Jul 27, 2020 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
At the close of the cable news show Tucker Carlson Tonight July 20, 2020, Tucker had the strangest ending that I have ever heard a news anchor announce. I could feel his fear for his family
It began normal, “Well, all of a sudden the media have ripped off the mask and they’re supporting violence as a political tactic. They spent the last few months describing the riots as mostly peaceful. It provided cover for rioting. They’ve watched conservative speakers shut down, their families harassed.” I have published similar sentences describing the deep state, establishment media coverage of the law and order issues of today.
He next apologized for referencing himself. “Since the show began almost four years ago, I’ve really tried not to talk about myself on the air, or even use the first person pronoun. The last thing this country needs is more narcissism.”
He then related how the media with the thug organization Antifa had driven him out of his home in Washington DC almost two years before. “Left wing journalists publicized our home address in Washington. A group of screaming Antifa lunatics showed up while I was at work. They vandalized our home. They threatened my wife. She called 911 while hiding in a closet. A few weeks later they showed up again at our house. For the next year they sent letters to our home threatening to kill us. We tried to ignore it. It felt cowardly to sell our home and leave. We raised our kids there, in the neighborhood, and we loved it. But in the end, that’s what we did. We have four children. It just wasn’t worth it.”
Returning to his reluctance to report as news his persecution he said, “But tonight we’re going to make an exception to that rule. We don’t have much choice.”
I sat glued to my chair listening in horror because what was happening to him in America, with millions listening, could happen to anyone without an audience. He was one of the most viewed anchors in America.
But what came next is representative of what happened under Germany’s Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin’s media tyranny in Russia. “Last week the New York Times began working on a story about where my family and I live. As a matter of journalism, there is no conceivable justification for a story like that. The paper is not alleging we’ve done anything wrong and we haven’t. We pay our taxes, we like our neighbors. We’ve never had a dispute with anyone. So why is the New York Times doing a story on the location of my family’s house? Well you know why. To hurt us, to injure my wife and kids so that I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them. They believe in force.”
This is the New York Times, for more than a century the most trusted news outlet in America, and they are adopting the suppression tactics of two of the most brutal dictators in world history. The tactics of each the Times covered over past decades with distain.
Tucker continued. “But the New York Times followed us. The paper has assigned a political activists called Murray Carpenter to write a story about where we are now. They’ve hired a photographer called Tristen Spinski to take pictures. Their story about where we live is slated to run in the paper this week. Editors there know exactly what will happen to my family when it does run. I called them today and I told them, but they didn’t care. They hate my politics. They want this show off the air. If one of my children gets hurt because of a story they wrote, they will consider it collateral damage. They know! It’s the whole point of the exercise, to inflict pain on our family, to terrorize us, to control what we say. That’s the kind of people they are.”
Of course, the New York Times knows what they are doing. They saw how it worked under Hitler and Stalin—they are the Times—they were horrified with what they covered then. Now they are doing the same to those who disagree with them. Carlson added “They’ll deny this, of course, they’ll claim it’s just journalism, just the facts. Really!!”
Then he asked for empathy. “So how would Murray Carpenter and his photographer Tristen Spinski feel if we [Tucker Carlson Tonight] told you where they live? If we put pictures of their homes on the air? What if we publicize the home address of every one of the soulless robot editors at the New York Times, who was assigned and managed this incitement to violence against my family? What about the media editor, Jim Windoff? We can do that. We know who they are. Would that qualifies as journalism? We doubt they’d consider it as journalism. We don’t consider this journalism.”
Carlson made an astute but truthful observation. “They’d call it criminal behavior if we did it.” Then concluded, “And that tells you everything! It does tell you everything!!”
If The New York Times can destroy a very popular FOX News anchor, it can destroy any media source. A free press in America is close to being an illusion.
We hope our assistance in publicizing this travesty will help stop its escalation.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 21, 2020 | Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Last April the Washington Post published an article “Will Americans wear masks to prevent coronavirus spread?” It listed a variety of reasons why some will not wear masks. Unfortunately it missed the main one—masks help make and keep America afraid. The media, WHO and the CDC have been wrong on virtually every aspect of the virus, from early estimates of American death predictions from 2 to 3 million to even the practicality of wearing a mask. For many wearing masks represents submission to those with little regard for the Bill of Rights, not selfish insensitivity to others who might get the virus from the unmasked, as those who wish to take our liberty openly say.
One bluntly said, “If Donald Trump had not been elected president it would not be hyped.” Another, “Nothing more will be said of it if Joe Biden is elected president.”
The media began with the horrific death prediction of millions. When those numbers were not high enough opponents did two things to inflate them: one by counting deaths with Covid-19 as the same as those dying from Covid-19 and two, infecting nursing homes with patients with the virus. Turns out that more than 40% of those dying were in nursing homes. When a drug used to treat malaria—hydroxy-chloroquine—was found to cure the coronavirus as well, instead of excitement over the finding, the media and their accomplices unsuccessfully did everything to discredit its use. Clearly their agenda was to make and keep Americans afraid.
It is clear to most that the virus had been weaponized for the election of 2020. It damaged Trump’s best economy in U.S. history, nearly ended the popular Trump rallies, justified Biden’s non-aggressive presidential campaigning because of his obvious cognitive failings, provided the rational for three or less presidential debates and vote by mail efforts—all benefiting the Democrat Party.
The absolute best strategy for keeping Americans afraid is to keep them wearing and practicing the symbols of fear—masks, distancing, partially closed churches and in small groups. It is a constant reminder that the emergency is present and ongoing. The next best is to keep children from returning to school. That there exists no science that keeping children out of school is a benefit to them does not matter, nor that virtually all of Europe has opened their classrooms.
Nor did it matter that the Asian Pandemic of 1957 with a death of 116,000 Americans, or the Hong Kong Pandemic of 1968 with 100,000 deaths, may still be more than the 130,000 dying from Covid-19, subtracting at least 25% of those who did not actually die from Covid-19, but with it. The populations were much lower then and they wore no masks, closed no businesses, restaurants, churches, sporting events, schools, colleges or large gatherings. The population of America is 328,239,523. Do the math, dividing this number by 130,000 deceased equals .0004 X 100 =.04%—infinitesimally low. Dividing by the three million who got it, and recovered, .009 or 0.9% is not even 1% of the population.
This is why the vast majority of Americans cannot identify a family member or close friend dying from Covid-19. Still, the Left has Americans paralyzed and perpetually afraid. The death rate of the flu two years ago, 61,000, did not even make the news, but this is a presidential election.
Again the media have lost credibility. The same sources now pushing the narrative that those not wearing masks are doing so because of their selfishness and insensitivity toward others are the same people and outlets that were wrong at every turn respecting the coronavirus.
But none of this is new!! We count nine times when these same media outlets, organizations, and persons attempted to upend, even by coup d’etat, the 2016 presidential election.
Let’s review these attempts three happening simultaneously before Trump took office. Spygate the Trump Tower wiretapping, demonstrations in cities all over the United States (presumably funded by George Sores, to refuse the results of the 2016 election with signs “Not My President”), and finally, the Republican “Never Trumpers” movement. Once inaugurated the effort to get someone in his administration to declare him unfit so as to use the 25th Amendment to remove him followed. Then the Russia Hoax and the resultant 2 1/2 year Robert Mueller Investigation. This followed by disclosure of the FBI/CIA Coup attempt to unseat him, next the Ukrainian Hoax, followed by the failed Impeachment attempt. Nine easily documented attempts to remove Trump from office. On issues relating to Trump it is hard to find anything upon which these media were accurate.
Trump endured three congressional investigations: the Mueller and Horowitz Reports, each exonerating him, and the US Senate Impeachment trial acquitting him. Trump suffered more unjustified opposition/persecution than all U.S. presidents combined.
So what is the main reason so many refuse to wear masks? Americans cannot be convinced that politicalization of the coronavirus is not the 10th attempt to oust Trump and bring down America and the anarchists the 11th. Many feel used, betrayed and undefended as they watch these same sources excuse non-wearing of masks for rioters and anarchists but condemn such for the rest. If most cannot identify a family member that has died from this pandemic after almost six months of headlines of death, why would they trust these falsifying sources? To many the preservation of the Bill of Rights and not wearing the symbols of control and fear are all they have to resist those who want to make and keep Americans afraid and take our liberty.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 13, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The very thought of one unelected judge with a stroke of a pen nullifying law is unconscionable to most Americans but this has become common against the Donald Trump Administration blocking the executive function of the government at least 37 times. Before him it was 20 times against Barack Obama. When this happens it is called an injunction, most are delayed for a time and overturned by a higher court. Consequently Trump has had to ask for 20 emergency stays from the Supreme Court while these were resolved. No president has had to deal with such unconstitutional judicial overreach. This exceeds the combined number of all 42 presidents preceding him.
There are 663 Article 3 District Court judgeships across the country. Unfortunately, as practiced, any one of whom can issue a nationwide injunction against a federal government action.
These lower district court judges have weaponized themselves against Trump with the complacency of Congress. In fact, it has become a major distortion of the separation of powers doctrine amplifying the judicial branch powers well beyond the Constitution and original intent. Not because Trump did anything particularly unconstitutional, but because one judge out of 663 across America said he had.
National injunction topics include: travel bans, DACA, immigration, border wall, census citizenship, and the environment. Some call this judicial tyranny. Jefferson warned in 1820 that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional question [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” James Madison’s address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788 was specific to this silent danger, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” (Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injuctions at the Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2019).
Judicial review by the Supreme Court of laws passed by Congress came about in 1803 with the Marbury v. Madison decision, fully 14 years after the Constitution was formed, thus wording nullifying created law is not found in the Constitution. Imagine the Founding Fathers placing in the Constitution the power of a very few—now nine—to undo what the majorities of both the House and the Senate had agreed to, then signed by the president. Essentially the court gave itself the power to nullify what hundreds of legislators had agreed to. That judicial review has become sacrosanct by past practice (nobody opposed it enough to end it), it remains not actually in the Constitution—not even in a subsequent amendment—so let us try other constitutional remedies first, dealing with district judges, before challenging judicial review.
Actually District Court judges, those issuing the injunctions blocking presidential authority, are not in the Constitution as a permanent fixture either—only at the behest of Congress. Article III only created the Supreme Court but did authorize “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Thus in adjusting to the work load, Congress has the flexibility to enlarge or contract the District (inferior) Courts. Unfortunately government seldom contracts.
Notice also in Article III the division of powers of the court into original and appellate jurisdictions. In original jurisdiction they operate independent of the legislative or executive branches and these are listed as “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” While in appellate jurisdiction, essentially everything else, they function under the direction of Congress “both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such Regulations as Congress shall make.”
Such Congressional oversight is now desperately needed. For instance, where did District Court judges get the authority to by-pass the Supreme Court becoming proactive in stopping the executive branch of government from executing the law? Typically the Supreme Court has to wait until someone challenges a law, “has standing,” a term used to suggest “harmed by legislation.” So the Supreme Court is a passive organization until called to action. What the District Court judges are doing is initiating aggression on their own. Article III also authorizes Congress to impeach justices should their misbehavior be demonstrated. We suggest using it on District Court judges issuing injunctions.
Congress or the Supreme Court needs to remind the District Court judges that their power is limited to resolving single cases between specific parties who brought a case before them, not issuing national edicts restricting a president’s ability to function nationally within his executive authority. Justice Clarence Thomas urged colleagues that “if federal courts continue to issue them, th[e] Court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so” (Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams delivers remarks on nation wide Injunctions at the Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2019). The Supreme Court restricting itself should be the first option, this followed by Congress if still not satisfied.
The Founding Fathers gave the States one additional option for bringing any of the three branches of government back into line. It allows them to use the 10th Amendment of the Constitution to nullify the law in their state, but usage of this is a last resort when the two other branches of government are unwilling or unable to bring in line the rogue branch.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 6, 2020 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Most Americans and virtually all Christians, were taught not to mistreat others, that God is the father of all and we demonstrate our love for God by how we treat and serve others. The vast majority of whites, including police, are not unkind to blacks or racist. So don’t tell us that all whites, and only whites, have some kind of systemic racism because of the color of their skin. That belief is very racist and a lie.
I, like most Americans, have never participated in any activity harmful to blacks. In fact, most Americans have ancestors who fought in the Civil War to help rid this nation of slavery—360,222 northerners dying for that cause. And it was largely whites that gave America their first black president. If whites were systemic racists that would have never happened. In America race baiting to perpetuate racism is a vastly bigger problem than actual racism.
So Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other groups, media outlets included, looking to incite blacks to riot and blame all whites, cease the fake narrative. Today blacks have the same rights as any other race, no less, nor more. If whites are systemically racist then Barack Obama’s white mother would be racist and Barack himself, half white, thus half racist. Nonsense!
Americans who have never contributed to racism should have no white guilt. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that my ancestors were slave owners and / or racists. Should I then have guilt or owe reparations to them? Certainly not to the living, and the dead are dead. Then, to their posterity generations later? Of course not! How would it be quantified? Most blacks are mixed black and many without slave history—like Obama in both respects. Racism that existed in the past must be left in the past. A just God will judge between the offender and the offended. Otherwise the offense, given new life, passes to the next generation.
Since, in America, nobody came through the birth canal a slave since 1865—155 years ago—no one now living is responsible. So if you force me to pay reparations for harm an ancestor may have done to someone dead generations ago, why should I not expect the same from their posterity for the damages done to me by making me pay for offenses I never did? And thus it passes to the third, fourth or tenth generation each alternately offending the other over justices that can never be resolved without continual offense. Somebody has to let it go, whether they ever forgive or not.
For many years I taught this philosophy as the only remedy possible to end the offense of slavery with only one dissenter; a male black student from an inner city back east who had so much hatred for alleged white behavior long before that he almost could not express himself. I asked him if he had been personally offended. He could not identify a single personal offense, but still hated. The thought of letting it go, or not hating because of it, he could not breach. Generational hatred was just too strong.
Critics may argue, “Whites have never felt racism as we have. It is easy for them. They have never been beat up for their skin color.” Perhaps, but some whites do know what it is like to be unmercifully beat up for no other reason than the color of their skin.
Forty-four years ago I knew a white California college professor that experienced just that. While grading final exam papers at the end of his first semester in California, he was subjected to loud and offensive language just outside his office bordering an open quad. It looked as if two fights were going on outside and, being the nearest authority on campus, he asked them to stop. When they didn’t he reached down to pull one of the combatants off another. He was the black leader of a gang of more than a dozen fellow Mexican gang members. They all attacked him. The two whites being beaten took the moment to run.
He had never seen any of these assailants before; one standing in front kicking him unmercifully with full force to the head every time he lifted it, his friends hitting and kicking him from every direction. His mind, very blurred from the blows, silently uttered to God his dangerous situation, “I will shortly be with Thee if you do not intervene in my behalf.” Almost immediately another white male faculty member entered the quad. The gang immediately attacked him also allowing the professor to get to his feet. They encircled both then pulled off their belts with large belt buckles, for which this gang was known, whipping them from all sides. In time they were able to ease to the door of the building and slip inside to safety.
Police later arrived and, mauled as he was, the professor was escorted to a police car with the restrained black gang leader inside, as he approached, snarling oaths of hatred and threats to kill him if identified. The gang leader was incarcerated for six months for the assault and soon after serving and release, killed a child and was reincarcerated, ending the immediate threat to the professor. Eventually the professor moved and never heard from, or of, the assailant again, Fear does not dissipate easily. He carried a can of maze with him the next many years. No one was going to beat him like that again.
The victim professor was me.
Have I forgotten this injustice to me. No, nor do I blame all blacks and/or Mexicans for the scum of a few. Nor did I teach my children to do so. But isn’t that what race baiters want blacks to do to the whites?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
