Select Page

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

Roy Moore, the Judge That Followed the Constitution

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

I too am troubled by a 32 year-old man becoming a U.S. Senator allegedly having attempted to seduce a 14 year-old-girl 38 years ago, as I am with allegations of “me too” women alleging something similar. Thus far documentation on these are not conclusive. And I question the timing—just before an election— which potentially disrupts the balance of power in the Senate.

Moreover, this seems like the same movie that I watched on others the left wanted to destroy notably Clarence Thomas and Donald Trump, while John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, whom the left solidly supported, both had sexual relations with an intern in the White House. So I avoid rushing to judgment on Moore until conclusive evidence is available.

Unfortunately no one is writing about Roy Moore as the judge that used the Constitution to defend the Ten Commandments and the Defense of Marriage Act, issues which made him indisputably the most hated judge in America by the left. That hatred began when Moore, a newly elected circuit judge, placed a wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments on the wall of his courtroom. This and his practice of having pre-session prayer in his courtroom asking for divine guidance for jurors in their deliberations resulted in non-Christian hatred toward him.

His designing and placing a monument of the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court building amplified such. The ACLU successfully sued to have it removed. Moore refused on the basis that the Ten Commandments are the “moral foundation” of U.S. law, stating that in order to restore this foundation, “we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs … the sovereignty of God.” For this he was removed from his judgeship.

His defense of the Defense of Marriage Act was the second unpardonable sin for the left. In state after state the Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, was passed. Likewise, in state after state, after passage, non-elected federal appellate judges ruled same-sex marriage to be constitutional, reversing the will of the majority. Justice Moore gave the constitutional argument in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act when he wrote that the U.S. Constitution gives no jurisdiction whatsoever to any branch of the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states and advised Alabama Governor Robert Bentley to disallow county clerks from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

In a hand delivered letter to Governor Robert Bentley January 27, 2015, Justice Moore argued that “nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage” and that it decidedly trumps Alabama state law, more specifically the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment passed in 2006 by 81% of her voters. Moreover, “44 federal justices have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states.” This he called judicial tyranny, which he defined as “unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.” He referred to the misuse of more recent interpretations of equal protection, due process, and full faith and credit concepts, as “spacious pretexts” not part of the original document.

When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution they recognized two co-existing governments known as Federalism: one, the federal government, to function primarily externally, the other, the states, to manage internal functions. Like a normal marriage they functioned—neither being master nor slave. Of the two only the federal government was restricted in its functions by a list of 17 specific powers found in Article I, Section 8. The Founders knew that all central governments like to grow. The states were left unrestricted and all power not identified was intentionally left to them and lesser governments.

To make doubly certain that this limitation on the federal government was permanent, the States insisted on a Bill of Rights as a condition of their acceptance of the Constitution. Amendment 10 of it reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Unfortunately for advocates of federalizing “loving relationships” the word marriage, or anything like unto it, is not in Section 8, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment through Article V, which is the process for change and thus this issue is devoid of federal constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, marriage related questions are state functions alone and cannot be moved to a federal jurisdiction without a 3/4th affirmative vote of the states as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Alabama has every constitutional right not to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Judge Moore knows and honors the Constitution as understood by its Founders resulting in his having many enemies. Is that hatred enough to fabricate child sexual assault stories never before mentioned? Quite possibly! Many of us still believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty. So until then we should support Mr. Moore. The left has a long history of giving a pass regarding the personal conduct of its favorites but will bring quick attention to anyone else alleged doing something similar, more especially if it changes the Senate to its favor and disrupts the Trump agenda.

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

“Now Thank We All Our God”

By Harold Pease Ph. D

This is the season to be grateful and to acknowledge our many blessings, even in the midst of extreme difficult times for so many of our neighbors and friends the last three months in particular. September has been declared “the most active month for hurricanes on record since 1851, with three: Irma, Jose, and Katia photographed by satellite above the Atlantic Ocean on the same day Sept. 8,” (Washington Post, Sept. 27). Harvey devastated Texas and Maria virtually destroyed Puerto Rico, most still without adequate electricity. Tying for second most active hurricane month in our history was years 1893 and 1926.

Three mass murderers paralyzed three communities in six weeks: the nations largest mass shooting was in Las Vegas, Oct. 1, with 59 killed and 527 injured, and the slaughter of 26 and wounding of 20 First Baptist church goers in Sutherland Springs, Nov. 6, was the largest in Texas history. Finally a murderous truck driver mowed down New Yorkers on Oct 31, killing 8 and injuring 11. A fourth mass shooting occurred as I wrote this column. This one at and around Rancho Tehama Elementary School near Corning, California, where five were killed (including the gunman) ten wounded; none of the murdered were children. Heroic teachers locked down the school preventing a much greater slaughter.

These and our own personal circumstances may bring us beneath what we think we can endure. During such times it is sometimes hard to find things to be grateful for or to find the hand of God in anything. Still, adversities make most Christians stronger and some may never have found Christ without adversity. True heroes are found sharing and giving everything, as did Christ, to help others. Sometimes adversity also gives birth to songs of strength.

Finding someone whose life circumstances are much worse sometimes helps a little. One such was Martin Rinckart. He authored the beloved Christian hymnal “Now Thank We All Our God” which has given fellow Christian’s strength in their trials for almost 400 years.

In 1637 the Swedes and Germans were in the midst of The Thirty-Year War (Catholics vs. Protestants) and refugees from that encounter were flooding into Eilenburg, Saxony where Martin Rinckart was serving as Archdeacon of his native German town. A horrible plaque gripped the area leaving some 8,000 persons dead in a single year. Rinckart had to assist “at the beds of the sick and dying.” Although fortunately he maintained his own health during this time of death, he “had to read forty or fifty funeral services a day” including the services of two of his fellow clergymen. A fourth ran away, out of fear of getting sick, leaving him the lone church authority in this major crisis. He assisted in burying some 4,480 in all. In May of that year, his wife died. “By the end of the year, the refugees had to be buried in trenches without services.”

This horror was followed by a famine “so extreme that thirty or forty persons might be seen fighting in the streets for a dead cat or crow.” As the head of the church in his area “his door was surrounded by a crowd of poor starving wretches, who found it their only refuge.” He shared everything he had reserving “the barest rations for his own family.”

Next the Swedes returned demanding a tribute of $30,000 from the town. Such money was not available. After failing to entreat the invading general for mercy, Rinckart turned to those following him and, in the general’s presence, said “Come, my children, we can find no hearing, no mercy with men, let us take refuge with God.” He then “fell on his knees and prayed with such touching earnestness that the Swedish general relented, and lowered his demand at last to 2,000 florins.”

Apparently the words of his hymn were originally written as a grace to be said before meals but given his circumstances it became a song of strength in adversity. Listen to them.  “Now thank we all our God with hearts and hands and voices, Who wondrous things hath done, In whom his earth rejoices; Who, from our mothers’ arms, Hath blessed us on our way With countless gifts of love, And still is ours today.” The first verse of this Lutheran hymnal is certainly a message of thanksgiving; the second, one of protection and guidance. “Oh, may our bounteous God Through all our life be near us, With ever joyful hearts and blessed peace to cheer us, And keep us in his love, And guide us day and night, And free us from all ills, Protect us by his might.”

Perhaps his life and song can make us stronger as well. At the very least it should give us a few extra things for which to be thankful this Thanksgiving Day. None of us are fighting over a dead cat or crow to eat. Despite our obstacles, deep inside we know that God still has our best interests in mind. When we next sing this song let us do it with more gratitude reflecting, at least for a moment, on our great blessings, as he did, rather than our trials. The trials will always be there but so will also the blessings.


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

Armed Law-Abiding Citizens not the Enemy in Texas

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

By now everyone knows about the citizen heroes that brought down the heinous Texas gunman that massacred 26 worshipers and wounded another 20 while they attended church Sunday morning resulting in the largest mass murder in Texas history. What has not been emphasized is that those numbers would have been much higher had the same thing happened in California, New York and several other states as these states view their armed citizens as the enemy. In fact those intervening to stop more mass killing by gunman Devin P. Kelley would have been breaking the law and arrested. The “Texas Massacre” should put an end to the argument that law-abiding citizens should be disarmed.

For those who did not get this side of the story, a review of the facts should be helpful. Devin Kelley went to this out-of-the-way church to kill his mother-in-law, Lola White, 2and others with her, leaving his engine running with the car door open for a quick escape. Dressed in black body armor and armed with a semi-automatic AR-556 rifle, he first ran around the church killing two then paused briefly before entering the chapel spraying the parishioners with bullets shooting another 44. Victims ranged from ages 18 months to 77 years.

Neighbor, Stephen Willeford 55, heard the gunshots and rushed forth with his AR-15 to confront the murderous gunman (ironically similar weapons used for both evil and good). Shots were exchanged between Willeford and Kelley with the latter receiving leg and torso wounds resulting in his ceasing the carnage and dropping his rifle while fleeing to his automobile.

A third man, Johnnie Lagendorff, stopped at the intersection near the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, noticed the exchanged gunfire, and when confronted by Willeford to help, provided the pursuing truck. An 11-mile chase ensued reaching speeds of 95 miles-per-hour before shooter Kelley lost control of his vehicle and ran off the road. During the chase they communicated with dispatchers. The two caught up with Kelley but not before he self-inflicted a shot to the head. He apparently did not die immediately and was held at gunpoint until police arrived seven minutes later.

My point, shooter Kelley had three gunshot wounds, none from police. Their justification for involvement, as expressed by truck driver Langendorff, “It was the right thing to do” and, “Why wouldn’t you want to take him down?” But “the right thing to do” in California or New York would have been illegal and these men arrested on a number of counts. “He just hurt so many people, and he just affected so many people’s lives” wouldn’t pass muster in many states.

Gun confiscators want more restrictions on gun ownership but there were already laws that would have barred Kelley from purchasing his firearms had they been enforced. Kelley had been court martialled for spousal and child abuse, the latter conviction for fracturing the skull of his infant stepson, netting him a year behind bars. The Air Force had failed to record the conviction so federal records did not have this information. The truth is laws only restrict the law abiding and more laws do not increase the tendency of the lawless to be more law obedient.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz had it right when he said, “The reason that the depraved gunman finally gave up and got in a car and fled, and didn’t murder more, is precisely because one individual demonstrated bravery and courage.” When the people do not feel safe there will be concealed weapons despite gun prohibiting signs—even in church. In Texas a church is likely the only place where a mass shooting could occur because elsewhere the moment a gunman pulls his weapon ten others, also with weapons, stand ready to pull theirs.

In Texas, law enforcement share the responsibility of public safety with their citizens and citizens are expected to back up law enforcement when necessary. They recognize that no matter what the crime, unless law enforcement is already on the scene, which is very rare, there exists a few minutes when the criminal is able to have his way no matter what the law says. In states that treat their citizens as first responders in the absence of law enforcement, no criminal can be certain that he has any time to exercise his own will without immediate consequence. The enforcer may be in the vest of the person next to him not just on a policeman five miles away.

In states like California and New York who refuse to share these responsibilities, even criminalizing those who would assist them, criminals have no immediate deterrence and are warned by sirens from a distance when the police are nearing enabling them time to escape. Citizens fear their own government and are far more reluctant to assist law enforcement. Far fewer would carry a weapon or threaten to use it, and virtually no one would shoot the criminal or follow him 11 miles. Thus these men are praised in Texas and arrested in California or New York. The natural consequence is that per capita there is more crime in gun restricted states than in less restricted states and a neighbor more willing to grabs his gun and rush to save others from further slaughter in the church next door.

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

We Don’t Have to Wait For CIA Documents on Kennedy Assassination

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The CIA showed total contempt of both Congress and the President by not releasing ALL documents in their possession dealing with the Kennedy Assassination November 25, 2017, even when ordered to do so by Donald Trump himself. Trump compromised by giving them an additional six months to comply.

The intensity of long-term CIA defiance says two things. One, what the CIA knows is far worse than likely imagined. Second, if they are allowed redaction for six months what else might they redact, and how would we know? If they feel this strongly about not disclosing after 54 years, we will never know from them what they do not want known. Remember from the beginning the CIA has been implicated in the assassination.

But scholars have already weighed in on the Kennedy assassination so we do not have to wait for the CIA to release their filtered documents. This is what we know.

The government’s inscription on the wall of the Texas School Book Depository reads: “On November 22, 1963, The building gained national notoriety when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot and killed President John F. Kennedy from a sixth story window as the Presidential motorcade passed.” The word allegedly is an admission that the government remains uncertain, beyond doubt, that Oswald did the deed or acted alone.

Most scholars on the assassination view the Warren Commission’s review of the data with great skepticism (some with contempt) especially in light of its numerous omissions, as for example the testimony of Dr. Charles Crenshaw who placed Kennedy in the coffin at Parkland Hospital and testified years later that the neck wound had been tampered with to look like an exit rather than an entry wound. An entry wound would have proved more than a single assassin and provoked more investigation.

In 1976 The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded: “President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” Congress themselves used the word conspiracy. They, like the Warren Commission, did their investigation mostly in secret. Unbelievably they too sealed their evidence for 50 years under Congressional rules.

As the years fly by and from the hundreds of new books on the subject, it is increasingly more difficult to dismiss, as an accomplice, Lyndon Baines Johnson and his CIA/FBI friends. Newer historians are not as willing to give him a free pass on the subject.

My journalist friend, Don Clark, has personally read most of the 2000 books on the subject and is a noted speaker on the assassination. He told an audience in San Francisco that while the government has not, or will not, pursue the subject private investigators have done so and we do not have to wait for the sealed records. What follows are his “must reads” on the subject:

First, get the directors cut of the motion picture JFK by Oliver Stone. Despite the profanity the “movie contains more spoken words, more script, than any film in history.”

Second, On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison (a former FBI agent) treats Oswald’s time in New Orleans and four government agents identified as “handlers” that seemed to “shadow” him.

Third, read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. A stunning piece of original research published in 2008, by James Douglass.

Fourth, read MARY’S MOSAIC: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace, by Peter Janney. The work published in 2012 found that the author’s own “CIA father, was among the conspirators orchestrating the deaths of Kennedy and his friend Mary Pinchot Meyer. The latter’s death is also “in a veiled way” in the recent movie, An American Affair.

Fifth, read JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, by Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who served at the time of Kennedy’s death, as the key liaison between the Pentagon and the CIA.

Sixth, tying together many loose ends the following three books will help. Revealing the secret links between the most powerful law firm in Texas and the criminal rise to power of Lyndon Johnson is Blood, Money, & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK, by Barr McClellan. LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, by Phillip Nelson. Texas in the Morning, by Lyndon Johnson’s long-time mistress, Madeline Duncan Brown “takes you to the meeting the night before the assassination. She shares the story of Lyndon Johnson coming late to the meeting, then emerging in a fury, grabbing her by the arms so hard it hurt, and swearing in a rage, ‘After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedy’s will never embarrass me again—and that’s not a threat, that’s a promise!’”

In light of decades of intensive reading, Clark poses the question, “Was it devious, desperate Lyndon Johnson, the viper in the nest, the Brutus to Kennedy’s Caesar, had blackmailed his way onto the 1960 presidential ticket, who knew he was about to be dumped from the 1964 ticket, who knew he was about to be indicted and probably go to prison for his probable role in the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals, whose lifelong lust and endless scheming for the presidency would stop at nothing to get to that office, least of all murder?” Perhaps it is time to speak the unspeakable.

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