Aug 13, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
I do not usually write on themes getting extensive attention in the media but the establishment press has overlooked a big story in the debt limit debate. Every one has covered who lost: the President, Congress and both major political parties but almost no one identified the Tea Party Patriot movement as the clear victor.
Remember the over 2400 separate and spontaneous gatherings of Tea Party Patriots in 2009, geographically spread throughout the nation and proportionately held April 15, July 4, and Sept. 11, with about 800 such gatherings held each date. These gatherings, with no national leadership or direction, led mostly by moms with homemade signs, was perhaps the showing of greater anger against the federal government than in any single year in our history—certainly in my life time.
Remember as well the two Tea Party assemblages of over a million in Washington D. C. during that same year crying out “President Obama!! Can you hear us now?” “CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?? Yes, the establishment media had trouble covering these stories then too, but they still happened.
The Tea Party movement resulted in the election of a few candidates committed to Constitutional limited government, the free market and fiscal responsibility—the Tea Party’s core values and actually those of the U.S. Constitution as well. Values perceived by them as having been largely abandoned by the leadership of both major political parties.
All this is conceded but how does this translate to a win for the Tea Party Patriots on the Debt Limit Deal? True to the Constitution and their election promises these patriots bucked the weak-kneed Republican Party in the House of Representatives and the spend-happy Democrats in the Senate and forced both to talk about the following previously ignored concepts. What is the proper role of government? How do we get a Balanced Budget Amendment to curb our addiction to debt? Are raising taxes always the only answer? And given government’s addiction to growth, will they ever have enough?
The promise to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, to not raise taxes, and to actually cut future spending, are each a part of the finished agreement because of the insistence of the Tea Party members of Congress. As a group only the Tea Party saw the looming financial problems ahead if we did not seriously live within our means and scale back our debt. NOW!! With our debt credit down grade and near stock market crash of this week can anyone seriously question Tea Party philosophy now? Still, there are voices in the land aimed to discredit them.
Republicans have shown themselves to have no fire in their bellies and have thus caved-in to the run-away spending plans of their adversaries every time. Sometimes, as under the Bush Stimulus, they have shown themselves as leading the charge for debt enslavement. In short, modern Tea Party Patriots gave the Republican Party enough fire so that they did not cut and run so easily.
Did the Tea Party get what they wanted? No! Definitely not!! Were that the case they would have had an actual Balanced Budget Amendment, actual spending cuts, and our credit rating would not have been down graded. Reducing the rate of increase is not the same as reducing spending. The deal did nothing to stop the growth of our debt and resulting bondage of our children. In fact, it did just the opposite. Still, opponents were forced to listen and give some attention to the Tea Party Patriots—a huge victory especially given their small size in Congress and governments nature to spend without restraint. We just need more of them in Congress. Returning to the Constitution is the only answer and they are the only ones saying it.
Hopefully, more Americans will see the Tea Party Patriot movement and our defense of the Constitution as the same thing. Until now they have been a somewhat lone voice in the wilderness as far as Congress was concerned but with this victory should merit our greater confidence lending to greater support resulting in even bigger victories to come.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 2, 2011 | Tea Party
By Dr Harold Pease
Time and time again I have overheard discussion or arguments where participants polarize. The one who knows the most attempts to stay on focus providing ever more points to show his case. The less informed cannot stay focused, as he has run out of specifics. He resorts to one of five techniques: spraying, changing the focus of the topic, repeating over and over again the few points he does have, making the argument personal, and name calling. Sometimes he uses a mixture. Let us examine each.
Spraying is the term used for those who, in essence, travel around the world in three minutes or less bringing up everything related or not. The informed seek clarity or relevance on the first point only to notice that his opponent, the ill informed and lacking depth, has switched to yet another aspect. The ill-informed stays in control of the argument only because the more informed cannot keep up. Like a shotgun blast the intent is to blow the better informed over with a mass of non-specific, semi-related data so he drops the discussion. The less informed wins only because he is left standing. Sprayers also gain additional power by increasing their volume as well. Their thought processes do not allow them to realize the extent of their ignorance.
Focus changers also run out of counter arguments or choose not to deal with the logical next step and turn instead to changing the focus of the argument. Instead of dealing with the legitimate issues raised by the Tea Party Movement the need for both major parties to provide us candidates who endorse fiscal responsibility, limited Constitutional government, and free market economics they call them racist or mobsters. The argument now moves to defending against racism. The establishment media initially relied on this technique to undermine the Tea Party Movement but it failed because the movement was a microcosm of the population itself and one might find his, normally non-activist, mother leading the charge.
Repeaters, yet another technique for the less informed, likewise run out of counter arguments and try to win by constantly restating their initial two or three points. Normally, like sprayers, they also raise their voice on each restatement. They too have no depth but it does not matter to them.
The art of sounding informed when not includes personalizing the argument. I once published a column that dealt with a plan to cut the bureaucracy by laying off 10% of their work force per year but allowing them, for ten years, to continue receiving their former pay, reduced by 10% each year, until they received nothing and sought new productive employment. A colleague, rather than debate the idea, fired off a negative memo suggesting that I be first to go. In doing so the debate was now personalized with the new issue now being my value to the institution.
Name-callers seek to destroy your credibility by linking you, or what you advocate, to something unpopular, sometimes called labeling. This allows them to write you, or your issue, off without having to think or deal with your evidence. The favorite label is liberal or conservative. It gets worse. The mere word “McCarthyism”, the suggestion that there might be a single communist in the government, Hollywood or the media, was used for decades to destroy proponents of such or any real investigation into the evidence. Those who question the need to have our troops in 31 countries of the earth are called “isolationists.” Those who even dare question Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate are degraded by the term “birthers.” Even Congress was “cowed” into silence. Those who still question global warming as being man made are called “flat-earthers.” Those advocating that we get back to the Constitution as designed are called “strict constructionists” as though this were a venereal disease of some kind. You get the picture. How many of these things are true. I do not know as the opponents won by silencing proponents. Who comes up with these labels? The opponents did, of course? And who uses them the most? The least informed.
So what should the most informed do? First, make certain that they are the most informed and that they too are not using any of these techniques to further an argument that may not be totally correct. Second, let it be. The majority is normally ill informed. Relate where you can and move on to other friends. Someone else will have to reach them and perhaps that won’t happen either. In America we do not shoot you for disagreement or ignorance. At least not yet!!!!
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 10, 2011 | Constitution, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Has it really come to this? Time magazine, one of our most respected magazines, seriously posing the question, “Does It Still Matter?” over the backdrop of the U. S. Constitution partially shredded as their cover page for their 10th Annual History and Fourth of July Issue. The second page of the ten-page article, authored by Richard Stengel, has the U. S. Constitution completely shredded vertically. This event signals a disrespect and ignorance of this document that I have not seen in my over 25 years teaching it.
The article’s overriding fallacy begins with the first sentence and continues throughout, “Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II, DNA, sexting, airplanes, the atom, television, Medicare, collateralized debt obligations, the germ theory of disease, miniskirts …” etc. In short, “How can it be relevant, without great alteration for our day?” Certainly the piece is a masterful explanation of the Constitution as a “living Constitution.” Among other things it criticizes the “Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document.”
The truth is that the Constitution has nothing to do with these things nor did it have for the new things of the 1800’s, nor will it have for a new list the following century after the one we are now in. None of these things matter because this document is based upon human nature and natural law which do not change from century to century. Man is still power hungry whether he rides a horse, drives a car, or flies an airplane. Stengel does not seem to understand this.
When confronted with this “horse vs. airplane” nonsense, I ask my students in every Constitution class, “What in the Preamble to the Constitution, which is a statement of the needs of man to which government attempts to address, is no longer relevant? Outdated if you will?” Year after year the answer is the same. Nothing! “Were these the same needs of those 600 years ago and will they be the same for those 200 years from now?” Yes!!! “What would you add?” Again, nothing! Then, the basic needs of man do not change and the Preamble must be the most complete summation of those needs ever recorded. It is based upon a long history of human nature that the well-read Founders understood.
After the Preamble the Constitution then divides power between two entities, the Central Government and the States with those of the Federal Government specifically listed in Art. I, Sec. 8, and those to the states, everything else, as noted in Amendment 10. Why? Because the Founders knew from human nature, that all governments have the natural tendency to collect power to themselves (which is what is happening today) and if successful individual liberty is always suffocated. This will still be so 200 years from now as it was centuries ago in Athens and Rome. Either the people harness the government or the government harnesses the people.
The Constitution then divides what power is left to the federal level between its three branches: legislative (which makes all the law), executive (which executes the law), and Judicial (which judges the law when contested). All three kept separate for the purpose of keeping the Federal government from consolidating into one and thus enlarging its jurisdiction over us. Our right to less jurisdiction used to be called freedom. Stengel surely knows this simple truth but seems not to know why. All governments like to grow their power and will inevitable do so unless restrained.
Did the Founders not believe in change? Of course they did! But enlarging federal power beyond the list in Art. I, Sec. 8, required three-fourths of the states to consent to have a new power moved to the federal level. This was change one could believe in and total transparency because it would be written. Often those of both major parties like to forget how change is authorized in the Constitution just making it anyway, counting on the ignorance of the masses or party loyalty to sustain them. Time magazine, Stengel, and other “living Constitution” advocates appear to like governments increasing jurisdiction in everything and offer no counter to the natural flow of power away from the people and lower levels of government. In time they will remove all protection from big government and indeed destroy the Constitution as created, ironically in the name of the Constitution they pretend to value.
This Constitution is the clearest ever written and can handle, quite nicely, any new problem, including the four referenced by Stengel. What we need are people in power who know how it works and will follow it precisely as intended—even “fanatically,” as with the Tea Parties. It follows the premise to never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level. So why is that important, because it maximizes the individual’s influence over his/her government. It assumes that he, in fact, does know what is best for him.
But some want an evolving document, one that “rolls with the times,” one that is one thing today and quite another tomorrow. We Tea Party Patriots say, “No thanks.” “The original one was designed to limit people, like you, from getting power and destroying our liberty.”
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
May 4, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Tea Party
Dr. Harold Pease
When President George W. Bush left office the national debt was about $10 trillion—the highest in our history and a serious, unacceptable problem. Today, two and a-half years later, it exceeds $14,340 trillion. We are on the eve of destruction, as Barry McGuire sang in his 1965 anti-war hit “Eve of Destruction,” and both parties are responsible.
The President wanted to spend $3.7 trillion this year. Our total income for the year is about $2 trillion so that would leave a deficit of $1.7 trillion which will be added to the $14 trillion that is already placed upon the backs of our children and grand children. I am having difficulty understanding why this isn’t a sell-out to them.
In fiscal responsibility both parties flunked Economics 101 and proved themselves inept. Spending, even if money does not exist to be spent, is the drug addiction of both parties, although presently amplified by the Democrats, as never before in U.S. history. The printing presses are already going full steam as the Federal Reserve gave itself power last December (with presidential knowledge) to devalue your savings by printing and distributing $600 billion by June 1, of this year. We are on a course neither party fully is willing to stop. The time has come for the states, under Article V of the Constitution, to take charge and do so. The only answer to avoiding financial collapse is a balanced budget amendment and it must be enacted ASAP as Congress and the President are out of control.
All state constitutions except Vermont’s require a balanced budget in their spending. Such parameters within their borders make it easier for them to say “no!!” to new spending without also raising taxes. Basically one spends only that which is received.
The Constitution does not have a balanced budget amendment largely because of the Founders attitude that only gold and silver would be the medium of exchange in the states as expressed in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. This would automatically inhibit governments’ temptation to first create and then inflate paper money. We got off track rather quickly and by 1797 Thomas Jefferson wrote in irritation, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Taylor of Caroline, November 26, 1798; reproduced in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson v. 10, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh).
A Constitutional amendment to restrict the federal government from further enslaving our children with debt could come from either the states or the Congress. Since 1975 thirty-two states have petitioned Congress proposing a balanced budget amendment. Two more, are needed to complete the 2/3rds requirement of Article V in the Constitution forcing the ratification process. This process necessitates the acceptance of 3/4ths of the states which, with the flagrant abuse of our money supply on the part of the federal government, should be a given. The beauty of this is that a spending addicted president, whether republican or democrat, is by-passed. No signature is sought and no veto power can be exercised. So states let us get two more states on board.
Congress was one vote short of passing a proposal for a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1997 but interest waned until the Tea Party Movement reinvigorated the demand. The Senate presently has a good amendment under consideration. Outside of war or an “imminent and serious military threat to national security,” Congress and the President must submit a balanced budget. It has an 18 % spending cap. To exceed this for one year requires a 2/3rds approval of both Houses for “a specific excess.” Declared war, or “an imminent and serious military threat to national security,” also allows excess of the 18% but the excess must again be specific. The bill requires 2/3rds of both Houses for any tax increase and forbids the raise of the debt ceiling without a 3/5th of both Houses vote. Finally, it gives the government 5 years to get their fiscal house in order before the balance takes affect (Human Events, April 11, 2011, p. 13).
The Founders gave us two paths to constitutional change, the Congress, and should they fail, the states which could by-pass them. Would one of you finally come through for the people, or do you both wish to continue to leave us on the eve of destruction?
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Jan 26, 2011 | Constitution, Tea Party
Almost all political pundits were amazed with the extent of the Republic Party victory in the midterm elections when sixty-three congressmen and six senators were replaced, making this election perhaps the biggest one-party swing in the House of Representatives since 1932. Certainly the republicans had not earned it. Their departure from constitutional limited government, the free market, and fiscal responsibility during the George W. Bush administration amplified in the Barack Obama administration, resulted in the Tea Party movement. Moreover, their endorsement of slow socialism, as opposed to fast socialism as espoused by most democrats, certainly did not endear the GOP to the majority of Americans who mostly wanted big government to just leave them alone.
The Tea Party movement was responsible. It moved the Republican Party closer to America’s core values (now those of the Tea Party), even causing them to pull the badly neglected Constitution out of their pockets (some few actually carried it with them to use as some kind of prop when needed) and open the previously unturned pages. That said, they actually read it in The House of Representatives and should be applauded for having done so. Those of the opposing party probably had to go online, or to a bookstore, to find a copy. We still await Senator Harry Reid to follow suit with a similar reading in the U. S. Senate. The democrats probably will not do so as many no longer even pretend to follow it. I hope that I have shamed both political parties with their measure of neglect of this document.
So what about the December political tsunami? The election gave the clearest rejection of the political direction that has been given in several decades. What should a congress do, realizing that they have proceeded down a path that so alarmed a majority of their fellow citizens? Let them slow down and walk away with some dignity! Instead, in total contempt of the American people, the 111 Congress accelerated their disregard for limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and the free market. They were so “hell-bent” in the opposing direction it was as though there had been no election. With their “the sky is falling” type of legislation, the rejected party bulldozed forward. Americans were hit with at least seven major pieces of legislation that had to be approved within a month and before the new congress was seated, each of which should have had at least two months of hearings and serious debate before a vote. One party government still prevailed for another month, and “Yes We Can” was still their war cry.
Among them was a revision of food legislation, the new Food Safety Bill, in place since 1932, gave expanded power on domestic production to the Federal Government and cost an estimated 1.4 billion to implement. A new Nuclear Arms Treaty with Russia (START) in which Russia threatened lawmakers not to alter the treaty’s terms as they wouldn’t renegotiate if anything were changed. Why did we not wait for the new congress rather than let those removed from power in three weeks have final say? We cowered under Russia’s intimidation strategy, and both the President and Vice President went to the phones pushing for quick acceptance. Debate was limited. Yet another major change allowed gays to serve openly in the military.
Everything was placed on fast tract. Another major piece of legislation was The Dream Act, designed to assist young illegal immigrants in becoming citizens if they attended college or joined the military. It alone, of all the measures, failed. Then came the compromise extending both unemployment compensation for the nth time, at an estimated cost of $858 billion, and the Bush Tax Cuts. Finally, there was the bill funding the government, due early last fall but not legislated prior to the elections as the party in power did not want their fiscal irresponsibility “flash-lighted”—a mere 1.3 trillion dollar bill—laced with gobs of self-serving pork. The bill passed as is until March. Funding the government and the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts were the only two issues that needed fast track status. The new congress could do everything else.
This collection of sweeping laws, the most in a single month in my lifetime, is dubbed December’s Political Tsunami. The vast majority of which was at odds with the message of the mid-term voters: slow down, the sky is not falling, and more debt must cease to be the solution to every problem. So many changes in a mere 3 ½ weeks were head spinning.
Dec 10, 2010 | Take Action, Tea Party
Click here for an Action Alert from the Tea Party
