Perhaps we have reached the time when the cancer cannot be fully removed from the body and Cruz is attempting to minimize the “pit of vipers” as much as is possible. Certainly the CFR is most passionate about foreign policy than any other policy area. Cruz may see flexibility in the other areas if he gives on this one. Two factors remain in his favor. The dislike between he and the establishment is real and he remains the most likely to problem solve with the Constitution.
Mar 19, 2016 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Beware of politicians who wish to do “good” with someone else’s money. They are abundant in both major political parties and will destroy liberty. Here is why?
In listening to the 2016 debates of either party you would not know that we are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and that to pay it off each individual would have to pay $59,145, each taxpayer $159,759 (US Debt Clock.org) since this would include children and the half of adults who do not pay taxes. Democrats want everything free or subsidized—healthcare, housing, food, and now, under either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, free college. They can’t give away enough. Republicans want a military budget big enough to sustain 900 bases throughout the world.
There exists little, or no talk, of cutting anything. Where will all the money come from? Democrats want to rob the wealthy, who create our jobs, and Republicans say they will create such a robust economy that there is no need to worry. In either case, both major political parties will ignore the problem away.
This is precisely where we were two presidential elections ago. Barack Obama answered the problem by doubling those on food stamps and nearly doubling your share of the national debt, thus charging our children another $9 trillion.
But aside from our creating conditions favoring an impending fiscal collapse from the “give-a-ways” of the past, a bigger related problem is the creation of a generation that expects the government to continually give more to them for free with someone else’s money. When votes are attached to the public giving we will never elect those that will cut the gift giving.
Under socialism vote power favors those who want things for free, as they, in time, become the majority. This process is accelerated, and corrupted, when politicians link government gift giving with their being elected. Gift giving does not always initially include money. This was exemplified when Obama, seeing a close election coming in 2012, and wishing to capture the Hispanic vote more fully, decided to not enforce established immigration law to befriend this eventual vote group. Remember, illegals have many friends and family in the U.S. who are voters and in time will become such themselves. His victory has been attributed, in large part, to this group’s massive turnout for him. Gift giving, however, always includes money eventually as this group did demand services as in education, medical, and etc.
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.
Finally someone, less burdened by political correctness than I, is blunt enough to say it as it is—so blunt that even the low information voter cannot miss it. Those who feed off the labor of others need to know what they are doing to the country by pushing for the freebies. An unknown author nailed the problem on the head 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.
“Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them. The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 238 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States, as we know it.”
Again, beware of politicians who wish to do “good” with someone else’s money. They are abundant in both major political parties and will destroy liberty.
