Political Pistachio

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The 2024 Election is upon us, and while some people are conflicted between red and blue political colors, or they are thoroughly convinced that Kamala Harris is a communist or Donald Trump is a fascist, for me it comes down to the original principles set up by the Founding Fathers, a moral standard, and a little bit of common sense.  In short, while I have my political preferences, among my main keys when looking at the issues is whether or not the federal government is authorized to even handle the issue and what was originally meant when the Framers wrote our founding documents.  

Originally, we thought the presidential election would be between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, but the Democratic Party nominee changed when it became apparent that Biden’s mental decline had reached a point that even convinced the Democrats that he was not fit for service.  So, to “preserve democracy,” the Democrats undemocratically removed Biden, and inserted Vice President Kamala Harris. 

The Democrats are running Kamala Harris with their usual talking points, including words and phrases like change, hope, and a new way forward.  Except, having been a part of the Biden Administration for the last three and a half years, Kamala represents more of the same.  It brings to mind Ronald Reagan’s slogan, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  During the Biden presidency, Harris served as a willing accomplice.  Her ideas from her 2020 run for President are will documented from her pledges and debates, and if anything she leans even further left than Joe Biden.  I remember when banning certain guns came up as a question in a debate, way back then, and Biden tread carefully saying, “There’s something called the Second Amendment,” and Kamala laughed at his remark.  Now, however, she has recognized that Americans don’t necessarily go for such extremism; so, she’s been sounding like a flip-flopper, realizing her old, well-documented, extreme progressive leftist positions may not be good for her campaign.

Both Trump and Harris have been making their rounds, and past experience and current language makes it clear where each candidate stands regarding the issues.  The problem is, the media has been doing all they can to hide Kamala’s true agenda while they claim Trump’s agenda is one of retaliation, xenophobia, favoritism toward the wealthy, international chaos, and that he is an enemy to the Left’s precious social justice objective.

Based on past records, speeches, advertisements, interviews and debate transcripts we will examine the following issues, and where each candidate stands on each issue and whether or not that stance under examination survives constitutional scrutiny.

Policy, apparently, is not something the Democrats wish to talk about, much.  They’d rather claim Trump’s a fascist, even though based on the basic definition of fascism the Democrats are closer to fascism than Trump ever was.

Abortion:

Democrat Kamala Harris:  The Democratic Party has a long history of standing behind the idea that abortion is a constitutional right tied in some phantom way to a right to privacy, and in recent years they have pushed that there should be absolutely no legal limits to abortion.  The Democrats championed 1973’s Roe v. Wade ruling and have railed against the 2021 Dobbs v. Jackson decision which invalidated the 1973 abortion ruling, sending the issue of abortion back to the States.  Kamala Harris is calling for federal legislation to guarantee abortion be legal in all States, and has argued that the States that are limiting abortion injure women’s access to their constitutional reproductive right, causing a deep pain.  Therefore, she is willing to use unconstitutional powers of the federal government to force all of the states to abandon any anti-abortion laws.  She has argued that limiting a person’s ability to have an abortion at any stage of their pregnancy leads to injury or the death of pregnant women, and that if elected President Trump would sign a national abortion ban into law, and do what he could to remove abortion medication (abortion pill/Plan B pill) off the market.  She also claims that Trump would use his justice department to prosecute women for having abortions, and that he would create a federal agency to monitor pregnancies.  

Republican Donald Trump: During his presidency, Trump was the most pro-life President in the history of this country.  He was the first (and only) President to attend the annual March for Life event.  When Dobbs v. Jackson was decided, he verbalized that it was possible because of his Supreme Court nominations.  In line with the Dobbs Ruling, he has indicated that the issue of abortion should be left to the States.  He has also said that he would not sign a national abortion ban into law and that the federal government under his watch would not limit access to abortion medications.  He told Time Magazine that prosecutorial actions regarding abortion, as with legislation, must be a decision of the States, individually.  As for monitoring pregnancies, that is something the Democrats have gleaned from their misinterpretation of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, an agenda that Trump has repeatedly indicated he has not read, and does not associate himself with — not necessarily because he agrees or disagrees with it, but because he wants his positions to be purely his and for people to understand he’s not following some agenda written up by people other than himself or his team.  Despite accusations to the contrary, and criticisms by the pro-life movement, Trump has also indicated that he plans to make in-vitro fertilization a “free” treatment for women in the United States.

U.S. Constitution:  The Enumeration Doctrine, which is a concept from the Constitution that basically says that the federal government does not possess a power unless it is expressly authorized by the Constitution by being enumerated in either the original seven articles or in a subsequent amendment, dictates that any federal involvement in the issue is unconstitutional.  As per the Tenth Amendment, because abortion or legislation regarding any medical treatment or care is not listed in the Constitution as being authorized to the federal government, and there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits the States from making any legislation regarding the abortion issue, the issue belongs to the States and only state legislatures may legislate, prosecute, or administer any government activities regarding the abortion issue.  The federal government, including federal courts, have no authority to be concerned with abortion in any way, shape, or form.  Therefore, Harris’s call for federal legislation regarding abortion is unconstitutional.  Harris’s determination to take away the efforts by state laws to regulate the issue is unconstitutional.  Trump’s call to use federal power to make in-vitro fertilization treatment free for women is also unconstitutional.  The federal government has no authority whatsoever regarding the issue.  And, if the fact that unborn babies are “persons” is ever codified by law, judicial opinion, or constitutional amendment, then abortion would be illegal across the country because it would violate clauses in Amendment V. and Amendment XIV. which disallows government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process.

Environmental Issues:

Democrat Kamala Harris: In the name of saving the environment the Democrats have historically been against domestic drilling for oil.  Over the years their political position on the issue has sacrificed American energy independence, and has morphed into a full-blown hatred for fossil fuels, and a determination to stop anything that would enable domestic production, including the method of fracking.  Climate Change hysteria has led them to demand, in order to save the planet, that everything must go electric.  In line with her party,  Kamala Harris has consistently called for the banning of fracking domestically.  However, during the 2024 campaign, realizing that position alienated some of the voters she needs to win, she has indicated during the 2024 campaign that she is against expanding fracking, but not banning the practice.  She continues to oppose off-shore drilling.  As Senator, Harris was a sponsor of the Green New Deal which calls for the United States to move away from all fossil-fuel-influence-energy by federal mandate.  As candidate for President she has moderated her view regarding energy, but still supports leftwing policies designed to tackle Climate Change.  Her support for the Inflation Reduction Act carries with it support for a federal financial push toward electric cars and “clean energy” projects.  She has also been party to the creation of the National Climate Corps, a program designed to carry out much of Biden’s climate agenda that has enlisted over 20,000 young people.  Harris shares the Democratic Party’s goal of cutting gas emissions in half by 2030.

Republican Donald Trump:  Domestic drilling has been a constant policy by Trump who does not recognize the argument that “man-made Climate Change” is the global danger it is advertised as, nor that the human component is the only legitimate factor.  Trump has indicated he believes renewable energy methods, especially wind power, is riddled with many flaws, and that if the United States is to be an energy leader in the world, and if energy prices for Americans is to come down, the way to do it is for America to become energy independent and to unleash all of America’s domestic oil capabilities.  Trump has also indicated that everything is connected to energy, so bringing down energy costs is a sure-fire way to reduce cost of production, prices, and battle inflation.  Trump’s plan includes increasing oil drilling on public lands, offering tax breaks to energy producers (oil, gas, and coal), creating more natural gas pipelines, building more power plants (including nuclear), and eliminating federal incentives and mandates pushing people to switch to electric cars.  His position regarding electric cars has been that in a free market the decision belongs to the consumer, not government.  Trump has also pledged to again abandon the Paris climate agreement, and eliminate all of Biden’s energy mandates that includes subsidies for renewable energy, regulations against fossil fuel producers, and laws targeting products deemed energy-inefficient by the Democrats (lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers, etc.)

U.S. Constitution:  Constitutionally there are no expressly enumerated powers authorizing the federal government to be involved in energy issues, nor environmental issues.  While the federal government does have a say regarding activities on public land that is either owned or controlled by the federal government, any regulations regarding access to energy products or strategies on private land is strictly none of the federal government’s business.  As for Climate Change, the argument that human activities have a large effect on global temperatures remain in the realm of theory.  History reveals that global temperatures have risen and dropped a number of times long before human industry emerged.  Those who oppose the man-made climate change argument surmise that the phenomenon is the result of natural factors, including sunspot activity, solar flare activity, and other natural influencers. 

Democracy and the Rule of Law:

Democrat Kamala Harris: Harris and the Democrats have argued that Trump and the Republican Party are dangerous to American Democracy, and that Trump’s willingness to conduct himself in criminal ways, including paying hush money, committing fraudulent business practices, engaging in sexual abuse, and inciting insurrection in his alleged attempt to overthrow the 2020 election makes him an enemy to democracy and the rule of law, and it makes him an unstable, dangerous fascist.  A Trump presidency, according to the democrats, would result in a loss of freedoms, and the rise of an authoritarian dictatorship akin to the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany.  Trump will go after his enemies, and pardon the insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow the government and the election on January 6, 2021.  Instead, Kamala supports Biden’s call for hunting down and imprisoning everyone involved with January 6.

Republican Donald Trump: Trump has maintained that corruption and fraud fills the election process, and that it is the duty of the federal government and the States to take action to quell it.  He supports Voter ID laws (as do most Americans), and taking action to clean voter rolls when it comes to the presence of non-citizens on those rolls.  He has argued that he did not incite insurrection on January 6, 2021, but that he had been calling for his supporters to protest peacefully; and that January 6 political prisoners need to be released and the Biden Administration’s minions need to be investigated regarding those arrests, indictments, and convictions.  He has argued that the swamp still needs to be drained, and that once in office the “enemy within” will be rooted out as a result of his overhauls of various federal agencies.  He has also indicated that any federal official or those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be found out and will be brought to justice for their illegal behavior and activities deemed connected to enemies of the United States.

U.S. Constitution:  The United States was not established as a democracy, but as a Republic, so any attacks against mechanisms designed to preserve the republican form of government (checks and balances, Electoral College, Filibuster and Cloture, and the independence of the judiciary) are not only illegal, but should be prosecuted either through impeachment or through the criminal courts (or both).  As for the legal attacks against Trump for his “insurrectionist” activities as President, as President of the United States the job of the Executive is to execute the laws of the United States, and that includes election laws.  If election laws are not being carried out properly, or are being violated, the President has direct responsibility to call out such issues and take action to resolve them.  The Democrats have falsely accused Trump of inciting violence on January 6, and evidence reveals it was a set-up and that undercover federal agents were embedded in the crowds at The Capitol on January 6.  Therefore, Trump is not guilty of trying to overthrow an election, or to commit insurrection; he is guilty of trying to do his job of President at the time.  Also, Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states the President may only be charged in a criminal court with actions that occurred during his presidency if he has first been impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate regarding those same charges.  Otherwise, the President has immunity regarding those issues.  If there are those who have broken the law, especially those who use government to fund their illegal activities, the President’s Department of Justice has every authority to legally go after those people, prosecute them, and if they are found guilty to jail those persons as punishment.  The President may also pardon anyone found guilty of a federal crime, except in cases of impeachment, as per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, regardless of what the courts or the opposition political party says about it, or how they’ve labeled those persons.

Federal Bureaucracy:

Democrat Kamala Harris: While the Democrats will argue that any Republican President that operates without receiving permission from Congress first is an authoritarian dictator, Democratic Presidents, including Joe Biden and Barack Obama, have routinely used executive orders to work around Congress when the legislature does not play ball with them; an unconstitutional action since executive orders hold no legislative authority as per Article I, Section 1 which grants all legislative powers to Congress.  In 2024, Kamala Harris’s campaign is arguing that Trump’s plans are in line with the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” which they argue is an authoritarian manifesto designed to remake the federal government, upend the hiring and firing of federal workers, and increase the power of the President to authoritarian levels.  Trump’s plans, according to the Democrats, is to fire the bureaucracy, and take full control by packing the bureaucracy with allies.  Therefore, the Democrats have taken action to make it more difficult to fire federal staffers, which includes banning the option to reclassify federal employees as political appointees or other at-will employees which would make it easier by law to let them go.

Republican Donald Trump: Project 25 is a 922 page set of recommended policies by the Heritage Foundation (the book is 887 pages).  While the press has been stating that Trump has been trying to distance himself from the think tank policy recommendations document, the truth is that Trump has simply said that he has not read it, nor was he a part of putting it together.  From a conservative point of view the recommendations are fairly good but much of it might be problematic when it comes to the constitution, and some are outside the ability of the federal government to implement or enforce.  Most of the policies listed have been exaggerated or misdefined by the Democrats and their media allies, or maligned because they are an obvious departure from the plans that the Progressive Left has for this country.  Trump has, however, indicated that the federal bureaucracy is crawling with anti-American agents he defines as the “deep state,” and it is his goal to “dismantle the deep state,” meaning that he wishes to remove those “rogue bureaucrats.”  He includes in that group those who “weaponized the FBI and DOJ to target conservatives, Christians, and their political enemies.”  Trump has pledged to also target particular departments, such as the Education Department, and curtail independent activities by certain regulatory agencies in the hopes of cutting government waste, government spending, and red tape.  He has also indicated that he plans to eliminate ten federal regulations for every new one imposed.

U.S. Constitution: The Hamiltonian Federalist Party used the bureaucracy to attempt to increase federal influence domestically, and usurp the Constitution when able.  Thomas Jefferson, after he took office in 1801, fired half of the federal bureaucracy.  One of the results of his actions was a weakening of the big government Federalist Party that the political organization never recovered from.  By the 1820s, the Hamiltonians as a political party had faded into the memory of history.  Through various judicial strategies, however, the Hamiltonians embedded themselves within the judiciary, dominating federal activity through judicial fiat by way of judicial review; a game they played skillfully until President Trump was able to tip the balance with his nominations to the inferior federal court system, and the United States Supreme Court.  The bureaucracy has, primarily for the last hundred years, used regulatory activities to usurp the Constitution and operate as a legislative body.  It’s overhaul would be very constitutional, especially since most of the federal departments exist unconstitutionally in the first place (including the Department of Education), and according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution the execution of federal laws domestically is supposed to be through the constitutional state militias.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to maintain federal law enforcement agencies.  There has been no need for it because the federal government also has almost zero domestic powers.  

Border Security and Immigration:

Democrat Kamala Harris: During the Biden Administration, with Kamala Harris playing a supporting role, the border has been wide open, and Trump’s executive orders that supported existing federal legislation were reversed immediately by Joseph Biden which has led to the greatest number of illegal aliens entering the country in America’s history, with a large majority of the illegal aliens coming from countries other than Mexico – and those released back onto the streets of America by Ice under Biden leadership were largely criminals.  Harris claims that a better law, a bipartisan compromise that would resolve the problem, was killed by the GOP at Donald Trump’s request because he knew it would serve as a solution and then Trump would not have the immigration issue to use as a campaign argument – the Democrats actually killed it because the GOP was unwilling to give them what they wanted.  If elected, Harris has promised to bring the bill back, and sign it, with all of the Democrat Party wishlist items included.  She also has explained during her 2024 campaign that she, as a prosecutor, understands the issues Americans face regarding the border and that while serving as California’s attorney general she went after drug cartels and Latin American gangs.  

Republican Donald Trump: During Trump’s presidency the entrance into the country by illegal aliens had reached a low when compared to the previous decades.  Trump campaigned on building a border wall to assist with border security, of which Kamala Harris at the time called a Medieval Vanity Project.  Trump not only has vowed to secure the border, and execute existing immigration laws on the books, but to deport the illegal aliens let into the country by Biden and and Kamala Harris through a massive deportation program.  He has also called for the death penalty for any migrant who is convicted of the murder of a U.S. Citizen.  Trump also states he plans to revive and expand travel restrictions from countries considered enemies of the United States, and to toughen screening of immigrants coming into the country in order to ensure that dangerous criminals are not allowed into the country.  Associated Press has reported that Trump also plans to put an end to the concept of “birthright citizenship” as it is applied to children whose parents are both in the country illegally.

U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution grants to Congress the authority to make laws “prohibiting” migration into the United States.  Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to make laws regarding the naturalization process.  Article 4, Section 4 authorizes the federal government to protect each of the States from invasion.  Amendment Fourteen defines citizenship.  The bipartisan law that Kamala Harris claims would provide a solution focuses on the “asylum” argument when it comes to migrants seeking entry into the United States.  The law would not solve the problem, nor require more stringent vetting to weed out the criminal element, but would essentially use asylum judges to rubber stamp entry which would not change the flow and who is coming in, but would look like on paper that a vetting process is involved eliminating the conservative argument that the migrants entered the country illegally.  As mention with the above constitutional provisions, the federal government has the authority to make laws prohibiting certain persons from entering the country for any reason, pass immigration law with any protocols they seem fit, secure the border and call up the militia (in this case, National Guard) to secure that border, and deport people if they violate those immigration laws.  The States, however, do hold concurrent powers in the sense of being able to apprehend and detain illegal aliens, but from there they would need to be in contact with federal agencies for the purpose of transferring those persons to federal custody and ultimately so that the federal government can, if they choose to, deport the individuals.  This is why sanctuary state laws, which violate Article VI. of the Constitution (State laws contrary to federal laws on issues authorized to the federal government), which disallow local enforcement from communicating with federal agencies regarding any arrests of person who may be illegal migrants.  

Foreign Affairs and Conflicts:

Democrat Kamala Harris: Two wars began to rage during the presidency of Joe Biden.  Harris, while claiming Israel has a right to defend itself, has also been vocal in defense of civilians in Gaza.  When it comes to Islam, we must ask: are there really any civilians?  Are not all inhabitants in a Muslim environment potentially a military operative?  Harris has supported Biden’s proposal of calling for a cease-fire deal, but has stated that a condition must be that all hostages held by Hamas be released.  Harris has also endorsed a two-state solution, which would grant sovereignty to a Palestinian State.  Harris has shown no differing positions from Biden regarding Ukraine.  Biden has sent tens of billions of dollars in military and other aid to Ukraine, including a $61 billion gift that was a part of a $95 billion war aid measure that included money for Israel, Palestine, and Taiwan as well.  Biden also secretly sent weapons shipments to Ukraine, which included long-range ballistic missiles.  A part of the legislation also included a provision targeting TikTok’s China-based owners, ByteDance, giving the company a nine month window to sell the company to a non-Chinese buyer, or face losing U.S. access.  

Republican Donald Trump: Expressing full support for Israel, and their work to “destroy” Hamas, Trump’s only concern has been that Israel is not working as fast as he believes they ought to.  Trump’s attitude is that they should do what they need to do, finish Hamas off, and be done with it.  He has called Hamas a terrorist organization, and has stated that pro-Palestinian protests in the United States is uncalled for and should be dealt with swiftly and decisively.  Trump has indicated he supports revoking the student visas of foreign students who espouse antisemitic or anti-American views, and deport supporters of Hamas.  Regarding Ukraine, Trump believes that Ukraine’s survival is important to the United States, but is not convinced Ukraine’s leadership is as honest as Biden’s administration believes.  Trump, as with NATO, also believes European countries, if they believe Ukraine’s survival is so critical, should participate in Ukraine’s defense more than they are.  Trump has also indicated that if he had been President for the last four years, neither of these conflicts would have erupted.  He’s right, because Biden’s policies have skyrocketed oil prices, which has increased the funds available to Russia and Iran — those oil funds, in addition to other packages, gifts, and the lifting of sanctions, have set the world up for the current showdowns we are seeing in those two arenas of war.

U.S. Constitution:  George Washington commented that the best way to keep the peace is to be ready for war.  It was his way of saying, “Peace through strength,” a slogan that slammed into popularity during the Reagan Years.  Washington also warned about foreign entanglements, indicating that if the United States was to meddle in foreign conflicts it needed to only be when American interests were directly affected.  Israel has been our chief ally in the Middle East since its inception in 1948.  Islam has not been shy about its anti-American sentiments.  Hamas is a terrorist organization, and from their point of view there is no separation between civilians and military.  As our chief ally, and a country we have many treaties and shared interests with, it is our duty to stand behind Israel, and work with Israel when it comes to eliminating Muslim terror threats.  Washington’s warning about foreign entanglements comes to mind when it comes to Ukraine.  The Ukrainian government is among the most corrupt in the world, and Russia seems to be wanting to reach back into history and bring back together the old Soviet Union.  The conflict between the two goes back thousands of years.  The Founding Fathers, primarily based on the debates of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, believed that it was dangerous to enter into treaties that created international polities like NATO and the United Nations.  From their point of view, such agreements opens the door for unwanted foreign influence on domestic affairs, as well as an unnecessary drain on American resources.

Social Issues:

Democrat Kamala Harris:  Social Justice, and using government resources in the name of giving certain groups a little help towards reaching equity, is seen by Harris and the Democrats as an evolutionary step in the right direction.  From Harris’s point of view the attitudes of bygone days when it comes to racism remain in place, and “love is love” requires as much government assistance in the effort to stop any discrimination against any lifestyle as possible.  Through education the Democrats believe sexism, racism, and any discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity will be a thing of the past.  The attitude suggests, but is not said directly, that includes opposing parental rights, and doing nothing to interfere with transgender athletes.

Republican Donald Trump:  The Trump camp has basically signaled that Trump disagrees with the notion that racism is rampant, and he believes transgenders who are men who believe they are women have not place in women’s sports.  On the latter issue Trump has indicated he will ask for legislation clarifying the distinction between men and women, and he promises to defeat the gender ideology.  A part of the effort to battle against transgender medical procedures will be to pull federal money from any entity that participates in the “chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth.”  Trump also vows that the federal government under his guidance will take punitive steps against any doctor or hospital, or public school teacher or official who “suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body.”  He would also support a ban of transgender persons from the military, and use federal legislation to prohibit hormonal or surgical treatments for minors.

U.S. Constitution:  British Law developed from Saxon Law.  The Saxons considered h0mosexuality as one of four unforgivable crimes.  British sodomy laws echoed that sentiment.  Constitutionally, the federal government has no authority to be concerned with these types of domestic issues.  When it comes to our natural rights, the Constitution calls for a hands-off approach by the federal government.  The First Amendment begins, as a matter of fact, with the words, “Congress shall make no law.”  Our rights are to be left alone by government.  The federal government has no authority to “take sides” when it comes to any social issue.  The States and the culture need to work those things out, themselves.  Any federal law or action regarding social issues like racism, marriage, or sexual persuasion are strictly unconstitutional.

Taxation and Tariffs:

Democrat Kamala Harris: While claiming they will reduce taxes for the middle class, Democrats have a history of raising taxes across the board.  Harris’s campaign is calling for raising the corporate tax rate, and target the rich every avenue they can pull off.  Meanwhile, she has hammered Trump over tariffs, claiming that tariffs are a large part of the blame for inflation and that Trump’s economic plans would devastate the economy.

Republican Donald Trump: In 2017 Trump headed a tax overhaul that reduced taxes across the board.  Trump is calling for a new list of tax cuts, including eliminating taxes for tips, eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, and eliminating taxes on overtime pay.  He has also pledged to make interest on car loans tax-deductible as is mortgage interest…but only for cars built in the United States.  He has also called for cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% (for companies who produce their products in the United States) and repeal all tax increases signed into law during the Biden presidency.  He’s also calling for an expansion on tariffs, and for Congress to pass legislation to provide the President with reciprocal tariff authority against countries who impose tariffs against America.  Trump also vows to cut federal spending, sicking Elon Musk on the gargantuan task.

United States Constitution: The 16th Amendment established the foundation for direct taxation through our modern-day income tax leviathan.  Prior to 1913 when the amendment was ratified the federal budget was primarily funded by the States paying an income tax based on population, and tariffs.  History shows that reducing taxes typically increases revenue due to the fact that the reduction encourages growth in the private sector.  That, combined with a reduction in federal influences on the free market, launches economic booms.  Tariffs are a valuable tool, but like anything, works best when used in moderation.  Tariffs also encourage domestic production, and for foreign competitors to seek opening factories or production centers inside the United States.  Cutting federal spending is the key.  As a side note, in 2007 a friend of mine, Tim Kerlin, and myself through an intense study determined that 85% of federal spending is unconstitutional…I am sure the number is higher today.  Inflation’s primary causes?  A large deficit, and government influence in the free market.  The best ways to reduce inflation includes a reduction in taxes, a reasonable use of tariffs, a reduction in federal spending, and a reduction in governmental regulations against the free market – that’s how President Thomas Jefferson did it during his presidency, and those moves launched America into an age known as The Era of Good Feelings.