Jul 28, 2013 | Constitution
By Harold Pease
Three years ago I published a column that had absolutely nothing to do with the gay issue. Shortly thereafter a reader emailed that she could not attend my upcoming Tea Party address on the U.S. Constitution because of that column which she perceived was negative to her gay interests. I was shocked. Such is the hysteria and emotion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage.
Amidst this hysteria comes a view from one who is gay but opposed to gay marriage. I would not now write about his objections had the media done justice to the gay view that opposes gay marriage. It is totally ignored. Doug Mainwaring sees his gay associates as “selfish adults” who “have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop,” the right to a father and a mother.
He is disappointed that the media misses the full and complete discussion of the issue, primarily the part that deals with unintended consequences. Advocates of gay marriage are selfish, he believes, because they exclude this part of the debate. What does this do to the children from these relationships, the definition of a family, even the meaning of marriage? “Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions,” he argues. These exclusions have consequences even if we deny that possibility.
In the past, he maintains, “defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle” by “appeals to religion and tradition.” But today the institutions that most readily influence public opinion favor the move, as for example, the establishment media, politicians and large corporations. “One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks,” he writes. “We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.”
Politicians likewise appear to support it because “they’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.” Giant corporations too have come on board ever “eager to polish their images and create goodwill.”
Without thought to unintended consequences as part of the dialogue, he writes, “genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness,” but it “will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.”
Unintended consequences have already damaged the institution of marriage, he argues, even before the gay marriage issue. “No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time” but “it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.”
Mainwaring’s most powerful argument is that “same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a ‘right’ to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over. Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither ‘progressive’ nor ‘conservative’ legislation. It is ‘regressive’ legislation.”
He ends with a plea to seriously consider the unintended consequences before they become consequences. “But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that” (I’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage, by Doug Mainwaring, thePublicDiscourse.com, March 27, 2013).
Out of the hysteria and emotion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage and away from the institutions that so influence and manage our thinking comes the voice of reason and it comes from one who is gay. Perhaps it is time to listen, or at the very least, consider the time tested unintended consequences especially for the children who have no voice in the debate. It is rather pious of us to just ignore the possible consequences of this issue.
Jul 22, 2013 | Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
I am disturbed by a news report this week that shows one out of every three persons in the United States is fed by the other two. This means that in the grocery line before I get to the checkout I pick up the bill of either the person in front of me or the one behind. Since I live in California where we are told a third of all welfare recipients in the nation reside, and assuming that the vast majority receive food stamps, it is more likely that I pay for the one in front and the one behind. The vast majority of whom look to be more able bodied than I.
This news brings to mind a script “Take Down the Bird Feeder,” source unknown, that I read some time ago. Most have shared this same experience sometime in their life. It goes like this: “I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it, lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table… Everywhere! Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food. After a while, I couldn’t even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be… quiet, serene…. And no one demands rights to a free meal.
Our free enterprise system, vastly stimulated by our Constitution, which limited the government’s power over us so enterprise could blossom, has made it possible to eradicated poverty from this nation for anyone who really wanted to work. I know because I was once poor. I have 14 brothers and sisters and my father, the only breadwinner in the family had severe heart problems from which he died leaving most under 18. About not having enough, I experienced more than I wished; a snack was a raw potato. I watched those who had some measure of wealth (I knew no one wealthy) and I learned early that education and industry could save anyone who wished to use them. Others took the course that led to dependency. Every person in America has the same choice. It has always been so. How, like the birds depicted above, have so many of our people become.
One of the poorest men I ever knew refused the dole and worked till the day he died. His legs were virtually useless. Vastly overweight he could only get off the couch or a chair by first rocking until he had momentum to shift the weight to his legs. A fall drastically limited any meaningful use of his arms. He made no excuses for his situation. He found a job with a moving company answering the telephone where he scheduled help for the “real” disadvantaged, those broken down on the highway.
I tell my students of the folk tale of the old man who came to the Florida everglades to catch some wild hogs reputed to be uncatchable. No one took him seriously, only chuckled, when he inquired where they might be. You see no one had ever been successful in capturing these hogs and those would be catchers were much stronger and faster then he. “Never mind, just point me in the right direction,” he responded. They did. He placed in his old-battered pickup truck a few ears of corn, found a clearing, and left them before driving away. Day after day he did the same thing. No hog ever came forth to partake. They were way too smart. Nor did the younger hogs for they revered the wisdom of the old sages who were quick to remind them that humans were to be avoided at all costs. Day after day the old man did the same thing.
Ultimately the younger hogs began to question the wasteful practice of not partaking of the free corn and in time began to nibble, ever so watchful. There were no negatives, no consequences, only fools would reject this heaven sent meal. The old hogs would still occasionally remind them that there is no free lunch. “If it is free to you someone else is always picking up the tab,” they said. But, obviously, the old hogs were wrong. The little nibbles turned in to feasts and the old man left even more corn. With time, and feeling foolish, the older hogs joined in one by one. The old man did not go so far away. In fact, eventually he did not leave at all and enjoyed watching all feast without concern. After several months of this they, not even the wiser hogs, noticed the old man dig a hole and insert a single pole; eventually another, than another, and the chicken wire in between. Nor did they notice when he attached the only gate. He had captured them all.
So what happens to the “birds” and the “hogs?” If the practice goes on long enough they no longer know how to do things necessary to preserve themselves. They vote for the politicians that continue the practice and begin to believe that the freebies—food stamps, subsidized housing, socialized medicine, and etc., were actually owed them. They eventually lose their freedom—all of it. When the economy collapses, because the freebies cannot be sustained, the new rulers end all welfare practices as happened in every communist county in the 1900’s and starvation followed. For those who are healthy enough to take care of themselves let’s take down the bird feeder before it comes down on its own.
Jul 15, 2013 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
The world’s billionaires met again, as they have sixty times before in their annual assemblages. This time in the luxury 227 room Grove Hotel, near Watford, in Hertfordshire; overflow guests were accommodated in London nearly 30 minutes away. This is the most exclusive group in the world said to be the power brokers of the West.
Attendees in this year’s 4-day Bilderberg conference included: Google executive chairman Eric Schmit, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General David Petraeus, and British Prime Minister David Cameron. Past attendees included politicians, top business executives, bankers and often some academics, royalty and, more recently, technology gurus. This year the invited guest list was 140 of these people. Security costs alone, for what is dubbed “Operation Discuss,” covered by the British government, are thought to approach $2 million. Security costs excluded costs incurred by their having enacted a no-fly zone over the high profile event.
Local presses attempted the best coverage they could give but the assemblage kept them some distance away. This year was the first year the organization had a press office so some coverage is hopeful for the future, but reporters are never allowed in the meetings or even on the grounds. They are given the names of attendees and the proposed topics of discussion. Coverage is very managed.
All local news coverage of the Jun 6-9 event documented that it happened, has been an annual event, used the word “secretive,” spoke of the huge “police operation,” and saw attendees as the “power brokers” of Europe and North America. Even Wikipedia had these elements in its coverage. Noticeably absent was the establishment press in the United States with the exception of the Associated Press, but they were also absent last year when the annual event was held in Chantilly, Virginia, just 30 miles south of Washington D C.
What do they do there? Michael Meacher, a lawmaker from Britain’s Labour Party, reasoned: “When 130 of the leaders from all across the West get together, and many of these are billionaires, they are people who are immensely wealthy and immensely powerful. And when they all get together, it’s not just to have a chat about the latest problem; it is a concert plans for the future of capitalism in the West. That is on a very different scale” (see “Bilderberg 2013: Secretive Meeting of Western Power Brokers Begins Near London,” Jill Lawless, 06/07/13, Huff Post).
The emphasis of this year’s meeting was technology. Consider attendee Google executive chairman Eric Schmit’s, previous quotes with respect to Google’s ability to spy on users. “We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.” And, “We will know your position down to the foot and down to the inch over time… Your car will drive itself, …you’re never lonely…you’re never bored…you’re never out of ideas.”
Some of the suggested Bilderberg topics, wherein surely Schmit added input, included: “cyber resilience,” basically more government control over the Internet; implementing a “Ministry of Truth for the Internet,” a place to screen what can be placed on the Internet; and establishing “smart cities” that “record street conversations.” Another topic of interest for this 2013 meeting was controlling “3D printing” so as to restrict its use to approved users (See “Google-Berg: Global Elite Transforms Itself for Technocratic Revolution,” Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones, Info wars.com).
Older topics were also said to be issues of importance. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear processing facilities within three years should she not forsake it herself, more bailouts for the euro, dealing with a potential global pandemic, and increasing tax collection powers. These are topics that governments consider, not normally non-governmental organizations.
No wonder critics see the billionaire Bilderberg meetings as a shadow world government and a bid for total control of everyone on earth. World leaders attend and they talk about government issues. The organization establishes the issues and builds consensus toward their conclusion and they do all this in secret.
So why did 28 prominent high profile U. S. citizens like General David Petraeus and Henry Kissinger attend (see Bilderberg website for list of participants)? Last year the number was 100 and included, in addition to Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, John Kerry, White House National Security Advisor Thomas E. Donilon, past presidential hopeful and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Governor Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. of Indiana, and Vin Weber, a two-time Bilderberg presenter and campaign advisor to Mitt Romney. And why, if some event is important enough to have a no-fly zone overhead, and has these kinds of people attending, does the vast majority of the establishment press ignore it, more especially when last year it was only 30 miles away? It is way past time that they answer these questions.
Jul 9, 2013 | Constitution
You received two articles last week so as to have the one on the Declaration of Independence in a timely manner. There is no new article for today.
Today’s posting is to alert you to the soon to be video series on the Constitution free on LibertyUnderFire.org. We believe it to be the easiest and fastest way to get up to speed on the U.S. Constitution that presently is under the greatest attack in its history. It is the only way back to universal prosperity and liberty. Readers know that we have lost so much the last two decades. It is imperative that all who love liberty become devout constitutionalists first before loyalty to any party. It is that serious. In fact, readers know that I do not use the words conservative or liberal as they are so divisive. Why create your own opposition. Everyone should be a constitutionalist. Those opposed to the Constitution are thus forced to be seen for what they are and opposition to the Constitution is not an equal alternative view. They thus are force to defend themselves not against you but against the one document that everyone serving in any position of leadership is required by oath to pledge loyalty to. You will be notified when they are posted. Dr. Harold Pease
Jul 1, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Should the patriots once again have ability to rewrite the Declaration of Independence what would they say? How might it be different? Many have asked, “Is it time to restate the obvious? We have lost much of our liberty, as they had, from their elected government.”
There is no reason to believe that the committee, headed by Thomas Jefferson, would retract the base for the right of revolution from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—definitely a higher level than mere man. Nor is there any reason to believe that they would retract “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nor the right of revolution when all other means are exhausted, as they had, which is so eloquently stated in the remainder of the second paragraph. So we would expect them to retain the means of making revolution—the right to bear arms. The general theme of the last three paragraphs, that “in every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress” and “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” would be retained as well.
What is, however, perplexing is how many of the listed oppressions—the causes of the American Revolution—have returned in our day. Jefferson targeted the King for the oppressions but Parliament, an elected body, was actually responsible for most of them as is Congress in our day. These include: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” This would be our unelected federal bureaucracy today, 2.8 million strong. The $50 million for IRS parties and $70 million for IRS bonuses in 2013 come to mind. We have yet to hire the 16,000 new folks to administer our socialized medicine (Obamacare) programs, yet another enormous swarm “to eat out our substance.” These officers live off the wealth produced by others.
“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” Bradley tanks were used against the Branch Davidian Church during the Clinton Administration, and FEMA and the federalized National Guard were used in New Orleans during the hurricane Katrina under George W. Bush. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act legalizes military kidnapping of American citizens thought by the President and military to be “terrorist” and shipped to Guantanamo Bay and detained without trial indefinitely. Civil power was/is told to be secondary or non-existent in these examples.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Act of pretended Legislation:” The United Nations was created by treaty. It’s law, often “foreign to our constitution” is becoming recognized universal law with authority to supersede national law. The Supreme Court often references UN law to establish constitutionality of U.S. law. A pending case is the UN Small Arms Treaty which opponents of gun control fear will be used to nullify our Second Amendment.
“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” Anytime a president offers money to a foreign country by way of treaty, as did President Jimmy Carter in the Panama Canal Treaty, he is taxing us without our consent. Only the House of Representatives, which is excluded from treaty making, can raise a bill of revenue. When the Senate, which is supposed to approve all treaties, and the President offer money in a treaty it “imposes taxes on us without our consent.” Today presidents offer reams of money to foreign countries without a thought to asking the people first, as required by the Constitution.
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.” The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on New Years Eve 2011 by President Barack Obama, potentially removes trial by jury altogether for citizens thought by the president to be terrorists. A term never defined. If a trial is held at all it will be out of the country and in a military court—without the benefit of the Bill of Rights.
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” Once again the NDAA transports us secretly, unbeknown to our friends and family and potentially without notice to civil authorities, to Cuba for indefinite detention. Nothing that the British did to us in 1776 was more drastic than this.
“For…altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.” Our government has been moving from a republic to a democracy and now into socialism for many decades led by both major political parties. At least Barack Obama was honest with us when he promised to “fundamentally change” our government if elected.
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Our legislatures have been suspended when five things, now very common, happen: 1) when Congress usurps the powers of state governments to themselves, 2) when Congress allows an unelected bureaucracy to add sometimes thousands, of new regulations to a new law, 3) when the President makes law by executive order, 4) when the President appoints so-called Czars to administer programs and write new law for areas where the Constitution never gave the federal government any jurisdiction, 5) and when the Supreme Court rules in such a way as to create new law as in Obamacare.
I suppose the “Tories” in our day would argue, as they did then, “But our elected government gave us all these laws” (oppressions), thus it is okay because “we did it to ourselves.” That argument was made then as well but fortunately it did not keep the rest of us, the Patriots, from revolting nonetheless. Let us revolt by our vote to once again remove the returning offending tyranny and oppressions. Please share.
