Select Page

Bundy Justice: The Price They Paid

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Some think that the Bundy’s got off scot-free when U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed cases against Cliven and sons Ammon and Ryan and co-defendant Ryan Payne and accused their prosecutors, the government, of willfully withholding evidence from Bundy lawyers in violation of the federal Brady rule thus denying them due process. She referred to it as “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct” and set the defendants free “with prejudice” preventing the government from trying them again on this case.

Navarro was referring to some 3,300 pages of evidence showing, among other things, government surveillance of the Bundy’s on the ranch days before the standoff and FBI logs documenting their activity at the ranch in the days prior to, both supporting the Bundy claim of self-defense. The governments having tactical teams and multiple video cameras positioned around the ranch certainly justifies this argument. Also excluded were records showing the presence of government snipers ( during the standoff necessitating some few Bundy supporters, taking positions with their rifles aimed at the snipers should agents open on the Bundy’s.

So what price did the Bundy’s pay for defending the Constitution and freedom? Cliven Bundy certainly felt it high: “I have been a political prisoner for more than 700 days.” Let’s review the story of Bundy justice.

Ranchers throughout the West had been grazing their cattle on open land for centuries before the land was made territories in a process emanating from the Articles of Confederation preparatory for statehood when population requirements, defined by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, were met. Once met land within a state boundary belonged to the new state. Under the Constitution there exists no provision for federal land within state boundaries outside Article I, Section 8, thus no federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This is the constitutional and Bundy position. The federal government found it profitable to withhold 87.7% of Nevada from the state and THEIR federal courts justified this position. The Bundy’s did not, and continued to graze their cattle where their forefathers had always grazed them without paying federal fees.

The BLM began to slaughter and bury Bundy cattle and confiscated hundreds more to sell to pay the federal fees. They also placed numerous FBI and BLM agents on Bundy property without their permission to watch family movements. Word got out and hundreds arrived to aid the Bundy’s in keeping their cattle. Agents created First Amendment areas for those opposing their actions and some few voicing it in non-designated areas were thrown to the ground, Tased, and threatened with arrest. The alarm went out. The cattle were released when armed neighbors and friends, some from out of state, outnumbered agents.

Next Ammon and Ryan Bundy assisted Oregonians in their land issues the federal government claiming 52.6% of their land. In particular the Hammond’s, who also suffered abuse by the BLM when a fire on their property accidentally burned adjacent BLM land. The Hammond’s served time for the fire than a year later were rearrested by federal agents when a federal judge concluded that they had not served enough time—double jeopardy. Bundy boys participated in the 40-day take-over of the then vacant Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility in protest.

While driving to Burns, Oregon to negotiate with agents with a view of mitigating the occupation the truck driven by Lavoy Finicum was fired upon. Ryan was wounded in the arm, and Finicum exited the truck with his hands up, was shot three times in the back and killed. The three passengers endured almost five minutes of gunfire before they were allowed to exit, believing that agents also would kill them. A recording inside the truck records occupants begging God to save them (

Eight months later in a Portland jail cell Ryan was awaken at 5:30 a.m. and taken to a “secret” hearing in the basement, no time to contact his lawyer. On the way he was beaten by three guards suffering a dislocated wrist, broken thumb, and head bruised and cut open. Presumably the prosecution wanted the evidence of the bullet received while Ryan was approaching the FBI roadblock removed, with no witnesses other than themselves, they could contest the vehicle being fired upon prior to the roadblock. According to Ryan’s wife Angie, they would not allow pictures of the procedure and no paperwork regarding the removal would be given him. His refusal to agree to the “secret surgery” was the probable reason for the beating. In October 27, 2016 the Bundy boys were acquitted of all charges with respect to the Wildlife Refuge facility occupation but the killing of Finicum remains outstanding.

Finally Bundy justice must include the cost of litigation, presumably thousands, and prison time already served for several of at least a year and a half. The separation from family and friends and the cost of motel, travel, and meals for the family to see their incarcerated husbands and fathers weighs in somewhere. And, how does one put a number on the emotional price all participants paid until January 8 thinking that family members and friends are more likely to be incarcerated the rest of their lives than not. I told Ryan that I am willing to write about freedom and the Constitution, even suffer to some extent, but he was beat up, wounded, and risked being locked up for decades for it.

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

The Rich Pay Almost All Federal Income Taxes

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

How many times have I heard said, “The rich need to pay their fair share?” But they already pay almost all of the federal income taxes while the “poor” receive government checks. A quick check with the Congressional Budget Office reveals that the top 20% of wage earners pay over 90% of all federal income taxes while the bottom fifth get more from the federal government than they pay to it. Normally around 45% of adults pay no federal income taxes. The top 40% normally pay it all. This does not change in the new Trump Tax Plan.

What I have written is not found on any news network or newspaper left of center. Why, because communism, socialism and liberalism, of which the left is comprised, share a hatred for the rich (some call it class envy) and believe in income equality as a major tenant of the faith. The government cannot give to anyone that which it has not first taken from someone else. The graduated income tax notion, first published in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marks and adopted in full by the progressives in this country over a hundred years ago, historically destroys the rich but also in time impoverishes everyone except the ruling elite.

Those on the left normally go ballistic with the above and quickly change the wording from “federal income taxes” to “taxes” (dropping the word federal) noting, mostly correctly, that illegals and other low income peoples pay state and local taxes, perhaps as much as a fifth of their income. These however, are mostly required “use” or purchase taxes, not based upon income levels. Imagine a store having different prices for the same item based upon ones ability to pay. Actually, it is the only fair tax, as one cannot get the gasoline, food or etc. without paying the taxes associated with it. Please note, this column is about federal income taxes not state or local taxes, which are paid entirely by those considered rich by the bottom two-income classes.

Simply stated the bottom fifth of wage earners get more from the federal government than they pay in taxes to it. Such “government transfers” (handouts) come in many forms: food stamps, medical and housing subsidies, and various other subsidized programs including income and child tax credit programs—some tuition credits.

How can this be fair to the class that is forced to help pay their bills? Why shouldn’t the “poor” pay their fair share especially since a large portion of the total is funneled back to them in welfare and the nation is nearing bankruptcy with nearly $21trillion in debt as a result?

We have the normal three solutions in dealing with this debt: tax more, inflate more, and cut more. We could double our taxes but that will destroy our incentive and resources to create jobs. We could inflate the dollar making every dollar already earned worth less as we have done for over 100 years. But that robs those on fixed incomes and seriously damages the lower classes who don’t have the money to purchase gold or silver to ensure the value of what they have saved. Or finally, we could cut the free or subsidized “non-essential” programs and live within our means. But no recipient considers his “gifted” program non-essential.

I suggest a fourth solution? We are becoming a two-class society—those who pay federal income taxes and those who do not, with the non-tax payers still receiving generous subsidies from the pockets of those who do—some say “makers versus takers.” Worse, those who are federal taxpayers are denied these same benefits their less productive neighbors receive. We all have able-bodied friends who choose not to work. How often do we hear of friends who won’t work because they get enough on unemployment or that they might, in fact, make less by working?

Most use federal services in some way? As compassionate as we wish to be with the money of others, in fairness shouldn’t all be required to pay federal income taxes? Even the widow paid her mite in the New Testament and was subsequently praised (not excused) for having done so by Christ himself.

All “freebie” benefits that the “poor” received during the preceding year should be added to their salary in this calculation. When they know this up front they may elect to opt-out of the benefit so that it doesn’t put them in a higher tax bracket. When the “poor” pay federal income taxes they are vested in the system and hypothetically more responsible. When they do not the issue of taxation on the federal level becomes meaningless to them.  “So what if taxes are raised, it does not affect me!”

When the non-federal income taxpayer class (presumably the poor) reaches 51% of the population they become the majority class and will never reduce the taxes on the “rich,” which will always be defined as anyone making more than they.  The working taxpayer class becomes the new slave class. Eventually when the “rich” are destroyed as a class, as happened in the U.S.S.R. under socialism, all become slaves and poor.  With everyone participating in the tax burden, it is harder to gain support for tax raising issues, thus saving billions and the payment of taxes by non-taxpayers, the “poor,” help reduce the national debt.

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

Merry CHRIST-mas To All

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Those wishing to destroy or remove Christ from Christmas prefer “Winter Break” or “Happy Holidays;” the same is true of “Easter Break” to “Spring Break.” This language reduces the connection to Christ, the reason for both. Proponents argue that this terminology is advanced so as not to offend non-believers who sometimes choose to be offended but it offends those of us who are believers.

The songs of the birth of Christ blanket the earth resulting in more love, more giving, more kindness, more caring and sharing, more thought for others, indeed more of everything that is good. Why would anyone wish to remove this influence? Non-believers might say that society could have all this without Christ. Really!!— As evidenced by the other eleven months??? I do not think so!! Christmas has an unexplained magic to it unlike any other time of the year.

I first noticed the unusual effects of Christ at Christmas as a13-year-old boy milking my neighbor’s cow while he was away. The experience was repeated on the following days also. It was a mostly opened shed, very cold at six a.m. in the morning with icy patches of unmelted snow still on the ground. The sky was lit with a thousand stars demonstrating the immensity of space and of the enormous domain of God. I was happy for no identifiable reason. This was the key—happy for no identifiable reason. And songs of the birth, especially “Silent Night,” played in my mind as I squeezed out the milk from the cow into an open bucket below. I felt all the virtues identified above seemingly all at once and I knew that this season and this little baby was much more than just special. He had to be God. I felt so warmed. I now am long passed just believing.

Others feel this warmth too as it is so plentifully spread over the earth as though by angels spreading angel dust. Santa is a nice guy, mostly for children, but made-up. Christ is not. Non-believers have to notice this unexplained special feeling or choose to deny it. Also easily noticed is that this special warm feeling is pretty much gone by New Year’s Day.

It is okay not to know as I know. I respect the holidays and sacred days of others but I do DEMAND my own. Of all the founders of other religions and faiths, some of which may have been impressive, none was born in a lowlier place—in a manger where cows fed—because his parents, though with child, lacked the distinction to merit something better. None was introduced into the world by a heavenly choir sung to lowly shepherds who were the first invitees to the birth of this king, possibly the only time that happened in history.

No other founder could read the unexpressed thoughts of others. None fed thousands with a few fish or loaves of bread. None walked on water. None of them replaced a severed ear fallen to the ground, simply by returning it to the head of his enemy. None of them healed the sick, made the lame walk, the deaf hear, and gave sight to the blind. Indeed He was the gift to the downtrodden, infirmed, and sinners.

No other founder could forgive sin itself. None restored life to someone who had been dead for days. None but Christ raised himself from the dead. None of them!!! None were said to be perfect. He wronged no one. None, while in the greatest agony of excruciating pain, from one of the cruelest types of torture then known, forgave his afflicters “for they knew not what they did.” All these manifestations were seen by many, sometimes thousands, of witnesses. No one but God does these things.

The Wise men from afar knew of his birth in the “writings” of the stars and came to visit bringing incense, frankincense and myrrh, gifts of great value. Legends of Native Americans speak of his birth and cite stories of a white God coming to them with new plants and foods and the same healing powers as expressed in the Old World. The Aztecs called him Quetzalcoatl, the Mayans Kukulcan and in Peru, Viracocha, in Brazil, Sume, in Columbia, Bochica. Time stopped and thereafter was counted as AD, rather than BC, in both the old and new worlds. Identify another founder of religion who had this kind of influence in the world.

Christ left the most profound political problem solving formula known to mortals. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Such would end most, if not all, problems between humans and governments. He commanded to first love God and then others as “ourselves.”   For non-believers, who may contest Christ’s Godhood, can you dispute this wisdom?

Again, why take this special feeling and moment from Christians, or belittle it, or choose to offend me by expressing all this as simply “Winter Break” or “Happy Holidays.” Yes, offend me!! And most assuredly, please understand why I might retort, to someone giving me this greeting, bringing home my point, Merry CHRIST-mas.   Yes, it is all about Christ, so be offended if you choose to be or be warmed with the unexplained magic of the season with the rest of us!!

Why would we not want to keep Christ in Christmas? Merry CHRIST-mas to all!!


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

The Constitution Deals with Sexual Abuse in Congress

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

According to the media members of Congress of both major political parties are dropping like flies to a fly-swatter in a barn: Senator Al Franken, Congressmen John Conyers, Ruben Kihuen, Blake Farenthold, Joe Barton, Trent Franks, Alcee Hastings, in the last 30 days. All are accused of sexually abusing women, some recent, some years ago. The Constitution deals with misbehaving members of Congress when followed fully.

Unfortunately with the disclosure of these seven also came the exposure of the existence of a secret funding source for members of Congress accused of sexual harassment and other work-place discretions created under the Congressional Review Act of 1995. Since 1997, the fund has paid at least $15 million to settle complaints. Congressman Blake Farenthold is the first member of Congress confirmed to have benefited from it receiving $84,000 in taxpayer dollars in 2014 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit with a former aide. We will have many other disclosures to rise to the expenditure of $15 million. A fund to potentially hide immoral, possibly illegal, activities is completely unconstitutional. It also removes a deterrent to transgression.

So how does the Constitution deal with misbehaving members of Congress? It begins with the morality of the electorate. John Adams, a Founding Father and 2nd president of the United States, identified the first principle of a republic where a king does not dictate good or evil, but the participants in that government bridle their “human passions” through “morality and religion.” left unbridled, he said, they “would break the strongest cords of our Constitution.” He ended a lengthy paragraph on the topic with, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

At least nine other Founders expressed similar opinions.   George Washington in his “Farewell Address” wrote: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”

In their time none denied the relationship between morality, religion, God and justice. When morality is situational, as it seems to be for so many today, this link is broken and one depends upon his own wisdom alone. There is no “appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding,” as expressed by Benjamin Franklin in the Constitutional Convention. As Washington once said, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Unprincipled government can do much damage as it has to the Constitution for years.

We expect those we elect to govern to have strong moral fiber and to have their human passions fully bridled. If they are still struggling with the base, hedonistic, animalistic and adulterous elements of themselves, such as is reported of these members of Congress, how can we expect them to make laws for the people based upon righteousness and justice? How can they discern such?

So the first constitutional principle is the election of persons to govern who demonstrate moral fiber. Moral bankruptcy usually starts long before one is a member of Congress. Al Franken demonstrated this by his choice of material as a professional comedian. Women complained of the sexually abusive behavior of John Conyers decades ago. Once this is known and confirmed, he should not be reelected. When the people themselves are morally bankrupt and do not care about the philandering of their favorite, as in the second election of President Bill Clinton, then such, as Adams said, breaks “the strongest cords of our Constitution.” Returning to the principle of electing only those with strong moral fiber, and zero tolerance for those who do not, will eliminate most, if not all, predatory behavior in Congress.

Once manifested two parts of the Constitution come into play to isolate the damage. Each House is to be the judge “of the Elections, Returns and Qualification of its own Members” making certain that it is the will of voters and that will was fairly derived (Article I, Section 5, Clause 1).   But neither House can constitutionally rejudge behavior that is known to voters addressed during the campaign after the expression of the people, should any of the seven run and win in 2018.

Also, each House may “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member” (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2). In this they deal with behavior occurring after being seated such as sexual harassment. So let the Ethics Committee of both houses deal with the accused.

But the Constitution has one more check. At least six of the seven accused of sexual abuse face their constituents in eleven months to be judged by them and reseated or not. Their best behavior is likely pending that outcome. Let these two constitutional filters do their work not media trials that only serve the vengeful and are too politicized to be fair.

If the above does not end predatory sexual behavior in Congress the Constitution can be said to be broken, as Adams said, at least on curbing immorality of its leaders. The disclosures are serious; still, we need to be reminded that there are 535 members of Congress and most bridle their “human passions” but the seven, who presumably do not, are seven too many.

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 columns, please visit

Trump, the Constitution, and National Monuments

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

“Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington,” President Donald Trump said, speaking at Utah’s State Capitol Dec 3, 2017. “And guess what? They’re wrong.” He then reduced two national monuments in Utah, one the Grand Staircase-Escalante by 50%, created by Bill Clinton in 1996, the other, The Bears Ears by 85%, created by Barack Obama less than a year ago, both land grabs highly unpopular with Utah congressional delegates.

The cut of two million acres in Utah monuments alone is the largest in the nation’s history. These cuts may open a new era as 27 other monuments may be on the down size agenda in coming months or years reducing the trend of previous presidents to gobble up enormous tracts of largely western land. The Federal government already owns 63.6% of Utah and elected government officials want to manage their own land, like states east of the Mississippi. Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10).

Presidents designating national monuments for the last 40 years ranked on number follow: Obama 26, Clinton 19, Carter 15, G. W. Bush 6, Reagan and George Bush 0 (Department of the Interior, Quartz). Those restricting land use the most in millions of acres were: Obama 553.5m, G. W. Bush 218.8m, Carter 56m and Clinton 5.7m. All presidents previous to Carter were 3 million or less. In other words, the top three land grabbers: Obama, G. W. Bush and Clinton each set aside more land than all previous presidents before them combined. At this rate of acceleration one can easily see that in a few short decades the president could own or control every acre in America (National Parks Conservation Association). At the very least one can say that Trump has potentially stopped the acceleration.

A big issue is the constitutionality of further restricting land use mostly of campers, bikers and hikers. It also restricts hunting, fishing, horseback riding and off-road vehicle usage, by the signature of one man only. Outside of managing land as a territory until statehood is obtained (Article 4, Section. 3, Clause 2), the Constitution gives little power to the federal government to do so.

The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.” Any new acquisition had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes.

As all land acquisition powers are in Article I of the Constitution with the legislative branch, the president was left out of the process. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the national monuments acquired and Teddy Roosevelt used a mere law, the Antiquities Act of 1903, to trump the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. None were purchased, none received the consent of the State Legislature, and none are used exclusively for military purposes. Nor has there been an additional amendment to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required by Article V for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land, or Bureau of Land Management, or even public land.

One might argue that most, if not all, of the monuments were already on federal land having been acquired when the federal government refused to give to new states all the land that went with statehood when they transitioned from territorial status. That is true. The federal government through this process came to own about a third of the United States. That late 19th Century leaders fraudulently acquired the property in the first place, it does not follow that present leaders should expand on the fraudulency.

Constitutionally all land within state boundaries, unless acquired through the three stipulations noted in the Constitution, belong to the states—no exceptions. That the federal government has created national monuments unconstitutionally on what are state lands, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional.

Although President Trump claimed no constitutional grounds for his downsizing precedent, he should. His cited reason, that the natural resources of Utah should not be “controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington” is basic to the collective view of the Founding Fathers that federal powers be limited and specifically listed in the Constitution or in an amendment to it, was supported by all signing it. And should be today by all swearing an oath to preserve it.

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

Climate Change and Political Party Science

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Have you ever wondered why respected scientists of both major political parties see climate change so differently, one party viewing the future with great fear and trepidation the other calmly viewing it as normal and natural? The one claiming their position to be “established science,” the other “we have seen this before.” One, we have got to legislate away green house gasses; the other increased CO2 gasses actually benefit the earth. It all comes down to what assessment tools are used by the scientists, computer models or actual climate history.

Nowhere is the discrepancy wider than with respect to sea level assessments. Is it rising or subsiding or neither? A recent article, perhaps the best in assessing the problem in laymen’s terms, was printed in “The New American,” September 2017 (Sea Level Lies, by Ed Hiserodt and Rebecca Terrell, pp. 10-16). Only two factors can affect a rise or a decline, adding or subtracting water.

Increasing water volume can only happen in three ways: water added by volcanic eruptions, temperature rising expands water, and frozen water melting. Added water by volcano eruptions is minimal. NOAA reports “the global mean temperature of land and ocean has increased … 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 135 years,” no “real” volume change. Glacial melt does not increase sea levels when it is floating ice any more than does ice floating in a glass of water, when thawed, overflow the glass. “When ice melts it contracts causing no change in water level.” The poles are mostly floating ice.

Land ice, as opposed to sea or floating ice, is displaced from the sea and does affect sea levels when it melts because it adds back the water initially taken to make the land ice. Between the coolest ice age (when sea levels were 410 feet lower than today) and warmest age (when sea levels were 19.7 feet higher than today) there was a sea level change of 380 feet, but there has been very little change in actual sea level change in many decades. The extremes account for why there once existed a land bridge between North American and Asia some 600 miles wide and why Southern Greenland, once a forest, is not today. Certainly we have a long way to go before either extreme is met again.

Since most of the ice on the poles is floating ice, and not land ice, the affect of sea level change is minimal. Scientist estimate that a melted land ice sheet the size of New Hampshire, 1,000 inches thick, would raise sea levels only a fourth of an inch. There has been little sea level rise from melting glaciers the past 20 years.

If the sea level of the planet is best illustrated as a bowl partially filled with water, the level of that water thereafter can change only, as we have said, by two factors adding or subtracting water. If the three possibilities of adding water, volcanic eruptions, water temperature rising, and water melting do not change the levels significantly, perhaps the answer is in subtracting water, instead.

This can happen in four ways: subduction, subsidence, displacement and isostasy.   All four amount to changing the dimensions of the bowl not the amount of water in the bowl. Subduction alters local tidal readings when one tectonic plate overlaps another and moves. Subsidence, somewhat similar to subduction, is a gradual sinking of land such as in sinkholes in Florida, but on the ocean floor instead. Its twin, called displacement, would be volcanoes pushing land upward where water once was, such as those creating Hawaii. The water is now simply displaced elsewhere causing sea level risings in other places. Isostasy is the melting of land ice returning water to the bowl, which, using New Hampshire as our example is important, but minimally changes the water surface of the globe.

All of these things can affect local readings up or down by varying the dimensions of the bowl but not the volume of water in the bowl. Further complicating readings is the moon and its alignment with the sun resulting in gravitational pull but this too does not add or subtract water.

What the geological and historical data show for the last 20 centuries is little fluctuation in sea levels, perhaps 7-8 inches a century. So why do “alarmists” and “normalist” scientists vary so on this subject; the first taking over the Democratic Party, the second maintaining their hold on the Republican Party?   Because Republican scientist continue to focus on documented past trends for their predictions and Democrat scientists accept past trends to 1993 but thereafter abandon these favoring “computer simulations of global temperature rise, which suffer from faulty models.”

The advent of what is known as satellite radar altimetry, although not time tested and yielding only a very limited database, has allowed faulty data to be seriously considered as fact. Why would any scientist value such data without it having had a long-term verifiable past? The answer is because its projections fit with those believing in man-made climate change theories? It is because catastrophic science is more easily funded than non-catastrophic science and because global warming education infiltrated the cartoons of preschool learners and inundated government schools thereafter. And it is because science has become politicized and most of the established media cover only the alarmist view.


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 has 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