May 25, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr Harold Pease
Pictures of dozens of media vehicles from all the networks converging on the residence of a struggling single mother with a 14 year old son allegedly illegitimately conceived some 15 years ago in a behavior not then nor now illegal, left me with a bad taste. Neither did anything now to draw attention to them. For heavens sake a third of the babies born today are illegitimate. The woman’s address was disclosed to the world and the intimate records of her life became fair game for everyone to trample through. She may in fact have fully repented and endured years of mental anguish with respect to the affair. “But the father was a world champion body builder, famous actor, and past governor,” one could argue in rebuttal, “indeed worthy of a ‘takedown’.” So hammer him and leave the child and woman’s name unmentioned.
For days the media camped in front of her home watching for any movement. If the victim opened her door they would paint her as guilty. If she didn’t open the door, to their insulting and probing questions, she is also guilty. For days she was a prisoner in her own home. Neighbors got instant, if temporary, stardom for divulging her “secrets.” They also provided a bigger base for spying, as seen by two cameramen in a neighbor’s backyard holding their cameras over the fence, hoping to illustrate something in the woman’s backyard to further target her or her son. Stalking is illegal in California—unless you have a press card. Princess Diana fled from the same thing, the Paparazzi, resulting in her tragic auto accident and death; and Sara Palin built a taller fence against her new neighbor, who moved from Massachusetts to Alaska for the purpose of spying on her and her family—anything for a sleaze story.
Then what of the Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger and the children? Are they not victims also? Are they not also flooded with reporters sneaking into their backyards, so to speak, wanting whatever sleaze they can capture or generate from an event stemming from a malfunction in a marriage that happened too long ago to now really effect anyone but them? They already know the painful story. How can they heal with gasoline continually poured on their wounds? Are we hurting so badly for news that this should be on the front page of any newspaper or the lead story on any network? If Arnold Schwarzenegger were running for president where character, or lack thereof, is an issue as was the case with Bill Clinton, than yes, but the ex-governor is already gone, washed-up, dismissed, and a “has been” except for a few movies.
Arnold is likely to die a very lonely man. In light of the fact that he likely will never be a prominent political player again, perhaps we should even let him alone to work whatever concessions or repentance he might need to do to retrieve grace with his family. Isn’t that the Christian way?
The destructive power of the media is like a tornado. One suddenly appears on the horizon cuts a swath of devastation through the neighborhood, lives are lost or shattered then it disappears just as quickly with no consequence for its actions. Probably a good portion of the media who have already judged and convicted the alleged Arnold Schwarzenegger mistress (notice that I have not given her name or address) have themselves had moments of inappropriate sexual misconduct over the years; some with the benefit of abortion to destroy the evidence of transgression. For far too many cheating is normal behavior. As I recall, someone infinitely wiser than I addressed judging over two hundred years ago. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” How many would still be haunting the accused if their laundry was rummaged through in the same manner and placed on billboards for all to see and judge? But this would not sell newspapers!
This said, most media attempt to evaluate and report as best they can with whatever bias that they have embraced but when sex, scandal, and politics come together they go crazy and often hurt and destroy without a moment of reflection on who they hurt and destroy.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College.
May 18, 2011 | Constitution
Dr. Harold Pease
A few weeks ago a student attending a well-known Nevada university was raped on campus and is now suing the university for not protecting her, yet preventing her from protecting herself by prohibiting her the right to carry a handgun. She had a concealed handgun permit. The myth that police can protect her, or anyone else, at the moment of violence has been well established by the laws of physics. Police, as good as they can be cannot be in two places at once. For them to be on the scene, after knowledge of the need, will still take several minutes. Meanwhile the university has left her a victim, she contends, and in so doing bares some responsibility for the crime.
As a faculty member of a sister institution of higher learning, I too am troubled by what I call a “protection vacuum” problem. If the institution can’t or won’t protect me do I have the right to defend myself on campus as anywhere else? After Virginia Tech why shouldn’t I have this right? Most classrooms have but one door and often windows are not designed for easy escape. This leaves everyone in the room in a potential hostage setting because no one is supposed to have a firearm—even those who have a concealed weapons permit, as did the woman referenced in the preceding story. I do have a black belt in karate—even a second degree—but I missed the part where you catch bullets with your teeth.
Technically the institution is to have an emergency plan but such is essentially left to the faculty members. Students in the first row of my classroom are given the responsibility of leaping to the door, pulling the pin that locks the door, jerking the door closed and they and fellow students than lay down on the floor until the danger is over. This only works though if a gunman is using language or making noise that can be interpreted by them as sufficiently threatening and that they are fast enough to lock the door before he enters. If they do not get the door locked a crazed gunman has free access to some 35 students and me who have nothing but my textbook to defend themselves with and, thick as it is, it will not stop a bullet. Essentially the institution has insured their vulnerability. Would we not all benefit if the professor or one or more of the students had a concealed carry permit and his weapon with him and could fire back? By the time police arrive all could be dead. How many lives might this valiant professor or student save?
Some say California is “the land of fruits and nuts” and growing. Would not that give even more cause for justifying faculty to have concealed permits if the universities did not have sufficient trust in the younger permit holders? For those who do not know the permitting process requires some weapons training, a virtually flawless background record, a justifiable reason for carry, and most states require a participant to be at least 21 years of age. All requirements are processed by law enforcement usually under the authority of the county sheriff. It is rare for permit holders to have their permits revoked. So, where is the logic for no confidence in those who have them?
Some might argue that allowing everyone to have a concealed weapon of potentially mass destruction on campus would invite frequent “shoot-outs.” This has proven not so in Utah which has had such a law for sometime. But to this one should also notice that everyone already has a weapon of mass destruction on campus and elsewhere and uses it frequently and responsibly—an automobile—and permit holders have full access of it at age 16. No one, having a “bad hair day,” activates the need to take that weapon to the sidewalk to maim those walking or to the school grounds to chase children. Why would the gun, held by a dully-processed permit holder, be any different?
Colorado has left concealed carry to the board of directors of each campus so some allow it and others do not. A national campaign to open this part of society to firearms is gaining momentum. More than half of the Texas House of Representatives has signed as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns for both students and professors. Texas has 38 public universities and more than half a million students who would no longer be subject to the same hostage setting that I and my students are confronted with every single class period knowing that, irrespective of the law, the “crazies” will always have a gun and the intent to use it.
Back to the women suing the Nevada university for not allowing her to protect herself on campus. The fact that a victim of a rapist or a crazy might shoot them would probably deter many from their intended crime. Each could get their due immediately and justly.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College.
May 13, 2011 | Constitution
by Dr. Harold Pease
Seemingly everyone asks me what I think of Osama bin Laden’s death. Of course I am delighted but my pause bothers them. Where do I start? Have you an hour? Mostly questions yet unanswered. I know so little!! But those asking me know less but they seem not to be bothered by this. I always want all sides and in this action there are so many. Most see it as an act of real leadership and they unquestioningly believe the President’s every word even though there is little so far that is confirmed independent of him or his people. Would they be so believing were it President George W. Bush? After the first thirty documents I need yet another thirty and possibly another after that before I can “know” with clarity—rarely certainty. But it is my profession to question, then question again. The following are the things that bother me most.
Where did the president get the authority to invade another country and assassinate or kidnap someone without its permission or knowledge? Certainly not in the U.S. Constitution!! Even if done in this country, his authority to do so would be constitutionally questionable. Some remember that this was not the first attack on an individual ordered by a president of the United States. President George Bush kidnapped President Manuel Noriega of Panama, brought him to the United States and had him convicted on U. S. drug smuggling charges. Last I heard a very defiant Noriega is rotting in some Georgia federal prison. Then as now, I ask where are the Constitutional grounds?
Throughout world history this action would be considered an act of war. Had we done this to China or Russia this would be World War III. Were either of them to have done the same to us, missiles from us would have been fired on them the next day. Perhaps it is the $16 billion that we give Pakistan each year that keeps them meek. Notice that they have said that they will not tolerate a repeat of this in the future. Certainly Pakistan’s sovereignty was violated but in a very real sense so was it also of every little country in the world. All are left to fear that the same could happen to them.
Then too, I wonder what the Muslims think of our supposed religious sensitivity to their faith. What I can gather, so far, is that sea burial is for those who die at sea not for those killed on land than taken to the sea. Moreover, the preferred burial is on land and by the family. I understand that his schism of faith prefers unmarked graves and little notoriety. I sympathize with the view that we did not wish to leave radical followers with a sanctuary but don’t they already have one in the residence from which he was taken or couldn’t they still create one as we did when we created the grave of the Unknown Soldier? Was there a Muslim of religious authority present to make certain that everything was done or said in the Muslim way? Everything seemed so rushed. Too rushed! There was no time to ask any country whether it would receive the body so why not just say so rather than falsely suggest that the sea burial was because no country would receive the body. One might ask but who cares, this guy deserved nothing because of what he did. I too do not believe that he should be treated as a religious man but it’s the pretense at sensitivity that I suspect and am offended by.
Was there really any intention of taking him alive? I am not convinced. Would he not be a treasure trove of secrets to destroy al Qaeda through intensive interrogation? Why not let him feel what others with him felt at Guantanamo Bay? A bullet is a too easy and quick way out, allowing him to die as a martyr for Allah. Would he not have suffered more by remaining alive for a time, and tried for his crimes against humanity? Anticipating execution is part of the punishment.
Finally, I wonder about the timing. In political science we learn about media frenzies when all the media drop previous stories and rush like piranhas to the new fresh meat. Many media frenzies like earthquakes or tsunamis’ are unpredictable, others not so. In either case, other stories are dropped. I teach my students to always look for who is in charge of the timing and what other stories, previously important thereafter are ignored or buried, in this case the slaughter of civilians in Syria, Donald Trump’s 10 point lead in the republican presidential race, and the so-called “birther” issue. One of his wives said that he had not left the residence for five years. For months we had a CIA team in place a short distance from him watching the property day and night. Could this event have been scheduled a week before or a week later? It did boost the President’s sagging popularity by at least 9 points, but dare I mention these things?
All this said, I find no reason not to believe that everything went down just as the President said, still time has taught me to turn every stone before determining finality, and that for both republican and democratic presidents. So when I pause in my reply I just need a little more time for the finality that others have so early.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College.
May 4, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Tea Party
Dr. Harold Pease
When President George W. Bush left office the national debt was about $10 trillion—the highest in our history and a serious, unacceptable problem. Today, two and a-half years later, it exceeds $14,340 trillion. We are on the eve of destruction, as Barry McGuire sang in his 1965 anti-war hit “Eve of Destruction,” and both parties are responsible.
The President wanted to spend $3.7 trillion this year. Our total income for the year is about $2 trillion so that would leave a deficit of $1.7 trillion which will be added to the $14 trillion that is already placed upon the backs of our children and grand children. I am having difficulty understanding why this isn’t a sell-out to them.
In fiscal responsibility both parties flunked Economics 101 and proved themselves inept. Spending, even if money does not exist to be spent, is the drug addiction of both parties, although presently amplified by the Democrats, as never before in U.S. history. The printing presses are already going full steam as the Federal Reserve gave itself power last December (with presidential knowledge) to devalue your savings by printing and distributing $600 billion by June 1, of this year. We are on a course neither party fully is willing to stop. The time has come for the states, under Article V of the Constitution, to take charge and do so. The only answer to avoiding financial collapse is a balanced budget amendment and it must be enacted ASAP as Congress and the President are out of control.
All state constitutions except Vermont’s require a balanced budget in their spending. Such parameters within their borders make it easier for them to say “no!!” to new spending without also raising taxes. Basically one spends only that which is received.
The Constitution does not have a balanced budget amendment largely because of the Founders attitude that only gold and silver would be the medium of exchange in the states as expressed in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. This would automatically inhibit governments’ temptation to first create and then inflate paper money. We got off track rather quickly and by 1797 Thomas Jefferson wrote in irritation, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Taylor of Caroline, November 26, 1798; reproduced in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson v. 10, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh).
A Constitutional amendment to restrict the federal government from further enslaving our children with debt could come from either the states or the Congress. Since 1975 thirty-two states have petitioned Congress proposing a balanced budget amendment. Two more, are needed to complete the 2/3rds requirement of Article V in the Constitution forcing the ratification process. This process necessitates the acceptance of 3/4ths of the states which, with the flagrant abuse of our money supply on the part of the federal government, should be a given. The beauty of this is that a spending addicted president, whether republican or democrat, is by-passed. No signature is sought and no veto power can be exercised. So states let us get two more states on board.
Congress was one vote short of passing a proposal for a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1997 but interest waned until the Tea Party Movement reinvigorated the demand. The Senate presently has a good amendment under consideration. Outside of war or an “imminent and serious military threat to national security,” Congress and the President must submit a balanced budget. It has an 18 % spending cap. To exceed this for one year requires a 2/3rds approval of both Houses for “a specific excess.” Declared war, or “an imminent and serious military threat to national security,” also allows excess of the 18% but the excess must again be specific. The bill requires 2/3rds of both Houses for any tax increase and forbids the raise of the debt ceiling without a 3/5th of both Houses vote. Finally, it gives the government 5 years to get their fiscal house in order before the balance takes affect (Human Events, April 11, 2011, p. 13).
The Founders gave us two paths to constitutional change, the Congress, and should they fail, the states which could by-pass them. Would one of you finally come through for the people, or do you both wish to continue to leave us on the eve of destruction?
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
