Apr 26, 2011 | Economy, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Lets see if I have this right. 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 my children and grand children, some not born yet.
Democrats wanted to cut $6 billion from this deficit, and thought that a hefty amount, leaving only $1.64 trillion for my children and grand children to make up latter, raising the national debt to over $15 trillion by years end. Not to be outdone, Republicans in the House and Senate wanted to reduce the budget by $61 billion leaving only $1.09 trillion to borrow from Communist China or elsewhere to be added to the $14 trillion national debt, making it in excess of $15 trillion by the end of this year. Democrats pat themselves on the back for taking a cup of water out of the Pacific Ocean and Republicans gloat when taking a mere bucketful of water from the same ocean.
So the parties went to war over the issue and compromised at $38.5 billion, which still leaves us in excess of $15 trillion in debt by years end. Well-done guys! Your final agreement was about the equivalent of a one-day deficit reduction. I am having difficulty understanding why this wasn’t a sell-out to my children. In fiscal responsibility both parties proved themselves inept.
We have the normal three solutions: tax more, inflate more, and cut more. We could double our taxes but that will destroy our incentive and resources to create jobs. We could inflate the dollar making every dollar already earned worth less. But that will rob those on fixed incomes and seriously damage the lower classes who don’t have the money to purchase gold or silver to ensure the value of what they have saved. Yet the Federal Reserve did just that last December when they, with President Barack Obama’s authorization, began printing and distributing $600 billion, all by June 1, 2011. Or finally, we could cut half the free or subsidized “non-essential” programs and live within our means. That is the most realistic as long as it isn’t “your” program that is cut.
Dare I suggest a fourth solution? The Internal Revenue Service just revealed that 45% of U. S. households paid no federal income tax last year and the year before it was 47% who had not. Are we becoming a two-class society—those who pay taxes and those who do not, with the non-tax payers still receiving generous subsidies from the pockets of those who do? Worse, those who are taxpayers are denied these same benefits their less productive neighbors receive. We all have able-bodied friends who chose not to work. How often do we hear of friends who won’t work because they get enough on unemployment or that they might, in fact, make less by working?
Why should anyone be exempt? Don’t we all use federal services in some way? In fairness shouldn’t we require everyone to pay federal income taxes even if less for the poor? Why do we assume that they should be exempt? Even the widow paid her mite in the New Testament and was subsequently praised (not excused) for having done so by Christ himself.
All “freebie” benefits that the poor received during the preceding year should be added to their salary in this calculation. When they know this up front they may elect to opt-out of the benefit so that it doesn’t put them in a higher tax bracket. When the “poor” pay federal income taxes they are vested in the system and hypothetically more responsible. When they do not then the issue of taxation becomes meaningless to them. “So what if taxes are raised, it does not affect me!”
When the non-taxpayer class (presumably the poor) reach 51% of the population they become the majority class and will never reduce the taxes on the “rich,” which will always be defined as anyone making more than they do. The working tax payer class becomes the new slave class. Eventually when the “rich” are destroyed as a class, as happened in the U.S.S.R. under socialism, all become slaves and poor. With everyone participating in the tax burden, it is harder to gain support for tax raising issues, thus saving billions and the payment of taxes by non-taxpayers, the “poor,” helps reduce the national debt.
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.
Apr 20, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr Harold Pease
Donald Trump’s recent assertion that he isn’t convinced that President Barack Obama was born in the United States but hopes that he can prove that he was, took the lid off a story that has laid under the table too hot for the establishment news to touch for years. Those even hinting such could be the case are normally met with the word ”birther,” designed by proponents to cause the inquirer to shutter in shame as did the vampire to the cross in mythical horror stories, or to the anti-communist confronted with the word McCarthyism in the 1950’s. That one word is seemingly their only answer and defense. Properly discredited, without an ounce of evidence presented to the contrary, he proceeds no further and is silenced, which is the intent. But what if it is true?
Just because the media will not touch this story does not make it not believed. Arizona, also not convinced, just passed a law requiring that to be placed on the ballot in their state those running for elected office must first show a birth certificate proving citizenship; at least 12 other states are sure to follow. If this happens, and the President cannot do so, he may not be on the ballot in perhaps a fourth of the states in the 2012 election very likely ensuring his defeat. Such a law is also under consideration in the House of Representatives.
One’s citizenship is an important constitutional question since citizenship is mandated as a requirement for the highest office in the land. If the Constitution is not enforced when violated the requirement is weakened or destroyed by past practice and anyone in the world can be our president. The Constitution clearly mandated that only one of our own could be our president. If citizenship cannot be proven than Obama must vacate the seat making Joe Biden President.
So here is what we know. Barack Obama does have a Certificate of Live Birth. Contenders say that this is not the same as a Birth Certificate because such is always embossed with the seal of the state of issuance and signed by a recognized authority of that state. Obama’s certificate, they maintain, has no signature and Xerox copies cannot prove embossment. Moreover they argue, that his Certificate of Live Birth also demonstrates evidence of having been tampered with. In Obama’s defense some states only issue Certificates of Live Birth, so in those states this is their birth certificate.
Obama’s paternal grandmother reportedly told her pastors that she was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya. The two pastors reportedly have signed affidavits to that fact. Moreover, his mother enrolled him as a student in Indonesia where such enrollment necessitated renouncement of citizenship in any other country (The New American, November 24, 2008, p. 8). It is also contended that his religion at that time was listed as Islam. It is not disputed that Obama attended school in Indonesia for four years but clarity on the other issues remain lacking.
Obama has refused to release his medical records or records from Occidental or Harvard College. Contenders say that the reason he cannot do so is because they would demonstrate that he received financial aid on the basis of having applied as a foreign student. Releasing his college records should put this allegation to rest but the president still will not do so further feeding the argument that he may have something to hide.
One must also note that there exists some false reporting on the contenders (or those posing to be contenders) side. This is not helpful as it discredits honest sources. Snopes.com had to declare as false a story alleged to be from AP insisting that a forced release of Obama’s Occidental College transcripts two weeks ago, did verify the above allegation. No such AP release exists. This does underscore the need for clean investigative reporting or a bi-partisan congressional review.
That said, apparently there are a vast number of others, besides Donald Trump, who “are not convinced President Barack Obama was born in the United States but hope that he can prove that he was,” despite the establishment medias,’ seemingly deliberate, attempt to villainize anyone suggesting such with the word “birther” rather than investigate the claims. Lets put this story to rest for both Obama and his accusers.
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.
Apr 16, 2011 | Constitution, Economy
Dr. Harold Pease
The paranoia with respect to a government shutdown is amazing. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit such an extremist, emotional response. It appears designed to frighten the least informed either for or against the other party, thus the terminology and subsequent blame game.
So what does a government shut down look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No? Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? NO, No, No! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and cops, prisons, and teachers remain in place.
There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen short of an overthrow of the government from within or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.
How do we know this? Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of these things happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice. So what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.
So at worst a government shutdown is still really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. This is precisely the Tea Party position (“cut it or shut it”) and the reason they do not fear such. If you have a budget of $3.7 trillion and you have taxes covering only $2 trillion simple math tells you that either you double taxes or cut half of your expenses. You simply can’t keep increasing the national debt, now nearing $14.300 trillion, which has been laid on the backs of our new slaves—our children.
When you have cancer you must surgically remove the infected tissue. Of course it is painful, but the longer you wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both shutdowns, were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8, so in time such cuts should become permanent cuts or be subjected to the amending process for appropriate authority.
Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with “the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920’s” and Republicans because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).
So a government shutdown is really only a partial shutdown that may actually be healthy. Lets call it such in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed?
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.
Apr 6, 2011 | Globalism
By Dr. Harold W. Pease
The name George Soros is popping up everywhere as being perhaps the most influential man on earth. Certainly not the richest, that honor goes to Mexico’s telecom magnate Carlos Slim with 74 billion dollars, but he is one of the richest at 32 billion dollars. It is the use of that money that is so frightening. His giving is not like that of Sandra Bullock who recently gave a million to the earthquake and tsunami victims in Japan, nor is it like the billion dollars given several years ago by Bill Gates to help eradicate AIDS in Africa. Their money does not buy power or amplify wealth. Mr. Soros’ money 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 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 425million 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.
Not that the far right does not have such organizations as well, but likely no other one person has as many organizations as combat ready and as highly financed as does George Soros. Most recently he has declared war on Fox News because they criticized him. Presumably they can hold their own but certainly they have a worthy opponent. Human Events recently identified George Soros, “as the most dangerous and destructive leftish demagogue in the country. (Human Events, 3/28/11, Cover Story).”
Should he be taken seriously? Well, the Bank of England did not do so and he “shorted the British pound in 1992, wagering $10 billion on a drop in its value. In a desperate bid to keep its currency afloat, the Bank of England tried to buy up pounds as fast as Soros could dump them. However, as more and more investors followed Soros’ lead and joined his efforts, the Bank of England eventually gave up. The British pound was devalued, launching a tsunami of financial turmoil from Tokyo to Rome. When it was over, millions of hardworking Britons confronted their diminished savings, while Soros counted his gains. He had personally made nearly $2 billion on the catastrophe,” he caused (The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, David Horowitz and Richard Poe, Nelson Communication, 2006, pg. 4).
Two things, in particular, bother opponents. First, could his propaganda machine have undue influence in the government—especially given his frequent and friendly contacts with President Barack Obama? Soros has hosted fundraisers for Obama and made at least four 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.
Second, Soros’ strong and frequent advocacy of global government is especially frightening. He once wrote: “To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy… the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. Interestingly, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States (The Crisis of Global Capitalism, George Soros, 7 Dec. 1998, Newsweek).”
In any case, there is enough evidence to keep close watch on the man and his numerous and well-funded organizations designed to lead this nation into socialism and the world into world government. If he is not the most influential man on earth, he is close.
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.
