Jan 8, 2013 | Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
One of the revelations that surfaced from the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre was that deranged gunman, Adam Lanza, carried hundreds of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill all 450 children in the school. What stopped him? Apparently he decided to kill himself when he heard police sirens and knew that the officers were nearing the scene and their guns would soon confront his. They say it takes a gun to stop a gun. Besides suggesting a possible solution, not here-to-fore considered, of having a recording of sirens approaching on some external sound system to frighten away those committing crimes on school grounds, why not give teachers and others assigned care of the children, the right to protect their students if they wish it.
Just one gun somewhere on the premise could have been enough. Lanza had ten minutes of unrestrained killing time before police arrived after 911 notification and before he took his life ending the massacre. If but one armed concealed weapons permit holder had been nearby he/she could have saved perhaps eight minutes of unchallenged slaughter. How many lives is that?
This is not to suggest that every teacher must participate, only those who wish to. Hundreds of regular citizens in my county already carry concealed weapons everywhere except in gun free zones. Such is the same in most counties throughout the nation. Law enforcement normally see them as an asset, the ultimate backup should they need extra help, and also because cops know they can’t be everywhere at the same time, as Sandy Hook demonstrated. Why not let them do so on school grounds as well allowing them to be an asset of protection wherever they are? They are already on the scene, love children, are the most trusted element of society, and are themselves threatened. It would cost the school nothing. Chances are every school already has two or three concealed weapons permit holders among its faculty and staff now. Again, why not let those who wish to protect their students do so?
Permit holders are among our finest citizens. Obtaining a concealed weapons permit requires a thorough investigation, a near perfect record from law enforcement, a stated need to carry, and some training. Normally they are older more mature folks and, in the case of teachers, we already trust our children with them. They are already on the scene where a policeman could not possibly be. What a deterrent to a would-be killer if he knew schools are no longer entirely gun free.
Gun free zones clearly do not work. They certainly do not keep killers away. Most massacres in the United States happen in gun-free zones. Anticipating no resistance, rather then deter, they entice killers giving them access to large groups of unprotected, good, and innocent victims—often children. Presently the only hope that a teacher, wishing to protect his/her students has is to hide them and at Sandy Hook that helped a few.
In my classroom, as in most, there is but one door. Everyone inside, including me, has been set up by his own government to be a victim. In my classroom the door cannot be locked from inside should I hear gunfire outside. There is a small back room (often kept locked by the school because it houses sensitive computer wiring connections) where students near by could hide if they had access and time.
Hopefully a potential gunman would then think no one was inside and move on to another classroom—but this is not enough. Since Sandy Hook happened, I ask students sitting on the door side of the room, upon hearing gunfire from outside the room, to lineup next to the wall, remove the fire extinguisher from the wall next to a door that opens outwardly, and spray or hit the intruder as he enters. Those behind him then overwhelm the intruder after the distraction, but this is all that I can do and it is not enough. Since my students are adults this might work. Better yet, a teacher or student with a concealed weapons permit, need only pull out a weapon from pocket or purse and fire a couple of rounds at a very surprised, then very dead, killer.
Elected officials, please give students and teachers a fighting chance to survive. Teachers have done nothing that should justify disarming us, or fearing us, and thus leaving us with virtually no hope of survival. You may answer, “We can’t just let anyone have a weapon of mass destruction!” You already do!! Anyone, 16 and older, can have access to an automobile, which is decidedly a weapon of mass destruction—even if he might commit crimes with it. This brings us back to the lessons of Sandy. Adam Lanza did his deed in a location that he knew was gun free and ceased his rampage of killing only because someone else, in this case the police, would soon be firing at him. Next time let that person be a teacher with a concealed weapon whose action would allow so many more students to live. Please!!
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.
Dec 17, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Take Action, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
What most do not realize is that December 31 is but the first fiscal cliff—the little one. Given the inability of both parties to deal with this little one, although they have known about it for almost two years, how can we have any faith in their ability to prevent the ultimate collapse of the economy if immediate and drastic changes are not made soon? Why not solve both now before options are more drastic later?
Neither party really represents limited constitutional government and both are addicted to debt. It is like an addict prescribing his own detox program. Consequently Freedom Works, a Tea Party affiliate, selected 12 of their own members and through the Internet invited 150,000 members to make suggestions on what should be done. The Tea Party Debt Commission was formed to provide the federal government a solution. Its final report summarized the problem, “Our government is doing too many things it can’t do well, or shouldn’t do at all, with money it doesn’t have. We are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we spend….”
The Tea Party Plan cuts, caps, and balances federal spending. The budget is balanced in four years, without tax hikes, and remains balanced. Federal spending is reduced by $9.7 trillion over the next ten years. The plan shrinks the federal government from 24 % of GDP to about 16 %. Finally it stops the growth of the debt and begins paying it down. Within a generation there would be no national debt. Bold indeed!
How do they do this? First, stop duplication of services. They note that the “Government Accountability Office counted no fewer than 47 job training programs, 56 financial literacy programs, 80 economic development programs, 18 food assistance programs, 20 programs for the homeless, 82 teacher-quality programs spread across 10 agencies, and more than 2,100 data centers. All told, we have nearly 2,200 federal programs.” Government is bloated, inefficient, and wasteful.
Second, repeal services that we can no longer afford and/or that are not authorized within the Constitution. These goals include repealing ObamaCare, eliminating four unconstitutional, costly, inefficient Cabinet agencies—Energy, Education, Commerce, and HUD—and reducing or privatizing many others, including EPA, TSA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Their report calls for ending farm subsidies, government student loans, and foreign aid to countries that don’t support us—luxuries we can no longer afford.
Third entitlement programs must be incentivized to give donors more for their money. Boldly they opened the unfunded liabilities door—the door neither party dares to open as potentially it could destroy career politicians and political parties. They concluded that they could make Social Security “sustainable and actually improve benefits by harnessing the power of compound interest.” They noted, “Three decades ago, Chile embarked on a bold transformation of its retirement security system. Today, that system [SMART Accounts] is the envy of the world, giving seniors far better benefits than the old, government-run system ever did.”
Shortly thereafter three counties in Texas adopted the SMART Accounts program in favor of personal accounts and thus those retiring today do so “with much more money and have significantly more generous death and disability supplemental benefits than do Social Security participants.” Moreover, they “face no long term unfunded pension liabilities.” The Commission recommends that, “all state and local governments should have the option of opting into the ‘Galveston model.’ ”
The Tea Party Debt Commission saw the Medicare program as outdated, inefficient, and corrupt and recommended six major changes that if followed would save, they predicted, $676,000,000 the first year and $2,030,843,000,000 in 10 years. These changes are first “let individuals opt out of Medicare under Senator Jim DeMint’s ‘Retirement Freedom Act.”’ Second, let all new Medicare beneficiaries enroll in the Federal Employees’ Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) introduced by Senator Rand Paul as the “Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act.” Third, reduce Medicare subsidies to actual cost of hospitals’ graduate medical education. Fourth, maintain Medicare’s physician payment rates at the 2011 level. Fifth, convert the open-ended Medicaid program into a capped block grant to the states. And six call on all states to reform their medical malpractice and product liability systems—tort reform.
Opting into the same Medicare program the members of Congress use, the second Tea Party change recommended, is much better for participants because it “relies on competing private insurers to provide benefits, and as a result has very little of the fraud and waste problems that plague today’s outdated and poorly designed Medicare system.” One wonders why Congress can make for themselves such a good system and leave us one with “between 10 and 20 percent of Medicare’s $450 billion annual budget being attributable to waste, fraud, and abuse….” Moreover, it suspends pension contributions and COLAs for Members of Congress, whenever the budget is in deficit.
The new plan offers a rational transition to ownership of our own retirement and more control and choice over our health care. Why did the government fail to accomplish the same thing—even behind closed doors? Their first concern is to protect their jobs and party. Outsiders, without a personal stake in the outcome, can see much more and do much more without the inevitable political wrangling. Learn more and review the details of the Tea Party Debt Commission’s recommendations by visiting FreedomWorks.org/the-tea-party-budget. Will Congress explore these changes with intent to make them? Not unless you demand that they do so.
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.
Dec 10, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Presently 17 states have chosen not to setup insurance exchanges with respect to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law, commonly cited as Obamacare, primarily because they fear that doing so would bankrupt their state and they remain convinced that it is a serious intrusion on their constitutional jurisdiction—even freedom. Some were among the 26 states that suede the Federal Government for exceeding its constitutional authority. They may not know that they have one constitutional check left to exercise if they but have the will.
Those who spend any time with the Constitution know that the federal government is limited to a list of specific areas wherein Congress can legislate (Art. I, Sec. 8) and if a desired power is not on that list, or not added thereto by way of an amendment to the Constitution, they are prohibited from legislating therein. All other powers not provided in that document are left to the states and to the people as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Checks and balances were created in an effort to keep the federal government from creating its own authority and taking over everything. The Founding Fathers saw going off the list and thus doing something not authorized as tyranny.
Senators were especially charged to protect state sovereignty, the list, and the 10th Amendment, but Progressives in the early 20th Century weakened that protection by ratifying the 17th Amendment, which favored a popular vote for this office rather than, as it was before, having Senators selected by state legislatures who were purposely far more state sovereignty centered. State power was thereafter left unprotected and measures clearly of state jurisdiction and unlisted, such as health care, got through the badly damaged shield and became law.
The Supreme Court was also one of those checks and balances, but it too has become damaged when previous small perversions of the Constitution become leverage for yet other larger perversions, and original intent the intended interpretation, was replaced by past practice, a philosophy also accentuated by the Progressives Movement. What do we do when the Court too is compromised as in Obamacare?
The Supreme Court also has one other problem. Think of our government, as the founders did in the Constitution, as two parts, with power divided between two government teams—the federal and the state. The Supreme Court can never be the final arbitrator between these two teams as it is a valued player on the federal team, and thus not neutral. It will always tend to favor the federal team. What can the states do to stop federal intrusion into their arena even when such intrusion is blatantly clear to anyone reading the Constitution? Nullification.
The Founders left us with one final check on tyranny, but it is not well known and is little used. If the 26 suing states, or even the 17 who have rejected creating the insurance exchanges, instead just said “No! “The law is clearly unconstitutional and will not be implemented, in part or whole, in this state without a constitutional amendment so authorizing. If this law, which virtually destroys the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, is allowed to stand the states have no protected jurisdictions from the federal government and are merely appendages to it.” If enough understood that this law is the death of the philosophy of shared power, or federalism, they would oppose it. If even a minority of states stood together on this point it would stop this federal takeover of one-seventh of the economy in its tracks. State legislators, you are the last constitutional check. Are you listening?
Nullification has two historical precedents. Thomas Jefferson (principle author of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (referred to as the father of the Constitution) attempted to nullify The Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 created by their Federalist Party predecessors. These authors penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves objecting on the basis of the unreasonable empowerment of the president and the attack on the First Amendment, particularly freedoms of speech and press. The Supreme Court never took the case, largely because the bill was design to last only until 1801, (Federalists did not want it used against them should they lose the next election) thus the issue died naturally undoubtedly assisted by resistance of these states.
Next to use the Nullification Doctrine was South Carolina with respect to the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” believed by them and neighboring states to be unconstitutional. Opponents to it declared it to be “null and void” within their border and threatened to take South Carolina out of the Union if Washington attempted to collect custom duties by force. Andrew Jackson prepared to invade the state. A compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually lowered the tariff to acceptable levels and the issue faded away. States standing firm brought compromise.
Unfortunately for power-hungry federal politicians, the word health 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 that you can believe in,” and thus our Founders would have considered it devoid of constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, health related concerns are state functions at best 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. The last acceptable constitutional check to federal tyranny is the state legislatures. Will states stand with the Constitution and its authors or be bullied into submission?
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.
Nov 26, 2012 | Take Action, Tea Party
The following is the contribution of a young student of mine. It leaves me hope when our youth have such wisdom so early. Kenneth Tack has given me permission to share his piece with my readers. He has captured the essence of freedom through our history from them to himself and you. Will you fight for liberty as did your forbearer’s or are you waiting for someone else to save it, or worse, are you happy to watch it go for promised security? The choice is not to be made by you sometime in the future but is before you now. Today. The Republic is almost gone. Let me be blunt. Are you an active member of the Tea Party Patriots? No other organization is more founding father’s based and so motivated. As Kenneth so ably states, “Now it is your turn.” What will your posterity say of you if you drop the ball on them leaving them to never have what you now have? As George Washington inferred in his famous Farewell Address; you do not have to recreate the parameters of the Constitution. They already did this. Your charge is simply to preserve it. Dr. Harold Pease
Freedom’s Cost
By Kenneth C. Tack
I want to be remembered. I want to know that my life, my ultimate sacrifice, was not given without making a difference in this world. These are the wishes of a dying man.
I lie here in this green field in silence while a war rages around me. My thoughts turn to my three year-old daughter and my wife at home. My wife will be making dinner around this time. I always loved coming home from my work in the fields to the savory smell of a salty slice of beef cooking on the wooden stove, and seeing the melting butter dribble down the side of the mountain of mashed potatoes that she had set on the table. Then my blond-haired little girl would always rush her sturdy little legs over to give me a warm greeting. All these things remind me of why I fight for this Union.
My thoughts snap back to reality in Yorktown. General Washington has finally managed to pin down the British General, Lord Cornwallis, after many years of defeat. This was to be our final great push for freedom. I silently laugh to myself when I think about all the chaos that was caused by 56 people signing one piece of paper. Off in the distance I see the white sails of the French Armada, and I know we will win this war. We shall win this beautiful land known as America.
I lay my head back on the soft grass. The air is chilly due to the ocean breeze, but that discomfort is small in comparison to seeing my bloody neighbors lying unnaturally still in the green grass beside me. The stale smell of drying blood is overpowering, and it’s already hard to breathe. I glance at the gaping wound in my chest, caused by a well placed British round. I know I will not survive to enjoy the freedom that was not free. I will never again embrace my sweet little girl, nor feel the warm embrace of my loving wife. No, I will be embraced by the arms of my Creator tonight.
As I lie here on my deathbed, all I can think about is the cause for which my friends and I died. I don’t want my cohorts’ sacrifice, nor mine, to go unremembered, or have it be bathed in apathy. After all, who are we if we are forgotten? Freedom is a gift, but it can be lost if its consumers forget that it was bought with a high price. It is something that must be carried in our hearts, because freedom cannot spread on its own. It is because of these things I wish to be remembered, not for my personal fame or glory. I wish to be remembered so that the freedom I paid for with my life will endure for all eternity.
My final thoughts travel back to my home, for they are the reason I am even here. My eyelids now feel like a thousand pounds, and my breathing is becoming scarcer by the moment. Now for the final time I look up into the sky with a single tear sneaking steadily down my cheek, for my one regret is that I will not be there for my family when this war is over. They too shall know freedom’s cost, and they will value freedom more because of that.
With these final thoughts in my head I take a deep breath and close my heavy eyes. I have fulfilled my duty to ensure liberty.
Now it’s your turn.
. . . .
It is no secret that freedom is being lost in today’s world. Everywhere we go we see regulations put on our lives for seemingly no reason at all. Freedom in its very core is the ability to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with another’s ability to do the same thing. That is what the revolutionaries fought for with their lives, and that is made clear in their war cry, the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But even after all of their sacrifices, the young America knew that one day, even America might start to lose their freedom; this is their cry to this America today:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
–Declaration of Independence
Aug 19, 2012 | Constitution, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
A recent announcement, by General Ray Odierno, Army chief of staff, that National Guard unit training for overseas deployment will be increased rather than decreased following our “drawdown” in Afghanistan, invites a serious constitutional challenge. Sir, only Congress was given the authority “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (Article I, Section 8)” and none of your new rules came from them. Moreover, the Guard was never constitutionally designed to have an external protective function.
The General’s announcement, as reported in USA Today, that the traditional schedule of drilling one weekend a month and two weeks a year, established by Congress in 1903, is not enough combat training and will be abandoned beginning the new year. “Instead, they will keep preparing for war, with training periods away from home each year that would grow from a two-week block to up to seven weeks,” in addition to the one weekend a month.
But the U.S. Army’s “take-over” of the rule making power specifically left to Congress alone is not the most serious constitutional violation. Let us be reminded that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution left all war making powers: raising armies, providing for a navy, and declaring, funding, and maintaining war with Congress alone. Defending the country is their prime responsibility.
The militia, since 1903 commonly referred to as the National Guard, however, is a separate body from the army and navy and has a distinct internal role instead. Notice the wording in the Constitution authorizing Congress, “to provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Its three functions are to execute the laws in the United States, suppress insurrections within our country, and to repel invasions to it. How can the militia do any of these functions, for which it is specifically charged, if on the other side of the world?
They were never to be thought of as merely a pool of reserve troops for the army. Impeachment proceedings should have been threatened against President George W. Bush when he treated them as such deploying 100,000 of them in 2005 to Iraq and Afghanistan rather than to ask Congress to restore the draft when enlistments were not enough. This alteration of the Constitution is that serious. The National Guard was simply an easy target and no one from either party objected. It cannot perform its constitutional duty outside the United States. President Barack Obama’s mimicking the practice, and the General’s admission that at least one-year deployments of Reserve troops will continue in Afghanistan until we leave in 2014, indicates that the Constitution will continue to be violated by Democrats as well.
The rational for a militia is very simple. The first line of defense from unwanted aggression is oneself, followed by local law enforcement agents, followed by the National Guard (guarding the nation from within), followed by the military. As in soccer it is the goalie. Should invasion occur while the militia and the army are overseas we would be defenseless; by doing so both recent presidents have unconscionable left, or are leaving, us vulnerable and without a goalie.
General Odierno spoke of the need to keep the National Guard more prepared for war by extending their combat training. As “repelling invasions,” is the only one of their three constitutional functions dealing with knowing how to make war, I wonder how much training they will get in the other two, “executing the laws of the union and suppressing insurrections,” both mostly law enforcement support functions. The General did not mention any but, then again, he wrongly views them as an extension of his army—mere fodder. Congress needs to set him, and the Executive Branch he represents, straight. Will you help awaken Congress so that it will do so? After all, it’s about your liberty which is under fire.
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.
Aug 13, 2012 | Constitution, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
While on vacation in a neighboring state helping my son-in-law build a second bathroom for his soon to be family of six, I noticed more fully what I have always known; if your base is wrong so is everything else. Nothing was square, plumb or level. Things fit, and almost fall into place as if by design, when the base is right. When the foundation is level and when studs are vertically placed 16 inches on center 4 by 8 sheets of sheetrock fit perfectly, as does every thing else. If, as in my case, there are no true reference points, or constants, nothing is right, nothing fits. I had to begin anew with a rectangle room without a single wall from which to get a true bearing. Getting back to the basics that I new to be true, was painful and many times harder, but it had to be done.
In construction, as in all areas of endeavor, there are tools to get us back to proven constants such as a squares, chalk lines, or levels. In other fields it may be a ruler, compass, or a Bible. Ancient mariners used the North Star as a constant. Math, algebra, geometry are based upon constants. In chemistry water is always, and forever will be, H2O and freezes at 32 degrees. In government the constant should be the Constitution. My point. What are your constants? What do you use to decide if something is true?
Are there constants in all fields of study—even in political science? Yes! When I find another out of harmony with myself, I want to know his/her constants. What do you read or watch? What is your base? I am unimpressed when I hear the labels republican, democrat, liberal or conservative as these change—thus are not constants. John F. Kennedy, a liberal and a democrat, would make George W. Bush, a conservative and a republican, look very liberal. These terms are not trustworthy over time.
I am far more impressed when opinion is based upon factors resistant to change such as natural law and human nature are mentioned instead. Because the Constitution is based upon these constants it will deal with every crisis now or another 200 plus years from now. The Preamble identifies the purposes of government. For over 20 years I have asked my students in every political science class what they would add or remove. What is outdated or no longer relevant? No additions or deletions have been suggested.
So, what are some of those time-tested constants? Let’s identify two big ones. First, all governments tend to grow. They view everything in a way to extend their power. Either the government comes to control the people or they control it. That is why historically countries that are truly free are rare and why we are losing our freedom today. Second, the more apathetic and indifferent the public becomes the greater their tendency to shove decision-making power upward to the seat of government.
To prevent the growth of government all power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or identified in a subsequent amendment, was left with the states and the people (Amendment 10). The little power remaining was then specifically identified and separated into a branch to make all law (Article I, Section I), another to execute the law (Article II), and yet another to adjudicate the law (Article III), each with a list of powers in its respective area. The Bill of Rights was ten areas specifically identified as off limits to the federal government—again to keep it from totally controlling the people.
The constants of the Constitution will keep the government from dominating or controlling everything. It will even checkmate apathy for a time until a majority of the people fall into this category. These constants must be taught in our homes and schools so that we are not “tossed about by every wind of doctrine,” and that we have a dependable base to reference. It is our level, chalk line, and square in government and if not used nothing is right and nothing fits.
Just as a child eventually learns that he must understand, and be in obedience to, the law of gravity to survive, we as a nation must return to constitutional constants to survive as a free nation. Will you make the Constitution your constant and only vote for those who do likewise?
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.
