Dr. Harold Pease | Impacto Latin News ™

Mi Impacto

Opinión

Tag Archive | "Dr. Harold Pease"

The Unelectable Presidential Candidate??

Posted on 05 January 2012. Tags: Dr. Harold Pease

By Dr. Harold PeaseThe day before the Iowa primary the Des Moines Register reported that 41% of Iowans still remained undecided with respect to their choice for president which strongly indicates that no one has yet “touched” a majority of the Republican Party—far from it! Nor did Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum together, each with 25% of the vote, capture even a simple majority. Third place went to Ron Paul with 22%, who was short only 4,000 votes from taking first place. So, it appears the Republicans are not enthused by anyone. This aside, let us look at the race from another perspective, what I call the negative index. Who was the most negatively targeted presidential candidate, but still had good numbers, perhaps the “real”winner?

To the question, “Who is least likely to win the Republican Party nomination and defeat President Barack Obama? The answer was, and is, always Congressman Ron Paul. “Ron Paul is OK but he is not electable.” Who said so! Virtually every radio or television commentator or pundit from MSNBC to Fox News has so said. The chorus includes virtually every columnist and major newspaper in the country as well. Probably no presidential candidate in our history has had more organized opposition. Whether you like Ron Paul or not the fact remains that despite the intensity of this opposition, over one in five Iowans voted for him. Moreover, a vast majority of the funding from Super PACs was targeted against Paul and Newt Gingrich. Newt tumbled to fourth place and Paul to third but one wonders what might have happened if Romney or Santorum had received similar negative—even hostile—coverage.

As a presidential candidate four years ago Paul was treated dismissively, ignored or undermined. Such is still so, supporters maintain, but his ranks increased and showed themselves to be exceptionally loyal none-the-less and less tolerant of this treatment. Still victories, like coming in second to Michele Bachmann by less than a hundred votes in the Iowa Straw Vote several months ago, were ignored by the establishment press. More recently others noticed that he received only 90 seconds out of an hour and a half debate several weeks ago and began to ask why. Such slights were subtle but numerous. Prior to the Caucus it was indeed difficult to find any favorable commentary by any major news source outside Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Channel.

Recently when polls showed the possibility of a Ron Paul victory in Iowa fellow candidates and political pundits collectively intensified their negative treatment, all accused him of being out of step with Republican foreign policy. One commentator went so far as to say that if Paul won the Iowa Caucus, the Caucus should not be treated as seriously in the future. Newt Gingrich took time to call Ron Paul “a dangerous man” in a speech attempting to explain his poor showing of only 13% in the Caucus, nine percentage points under that of Paul.

Why the almost universal opposition? Perhaps in part it comes from the Council on Foreign Relations, the most influential special interest group in the United States. It’s magazineForeign Affairs, advertised as “the most influential periodical in print,” is considered direction for its over 2100 members and thousands more readers. What suggestions are published in this publication become U.S. foreign policy. The April 2011 edition housed an article “The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism” an article essentially defining The Tea Party movement as dangerous and a threat to world governance. In that article it acknowledged having to deal with the movement but concluded that, at the time it had two arms, one represented by Sara Palin, the other by Ron Paul. Of the two they felt that the “Palinites” could be molded properly in foreign policy, which they dominate regardless of which party comes to power, but under the “Paulites” they would have no voice thus he had to be resisted at all costs. In other words, they could not control Ron Paul. With a majority of the key media players being CFR members and falling in line, opposition to Presidential Candidate Paul is more understandable.

Whether one loves or hates Paul, probably no presidential candidate in our history has had more long term organized opposition than he and with such he still was able to garner 22% of the Iowa vote with no one receiving more than 3 percentage points higher than he. Given the negative index it is amazing that he is still a viable candidate (probably anyone else would have been crushed into nonexistence) and perhaps with such opposition factored in, the actual winner of the Iowa Caucus.

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.

Posted in OpiniónComments (0)

In the United States One Largely Chooses His Level of Poverty

Posted on 29 December 2011. Tags: Dr. Harold Pease, www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

College enrollment is now in progress and a new semester or quarter begins in January. Dare I say to a generation whose work ethic has greatly diminished, what I was told prior to my many years of college? If you get a college degree you likely will have a higher level of income and more favorable working conditions. Certainly there are notable exceptions like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who have no degrees, and those who major in medieval art, or some such discipline were there exists no real employment demand. But by in large in this country, barring an accident or unusual health concern, if you are poor by the age of forty you chose to be so.

Your choices, made between ages twenty and thirty, largely place you where you will be the rest of your life. The road to security and prosperity is education and is available to everyone willing to work. I tell my students that they may not be able to run out of the ghetto, even walk, but all can crawl.

There was no silver spoon in my mouth, being second oldest of 14 children, this option applied to me as well. Few were poorer than we. All night factory work and all day classes meant sleeping when you could. This was so for many years.

Others may find work and satisfaction outside formal education, but most will struggle in its absence. I have yet to meet a re-entry student; one who dropped out then returned years later, who did not wish they had stayed in school. The choice seems to be clear for most young people, work your butt off in school for at least four years in expectation of an easier life, or without school for forty without such.

Many, all with excuses, do not choose the education highway, dropping out of high school or college and thus choose poverty. They allow themselves to accept a lower place in society. Some pick up the visual signs of poverty such as degrading language, coarseness in their behaviors, and the appearance of one who is poor. Sometimes homes are not painted and lawns uncut, back yards dirt and weeds. In time they are easily recognizable as poor. Many come to believe that they are owed the basics, even some of the privileges of life. These become wards of the state and accepting of the philosophy that “it’s not my fault” and politicians have no problem confiscating the rewards of those who do labor to give to them. Food stamps, subsidized school lunches, housing, and healthcare and hundreds of other charity programs, instead of incentivizing this class to believe in themselves and work to be self reliant, seemingly teach, even enable, dependence.

Unscrupulous politicians learn quickly that these can be managed by subsidized gift- giving from those who do produce, which ensures that they remain in office. The “freebie class” becomes their base. Last year 47.5% of the adult population paid no federal income tax. Those who paid for all the programs of the poor were the other 52.5%. As a class, the poor want more, lose their sense of gratitude for those who are forced to subsidize them, and grow ever larger without education. The tax paying class diminishes as confiscatory taxes rob them of the benefits of their labor. They become the working poor. In time they too may be, without additional education, enticed to work less and join the poor class.

So back to the choices we make which select our future dependence or independence. Those choices remain available. Some few reenter the education highway. Now with a companion and children they sacrifice evenings to elevate themselves. Perhaps it takes twice or thrice the time but there is an end to poverty if one chooses wisely.

Stay in school my young friends and return my older friends. You will never be sorry that you made this choice. Your choices today will place you where you will be ten years from now. This law applies to all. You do not have to rob, or have the government rob for you, the fruits of others. You do not have to be the fodder for politicians who wish to give you the benefits of those who produce so that they can remain in power and addict you to the philosophy that it is owed you.

Posted in OpiniónComments (0)

The Presidents Latest New War Defies the U.S. Constitution

Posted on 27 October 2011. Tags: Dr. Harold Pease

By Dr. Harold Pease

President Barack Obama, has just initiated another war even before the blood dried from his last one in Libya. His recent deployment of 100 U.S. military advisers (soldiers) to aid in central Africa, notably Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic, is amazing. Never mind that we are not yet out of Iraq, are still dodging bullets in Afghanistan, and are unleashing drones to kill designated individuals in Pakistan. Libya and the four central African countries have one thing in common; our involvement in both settings was started by the single decision of one man which is totally and completely unconstitutional.

Referred to as Operation Lightning Thunder, the Special Forces are to train, advise and not engage in combat, unless forced to defend themselves. Congress was informed of the engagement by letter October 14, but reportedly troops were already in Uganda two days prior. The mission is to root-out and destroy a ruthless leader, Joseph Kony, who has led a notorious 24-year campaign of rape and murder as head of Lord’s Resistance Army, who allegedly kidnaped boys to fight in his army and girls to sell as sex slaves.

This is so reminiscent of a similar deployment by President John F. Kennedy beginning the Vietnam War. Inevitably the advisors were forced to defend themselves when fired upon and we took casualties. We then were asked to support our troops with more troops. Some 13 years later, on January 27,1973, after 56,227 lives were lost, we signed the humiliating Vietnam Treaty ending the war. Have we forgotten how this “no win” war began—with just a few advisors?

Despite powerful humanitarian reasons justifying the action, we lack the treasure and ability to be the policeman of the world. Where does it end? Most of the world has dictators and tyrants as leaders. That aside, the President lacks the Constitutional authority to do so.

The making and funding of war were clearly denied the office of president in the U.S. Constitution because he “had the most propensity for war.” Only Congress has the right “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” War requires the blood of our young warriors, and this requires the permission of the people who are required to be the fodder in such. Only the people’s representatives can “provide and maintain a navy or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” and for “calling forth the militia…to repel invasions.” Only the people’s representatives can “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States….” Congress is directly responsible for any acquisition of property for military use. All of this is in Article I, Section 8 and belongs to the legislative branch alone.

Funding for war is yet another Constitutional concern and is clearly left with the House of Representatives. The Constitution says: “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” Two years is the designated time that a member of the House is elected and authorized to represent his people. So, President Obama cannot expend monies for military activity to central Africa, or anywhere else, without congressional approval. Article I, Section 7 requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….”

Mr. President, a letter to Congress announcing that you have already positioned soldiers in Uganda and plan to send others to the region is not consulting with Congress. As far as we can ascertain you did not even consult with your own party.

The only Constitutional power a president is allowed to have in the Constitution is as “Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, … when called into the actual service of the United States,” which is done only by Congress, not by himself. No president has Constitutional authority to engage in war without a declaration of war—even if done by other presidents before him. And there is no authority to defer this power to an international government—the United Nations—to do it for us. To commit our young to potential death unilaterally is not within a president’s power, and doing so should be an impeachable offense.

Posted in OpiniónComments (0)

Government Sponsored Racism?

Posted on 21 October 2011. Tags: Dr. Harold Pease, Government Sponsored Racism

By Dr. Harold Pease

One issue, among many, that isn’t dealt with in our presidential debates is government-sponsored racism. Almost all government forms require the filer to state his race. This accentuates race consciousness. The 2010 U.S. Census, requiring race identity, has only 11 categories; sadly, American is not one of them. Most of us are a mixture of many nationalities, even races, but American is never one of the choices allowed on any government form. We need to minimize our differences and be tolerant, but are constantly reminded of differences and the government is the greatest offender.

Mandated governmental statistics are submitted and comparisons are made with the intent of proving racial inequality and accentuating differences. Forgotten is the inevitability that if you look for inequality long enough, you eventually will find it. Race baiters (those who see and point out race in everything) have no problem finding it in everything. Moreover, monies are distributed on the basis of race to “fix” alleged differences which further accentuates prejudice, then racism. It becomes a cycle and is fueled by government who tries to right every wrong but in doing so creates other wrongs. It almost seems purposeful.

Consider the millions recently handed out by the U.S. Department of Education to four colleges in Kern County, California, solely on the basis of race. They are designated Hispanic-serving institutions, defined by having enrolled at least 25 percent full-time Hispanic undergraduates. This federal program, known as STEM, is focused to increase the Hispanic student college-going rate in science, technology, engineering, and math. The participating colleges will be dividing 31 million dollars over the next five years. Last year two of the four colleges divided 6.7 million dollars (The Bakersfield Californian, Sept. 27, 2011 p.3). The program, a part of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, is “to assist Hispanic Serving institutions to develop and carry out activities to improve and expand their capacity to serve Hispanic and other low-income students” (Taft Independent, Oct. 8, 2011).

Some serious questions arise from this. How can a near bankrupt nation, in light of its 15 trillion dollar national debt passed to our children making them future slaves, do this? Also, how many of the recipients are illegally within the United States? How can money extracted from our tax-payers be given to people of other nations when our own need it so? These are issues for another time. More pertinent to this article is the question, why should any race be treated differently than any other? When money is distributed specifically on the basis of color, how is this not racism? When Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, or even Whites, who are fast becoming a minority in California, see this, don’t they expect their fair share too. Doesn’t this breed race consciousness, then racism, and then potential conflict?

What is most bothersome is that two notions are accepted as fact and never questioned: all are abused except whites, and whites are always the abusers of others. Race on same race abuse is never treated, and the government seems uninterested in evidence of our actually coming together. After all we did elect a black president. Chances are everyone has experienced some abuse, and government is incapable of solving all problems or even most problems without first taking a portion of your freedom. Could this be the intended outcome?

The argument in favor of race-based government programs is that “we are only making up for the racism of the past.” In doing so, aren’t we also producing the evidence for race-based favoritism in the future as the descendants of those prejudiced now to “right” a perceived wrong can use the same logic in the next generation to extract favors from the children of current favorites? Racism then has no end and government ^is its major facilitator.

So what would happen if the government ceased baiting racism? It would slowly subside. The American melting pot has handled this better than any other nation on earth. It does so gradually, almost unperceptively, primarily through natural intermingling and intermarriage. Most of us are not pure anything. Most have learned not only to get along but to appreciate one another’s diversity in foods, holidays, music, customs and etc. Our diversity is our greatest asset outside liberty.

Noticias/news opinion

Posted in OpiniónComments (1)