May 4, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
If you are a liberal publication or news outlet, which is all the major networks excepting Fox News, you want your followers to know that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, unduly fund Republican Party candidates and causes on the right side of the political spectrum. Liberal newspapers include almost all big city newspapers and most major national news magazines. If you are a conservative outlet you fail to mention the Koch brothers and speak only of George Soros as the big funder for most liberal outlets, which includes most everything except Fox News and most of talk radio. Neither mentions the other leaving the impression that only the other is buying elections. Moreover, neither mentions the “invisible primary,” happening now, where candidates cross and crisscross America with alms bowls in hand begging the mega-rich to buy them.
First let us consider George Soros. His money, $32 billion, is targeted for influence and political power over this nation and the world—all directed to the far left side of the political spectrum and the globalization (code for world government) of the world. Prominent among his myriad of well-funded socialist organizations are: ACORN, the Tides Foundation, Sojourners, The Quantum Fund, and Media Matters. Some of these organizations operate in other countries, as for example Open Society Institute (spends 425 million a year on socialist causes) and Friends of the Earth, designed to build support for an international network of organizations dedicated to the environment. The Center for American Progress schedules their “experts” for talk show events even developing talking points for them. The Apollo Alliance played a major role in the development of the Stimulus Bill now incorporated into law. The American Constitution Society defends far-left interpretations of the Constitution. And, MoveOn.org organizes action alerts to followers via the Internet.
Likely no other one person outside David Rockefeller, also promoting the left and world government, has as many organizations as combat ready and as highly financed, as does George Soros. He hosted fundraisers for Obama and made numerous visits to the White House. There is reason to believe that Soros has influenced the president on: The Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade, opposition to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and banking reform. Still, the left side of the political spectrum fails to see this as a problem, equal to, or surpassing, that of the Koch brothers who they criticize for doing the same thing.
Now for the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who built Koch Industries making it the second largest privately held corporation in American. At a recent fundraising event for the Republican Party they announced their vote for Governor Scott Walker for president, essentially taking off the table perhaps the most coveted financial support source of right of center Republican candidates. Their semi-annual summits attract the candidates, who discuss policy, and like-minded donors.
“Freedom Partners is the central hub for the Koch-backed network that includes groups like the activist-recruiting Americans for Prosperity, the millennial-targeting Generation Opportunity and the Hispanic-wooing Libre Initiative. Taken together, the Koch-endorsed groups make up a political machine that raises and spends more than almost any network in politics — including the official Republican campaign committees” (“Political machine backed by Koch brothers close to $1 billion for 2016, expected to dwarf RNC,” Associated Press, Jan. 26, 2015).
Democrats accuse Koch-backed groups of airing tens of millions of dollars in negative ads against incumbent Democratic lawmakers in 2014 and of helping the Republicans win a majority in the Senate. They also accuse them of funding the Tea Party movement—a charge without solid specific documentation.
Sometimes even enemy nations vote with money for the president of the United States. In both Bill Clinton presidential elections, Communist China made substantial contributions in the case known as Chinagate. At that time contributor Johnny Chung, for example, gave $50,000 to Hillary Clinton’s top aide while seeking VIP White House treatment saying: “I see the White House as like a subway—you have to put in coins to open the gates.” (Sam Smith, The Progressive Review, February 24, 1999). Today, the Clinton Foundation solicits contributions from foreign governments, some of whom, like Communist China (from which it took $2 million in 2013), have despicable human rights records, and like Saudi Arabia, which has atrocious women’s rights abuses.
Obviously funding elections and founding organizations pushing ideology is the game of billionaires. The candidate with the most money usually wins and the rich select the winners long before the people vote. The most important part of the presidential election, selecting the actual two candidates, is happening now. Some may argue since both sides are doing the same thing that it is, in this respect, fair. But it is not fair when either side fails to mention that they are doing the same thing, projecting instead that they are not. So the question is what billionaire buys your vote for president? One problem, however, is that since the media personnel haven’t, themselves as a group, voted less than 80% for a Democrat in the White House for the last 50 years, most Americans only hear about the Koch brothers buying elections.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Apr 13, 2015 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
The last few months have been full of Hillary intrigue; most recently her use of her own home server to house some of our most sensitive national security secrets as Secretary of State in opposition to the Federal Records Act. Now the Clintons’ report it to have been wiped clean (perhaps yet another scandal) presumably so as to destroy any hope of proving or disproving that her server housed classified documents.
This disclosure effects other longer-term investigations as for example, the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy, investigating who was responsible for the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans by terrorists on the night of September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya. Who failed to provide embassy protection when need for it had been expressed by Stevens a month before his death? As this would fall under the purview of the State Department over whom Secretary Clinton had charge, her emails are critical—but not one exists. The committees investigating have sought this information for over two years. Chairman Gowdy argues: “It strains credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy, that there’s not a single document that’s been turned over to Congress. So there are huge gaps.”
It was Hillary who, allegedly knowing otherwise, insisted that the attack was merely a reaction to an American video negative to Islam. We now know that it was a Hillary aide, Victoria Nuland, who ordered the removal of all mentions of terrorism with respect to the attack. What makes this a scandal is the disinformation emanating from the White House and the almost total stonewalling of information sought by Congress of which an intentionally wiped-clean home server amplifies. This could be a larger scandal than Nixon’s Watergate because four Americans lost their lives because of the apparent incompetence of the then Secretary of State.
A wiped-clean server may also make it more difficult to attach her to the Clinton Foundation contributions that she was soliciting from foreign governments, some of whom, like Communist China (from which it took $2 million in 2013), have despicable human rights records, and like Saudi Arabia, which has atrocious women’s rights abuses. The latter could damage her bid for the White House with her expected campaign charge that Republicans are anti-women. Certainly Foundation money is expected to assist many causes but few doubt that a large portion will go to the Hillary presidential campaign. Many Americans may not feel good about their president being elected with foreign contributions, although both Bill Clinton elections were allegedly aided with contributions from China, referred to later as Chinagate. Contributor Johnny Chung gave $50,000 to Hillary Clinton’s top aide while seeking VIP White House treatment saying: “I see the White House as like a subway—you have to put in coins to open the gates.” (Sam Smith, The Progressive Review, February 24, 1999) Many might see such governments as buying, and banking, influence when Hillary became president.
So, three potential Hillary centered scandals are in the news at the moment. But this is not new, since Whitewater she has been involved with, and escaped from (because of legions of defenders) several others. Almost simultaneous to Whitewater, and as First Lady of Arkansas while Bill was governor, she managed to turn a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a profit of nearly $100,000 in less than nine months. The Journal of Economics and Finance estimated that the probability of doing so without inside information, which is illegal, was 1 to 31 trillion (Anderson, Seth C, 18 (3): 357-365). She claimed that she had learned how to trade by reading the Wall Street Journal. No economist argued that this was possible. The event was termed Cattle-Futures Gate by opponents.
In some ways the so-called Filegate scandal was the most frightening. FBI files of up to 900 former Reagan and Bush appointees were sent over to White House security chief Craig Livingstone who inferred when pressed, that the directive to do so originated from the First Lady. Moreover, reportedly Deputy White House counsel William Kennedy would frequently call up the FBI and have someone’s files sent over on his request. The intent appeared to be to blackmail perspective political opponents but once known opposition to its use came quickly.
The term Chinagate originated from Clinton’s acceptance of foreign contributions to their elections more specifically those from Communist China, our ideological enemy. The Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the Whitewater Independent Counsel each investigated. The DOJ reported, “A pattern of events suggests a level of knowledge within the White House—including the President’s and First Lady’s offices—concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort.” In 1996 The Justice Department also investigated campaign fundraising abuses and cover-ups regarding the efforts by China to influence U.S. policies.
From Whitewater, to Cattle-Futures Gate, to Chinagate, to Filegate, to the potential Benghazi cover-up, to Clinton Foundation contributions from wayward countries to influence Hillary as Secretary of State and perhaps later as president, to the security breach of using her home server, to wiping it clean to remove evidence, the trail of corruption and deceit is stark. Unfortunately we have only identified the big ones.
Apr 13, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Hillary Clinton’s refusal to use government secured servers and a government email address, opting instead for her own unsecured home server as Secretary of State, is now criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Did she not know, or worse care, that as Secretary of State every enemy, terrorist, or even sometimes-friendly countries would attempt to hack her for the information to destroy or weaken us? Even Sony, Blue Cross, and Home Depot have been hacked. Most of what she did was extremely sensitive, even classified. Our national intelligence was potentially on public display for four years. How could she defy the Federal Records Act? Certainly this could not be out of ignorance. If classified records were found on anyone else’s home server they would go to jail.
Still, the now called “Email Scandal” is not a total shock for most over forty quite aware that the Clinton’s, Bill and Hillary, have never acted as though the rules really applied to them. The Clinton Administration was a-buzz with scandal after scandal.
Perhaps no woman in U.S. History is more loved or hated than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Indeed, few over forty have not already formulated an opinion with respect to her. There are few neutrals. This column is for the millennial generation, those who never knew the Bill Clinton Administration. As the establishment media have already elected her their Democratic Presidential Candidate, with no opportunity for competition or dissenting public expression, younger voters need to know something of her past.
We begin with Whitewater. Here the Clinton’s (Bill and Hillary), while governor and first lady of Arkansas and the McDougals (Jim and Susan), formed the Whitewater Development Corporation. The four purchased 230 acres of undeveloped land on the White River intending to create vacation home lots for retirees. It is alleged that Bill Clinton used his influence as governor to pressure David Hale to lend $300,000 to Susan McDougal, a Clinton partner, in the land deal. At the time Jim McDougal was Governor Clinton’s economic adviser and later created his own bank, the Madison Guaranty to fund the project, hiring attorney Hillary Clinton of the Rose Law Firm to make everything legal. The four equal partners were intricately connected. The scheme collapsed in 1989. Ultimately fifteen associated with this fraudulent land deal, which ended costing many retirees their life savings, and the tax payer some $73 million; went to jail—everyone except the Clinton’s. Even Jim Guy Tucker the governor succeeding Bill served time, so extensive did Whitewater become.
By the time everything came to a head the Clinton’s were in the White House and had legions of defenders and records were strangely hidden or misplaced. Independent Counsel Robert Fiske ordered the Clinton’s to surrender documents relating to the corrupt Madison Guaranty. The Clinton’s reported them as missing. But two years later they mysteriously reappeared, found on the desk of Hillary’s personal secretary. By this time much of the heat was off and the story largely undermined by a sympathetic Clinton press. Besides, the special prosecutor, Robert Fiske, had been chosen by President Clinton to be his new Attorney General. Kenneth Starr continued the Whitewater investigation but leading witnesses Susan McDougal, Jim Guy Tucker, and Clinton’s Attorney General Webster Hubbell, a Rose Law Firm friend of Hillary Clinton, refused to cooperate as key witnesses against the Clintons with the latter pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. President Bill Clinton later pardoned Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker. The story fades away replaced largely by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.
The mysterious death of the Clinton Deputy White House counsel, Vince Foster, added much intrigue to the story. He had been the special friend of Hillary and a Rose Law Firm associate, and was charged with defending the Clintons on Whitewater charges. He was murdered or committed suicide, at Fort Marcy Park, Virginia. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed Foster’s files on Whitewater from Foster’s desk so they could not to be discovered by park police.
But this is only one of a good number of scandals in which Hillary is a leading participant. Perhaps another column will be necessary outlining her involvement, alleged or otherwise, in: File Gate, Cattle Futures Gate, Travel Gate, and half dozen more. In fact, if she announces her candidacy for the president, she will be the most scandal ridden potential presidential candidate in U. S. History. She and her devoted followers would say that it is just the “vast right conspiracy,” but there are far too many of these to feel comfortable with this explanation. Certainly the Email Scandal suggests bi-partisan concern for her probable serious security breaches as Secretary of State.
Mar 17, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The New York Daily News, March 10, unleashed a firestorm with its front-page depiction of the 47 Republican U.S. Senators who signed a letter to Iran reminding it that Iran’s agreement with President Barack Obama still had to be reviewed, and approved by them. In giant letters crossing the bottom of the page was the word TRAITORS. Senator Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, called “Tehran” Tom by one democratic senator, was credited as the author of the letter. All but seven of the Senates 54 Republican majority signed. No Democrat signed and they are furious with this action inferring that the Republicans are siding with America’s enemies even, as Minority Leader Harry Reid said, “empowering the ayatollahs.”
The Senate letter, which I closely read, advised the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran of the separation of powers in the Constitution between the executive branch, which makes international agreements, and the legislative branch that must approve such; that a treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate; and that without this majority vote of Congress it is merely an executive agreement and potentially meaningless after, in this case, Obama leaves office. It ends: “We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.” Signatures followed.
But does this letter constitute treason as the newspaper claimed and leading Democrats inferred?
As with every issue first consideration should be, “What does the Constitution say?” The word treason appears in Article III, Section 3, and follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving them Aid and Comfort.” Did this letter, reminding a dictatorial government, where the voice of one dominates, of our constitutional procedures requiring the voice of many, consist of levying war against the United States? No! Did it adhere to the interests of our enemies, which Iran is or we would not have sanctions imposed against it? No again. The Constitution continues: “No Persons shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Clearly the Senate Republican letter cannot be attached to any of the properties of treason in the Constitution. Certainly The New York Daily News, and Democrats making the charge, has convicted nearly half of the U.S. Senate as traitors without constitutional basis.
But to the charge that they are interfering with negotiations by reminding the Iranians of our constitutional procedures, the Constitution clearly prescribes such in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. The President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” The advice function is performed during the creation of a treaty and the consent function is thereafter, once an agreement is presented to them. Many presidents have not sought the advise of the Senate when they created treaties and certainly Obama has shown no tendency to do so either, preferring to prepare a treaty without any advice from Congress.
Obviously a letter to a foreign government reminding it that no branch of government operates independently of another in the United States, does not constitute giving advice to the President. But in a distorted way it does. It reminds the President of constitutional procedure as well and places him on notice that he can expect resistance should he circumvent the constitutional treaty-making process.
So why did the Senate not wait for the finished treaty? Because they were afraid. This Congress has experienced the most encroaching president on legislating and treaty-making powers since Franklin D. Roosevelt and they were not certain that he would even present the finished treaty to them for ratification. Remember, this is the same president who by executive order by-passed Congress on executive amnesty thereby making his own law and independently changed parts of the National Health Care Bill at least 14 times with a stroke of the pen with no constitutional authority.
My question to the seven Republicans who did not sign and to all the Democrats in the U.S. Senate is this. Why did you not sign as well? Why is there not bipartisan support of the Constitution? Can’t you see your authority being eroded? If a Republican did the same thing increasingly, by executive order or fiat, undermining the constitutional separation of powers leaving your body weaker than before, you would be all over him. Ironically Republicans would be supporting their president. Neither party sees its own as dangerous.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Mar 9, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No Child left Behind (NCLB), the signature legislation of the George W. Bush Administration is now up for re-authorization. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions overseeing this review, said recently that he wanted to “put the responsibility back with states and local school districts” to oversee public schools with as few mandates as possible from Washington. His draft bill proposal offers states the right to test annually, as the present law requires, or instead every three years. NCLB failed revision attempts in 2007 but is ripe for change now as it is so unpopular.
The federal government forced a roll in public education with The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, as a part of the Great Society. It enticed state and school districts to go after the “free” money thereafter offered by the Federal Government. The original purpose of the 1965 law was to distribute federal aid to schools and districts that enrolled large numbers of poor children. To get the “free” money, however, schools had to conform to federal government standards and allow federal review of their programs. Very quickly districts and schools accepting the “free” money became very dependent upon it and thus became strong advocates for it.
In 2002 ESEA was modified and renamed by President George W. Bush: No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Though renamed it has not improved students’ preparation for higher learning. Schools were required to test every child in grades three through eight annually and had to prove their scores were going up. When that did not happen they were closed, privatized, or taken over by the state. The law set a goal that every child would be “proficient” by 2014. This did not happen either. Some say the law left all children at least two years, if not three, behind. It certainly has not worked as intended as indicated by the Barack Obama Administration’s having to extend flexibility from it to 42 states and the District of Columbia. In other words, only eight states met the mark and the Great Society measure to improve educational standards for all has failed.
What is missing in Senator Alexander’s argument is that his solution still leaves the federal government as having a legitimate roll in education and in a place of dominance over the states, when the Constitution gave it none. The word education is conspicuously absent from the document—not found in the list of federal powers Article I, Section 8 and never added by way of amendment to the Constitution since. For the federal government to increase its sovereignty over the states by offering money would have been unconscionable in yesteryear. The thought of having a centralized government having any say in what was fact or fiction in the lives of their children would have been inconceivable. Standard education could become standard thought. What is the difference between propaganda and education?
Who cares most whether Johnny can read, the federal government 2,000 miles away, or his mother? Who cares more whether Johnny’s friend can read, some bureaucrat in Washington D.C., or his community? School board members very likely have their own kids in the same schools and kids have their parents or grandparents overseeing their learning. Moreover, the community has access to board members at school games, on the street, or at the super market to complain to or praise. It does not get any better than this.
Constitutionally everything with respect to education, even it’s funding, was to come from the state and local governments. The “free” money offered by the federal government to steal state sovereignty duped politicians in the sixties, and today as well, into looking away from the Constitution as they, held out their hands to receive; and the benefiting group, the educational establishment, also with tin cups in hand, cheered them on. The argument that the federal government could manage learning better than state and local government is/has, and always will be, faulty.
After Lyndon B. Johnson effectively put the camels’ head (government power and authority), into the tent (education) there was no stopping its body following. President Jimmy Carter then established the Department of Education and progressively school boards have become largely “rubber stamps” as they are told by benefiting administrators that this and that regulation is federally mandated. Hopefully Congress will end authorization of their No Child Left Behind law returning education to the states and local government where it constitutionally belongs or at the very least propose an amendment to the Constitution authorizing federal take-over of education. It certainly could do so on the basis of the Constitution or on the damage it has done to our children and our schools.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Mar 2, 2015 | Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The national debt now exceeds 18 trillion dollars, almost half added during the Barack Obama administration alone, and is increased by three to four billion every day and neither major political party nor network is talking about it as a national emergency. Who is slated to repay this crippling, gigantic burden—our children—the unborn or those too young to have objected? The ones who laid it on their backs, by spending what they did not have, are now dead, dying, or retiring.
Well, reportedly one of those “new debt slaves,” the so-called millennials, voiced her complaint five years ago, November 18, 2010 with a solution to the problem. When she was born 21 years prior, in 1989, the national debt was only around 2.7 trillion dollars, said then to be crippling and gigantic. In an article entitled “Put me in Charge,” first appearing in the Waco Tribune Herald (author unnamed), she outlined four controversial solutions. They follow:
“Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
“Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
“Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
“In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22-inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”
“Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
“If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
“And while you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.”
Although some of the ideas offered by this angry 21-year-old “debt slave” were scoffed at on some websites at the time as being excessive, public reaction was generally favorable. Still, the millennial generation is the most “abused” generation in American history and they have a right to be angry. Very angry!! Their birthright has been stolen. Unfortunately this message of abuse was only accelerated and the 14 trillion dollars national debt, when the article was first written, is now over four trillion dollars larger. Moreover, 14 million more Americans have become dependent on food stamps since she wrote the above. For the “debt slave” class there seems no hope.
We have the normal three solutions: tax more, inflate more, or cut more. We could double our taxes but that would destroy incentive and resources to create jobs. We could inflate the dollar making every dollar already earned worth less. But that would rob those on fixed incomes and seriously damage the lower classes that don’t have the money to purchase gold or silver to ensure the value of what they have saved. Or finally, we could cut half the free or subsidized “non-essential” programs and live within our means, which everyone supports so long as it is not their program that is cut.
We have got to do something. Soon those receiving welfare will exceed those not on welfare and they will never vote to end a system wherein they are benefited. Perhaps these solutions, offered by the most impacted age group, represented by this young author, will become even more popular as time goes on. Certainly we cannot simply dismiss them because they seem insensitive. The alternative may be national bankruptcy.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
