Sep 10, 2018 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Those of us who have taught international issues for decades have something to offer those who have not. Internationalism, new world order, world order, and globalism are synonyms for world government. Other terms such as inter-nationalism, multilateralism, politicization, integration, free trade, commonality, convergence, unification, harmonization, open borders, are often used in conjunction with these synonyms to make them more fashionable and acceptable.
When these terms become known for what they are they become unpopular because few want the United States to become reduced to a mere state in a world government. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights would be relegated to historical documents without any real basis in a government above our own, or even in our own, if not supported by the higher government.
Once understood as such, proponents simply change to a new synonym and continue their offense to elevate all significant decision making from local to national to international with, of course, themselves ultimately at the helm. For them Individualism and nationalism must be destroyed. Free enterprise and limited government are also likely fatalities. Those who wish to retain these treasured beliefs become the enemy.
Globalists operate on the theory that man is easily manipulated and can be managed to believe whatever he is fed, even to the point of calling slavery freedom and freedom slavery—even good is bad and bad good. Remember communist forces were called liberation armies. Few really think for themselves and those who do can be removed in other ways beginning with peer pressure and progressing to more violent ways if need be. Man will even choose to give up his liberty for the mere promise of a better future.
Lenin, Hitler, and Moa Tse Tung each preferred force to accomplish their form of world government. Globalists today, notably David Rockefeller (just deceased) and Henry Kissinger, know that these ends can be accomplished more slowly without force through the control of media and education. The rule is to always provide the appearance of opposing sides and free thought but control what people think about by access to information. Observe that the establishment news sources say nothing about regional government as it conquers nations without restraint or notice.
As words are used to deceive the masses in the transition to world government so are they also valuable weapons in the transition to regional government the preliminary step to world government. They begin with economic commonality and progress to political unity as was done in Europe. From the European Coal and Steel Community 1951, to the European Economic Community (Common Market) 1958, to the European Community 1993, to the European Union shortly thereafter until the original purpose, regional government, was fait accompli complete with a European Parliament 1979 and common currency, the euro, in 1992.
The unification of Europe as a single government, with each of 27 nations (Great Britain has recently voted to exit) losing their sovereignty as a separate independent nation, once so highly prized by each, something unobtainable by sword, or bombs whether by Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin, has been accomplished without a single shot being fired while the vast majority of citizens were lulled to sleep by mere words. Formerly millions lost their lives to defend their nation’s sovereignty. The globalist conquered Europe establishing regional government (the European Union) in less than 50 years and unless thwarted will conquer all nations in half that time again.
Other regional governments followed the EU. The USSR, after the fall of communism in 1989, transformed itself into the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA)—a regional government of nations still under the control of Russia. The world has since been divided into 22 other regional governments each following the European Union model and each at a different stage in the “politicization” of the countries in their regions and most still saddled by the necessity of using the deceptive “free trade” terminology. In time the plan is to reduce 206 countries to less than 20 regional governments turning these countries into mere states of regional countries—a much more manageable world for globalists.
Some of these perspective regional governments have progressed beyond the need to keep the “free trade” terminology, as for example, the African Economic Community (ANC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), both uniting large sections of Africa. The Council of Arab Economic Unity (CAEU) uniting norther Islamic Africa and the Middle East is another. South America is to be united by the Southern Cone Common Market, frequently referred to as Mercosur. It has progressed to the point that it now has a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is a final step toward political unification.
But the described “word manipulation” giving the planet first regional governments then the eventual merging of these governments into world government under the United Nations, following the European model, continues mostly unabated. The North American Union essentially began with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiated by George H. W. Bush and signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton. Notice neither major political party opposed globalism; globalism is deeply embedded in both. Others call it the establishment or the deep state.
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 U.S. History and Political Science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 27, 2018 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The world’s global power brokers—each by invitation only—met again June 7-10, as they have sixty-six times before in their annual Bilderberg assemblages since their birth in 1954. This time they met in Turin, Italy. This is the most exclusive globalist group in Western Europe and North America and said to be the power brokers of the West. Their primary objective is world government—the end of national sovereignty. President Donald J. Trump was not invited.
At these meetings no minutes are taken and no opening or closing press releases made. Participants may use the information received but may not disclose the identify or affiliations of the speakers or any other participant. Only a few trusted media mongrels are allowed, such as Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, making it even more amazing the “establishment” press, which supports world government by failing to report the half-century attack of this secret society on national sovereignty, does not cover it. Their press is controlled.
Still, there exists some local news coverage of the Bilderberg annual events. All coverage is consistent in that such meetings are held, are highly secretive, have huge police protection, and attendees are seen as the “power brokers” of Europe and North America.
The Bilderberg website listed the topics of discussion for 2018 but they seem purposely vague. The first six of the twelve for this year were: Populism in Europe, The inequality challenge, The future of work, Artificial intelligence, The US before midterms, and Free trade. The second six: US world leadership, Russia, Quantum computing, Saudi Arabia and Iran, The “post-truth” world, and Current Events. Why would the elite gather for such nondescript discussions if they were not far more detailed and had no real purpose?
In their 2016 meeting in Dresden, Germany rumor had it that lead topics included blocking Donald Trump’s election in the United States, retaining Great Britain in the European Union, and pushing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Each of these was a prominent globalist objective (“Bilderberg Seen Through the Looking Glass,” Strategic Culture Foundation, Pepe Escobar). None materialized. Trump is not under their influence, as were his predecessors, and Great Britain voted to exit their European Union.
No doubt stopping President Trump’s efforts to undermine or destroy their world government objectives was the underlining topic behind all the discussion topics. His withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate, and the UN Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization (UNECSO) made him their mortal enemy. Every globalist in the world and in the United States, Democrat or Republican, is against him. But for freedom lovers he has become their only hope in breaking the secret combination’s “choke-hold” on the planet. For both sides, those for keeping our Declaration of Independence and Constitution in tact, and those for eventual world government by the elite of the planet, this is total war.
Past meeting attendees included politicians, top business executives, bankers and often some academics, royalty and, more recently, technology gurus. This year the invited guests list was 131 of these people. The most famous U.S. attendees of the past have included: Henry Kissinger (who attends annually), David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Hillary and Bill Clinton, John Kerry, David Petraeus, Chuck Hagel, Paul Volcker, George Stephanopoulos, Timothy Geithner, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Gerald Ford and Lindsey Graham.
There are attendees who do not wish to be named because of the Logan Act (18 U.S. Code 953) that makes it “a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States without authorization.”
Security is intense with so many prominent people present. Security costs approached $2 million in 2013 for the Bilderberg meeting in Great Britain, not including the costs of a no-fly zone protection. No cost figures were given for this year. This is no little meeting!!!
What do they do there? David Rockefeller, a Bilderberger, founder of the Trilateral Commission, and past president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations (the three leading world government organizations), told a Bilderberg conference in Germany in 1991, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright light of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government” (Bilderberg: Brexit, Borders, Banksters—and Billary,” New American, July 4, 2016).
No wonder critics see the Bilderberg meetings as a shadow world government and a bid for total control of everyone on earth. World leaders attend and they talk about government issues. The organization establishes the issues and builds consensus toward their conclusion and they do all this in secret.
So why do any prominent high profile U.S. citizens attend these secret combination meetings? And why does the establishment press ignore it and protect attendees? It is time attendees answer these questions beginning with Hillary Clinton and Lindsey Graham. Some of us are happy Trump wasn’t invited.
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 U.S. History and Political Science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 23, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
A confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, because he may have once opposed Roe V. Wade on abortion, is not likely to be as threatening as portrayed by our Democratic Party medias.
In the first place justices are only allowed to choose from what is brought before them, cases having survived tedious, time-consuming and expensive lower court scrutiny. So if Justice Kavanaugh wanted to reverse Roe V. Wade he would have to wait for a case that would allow that. Theoretically that could take a lifetime—if at all.
Should Congress pass a law that all nine justices personally believed to be unconstitutional they possess no power collectively or individually to themselves bring it before the high court for review. There exists in the Constitution no judicial general review or oversight of the legislative branch; only in laws contested by a litigant proving damaged by it, or treaties. The Constitutional Convention nixed this notion because it would give the court too much power. Nor were they allowed an advisory position with respect to legal issues, each branch could do this for itself. They were to be an independent branch existing solely to adjudicate cases brought to the court by others.
Should no one oppose a law or treaty outside the Constitution because opposition to it is too expensive, time-consuming, and tedious it becomes constitutional by default becoming, in time, the bases for additional law that should be equally unconstitutional. Still, it remains a lesser problem than had the court oversight of all legislation.
In the second place justices are limited to just nine classes of cases in which they can adjudicate, as was the Legislative Branch to just 18 areas where they were empowered to write law (Article I, Section 8), and the Executive branch to just eleven listed areas of performance (Article II, Sections 2-3). Remember the purpose of the Constitution was to limit government from ruling everybody and everything.
Article III, Section 2 begins: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” The Supreme Court is limited to nine case types. These are: “- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; – to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; – to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; – to Controversies between two or more States; – [between a State and Citizens of another State;-] between Citizens of different States, – between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;- and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]” Constitutionally every case before the Court had to first meet one of these or the Court must decline adjudication.
Why the list of case types? Should not the Supreme Court adjudicate everything? Because they could adjudicate only conflicts in federal law and treaties as decided in the Constitutional Convention and as per congress’s list of areas for approved law (Art. I, Sec. 8). Because when the Constitution was created two co-equal existing governments were recognized called federalism with the states governing domestic and the federal branch governing national and foreign. Because state courts were to adjudicate everything else not listed as federal power in the Constitution and as noted in Amendment 10.
Then the Founders divided this list into original and appellate jurisdictions—one total the other only partial. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Why? Because the first deals entirely with matters of foreign consequence and the second, the state, is the head of the other co-equal governments under federalism.
The Constitution continues, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Now Congress is in charge and clearly can participate should it choose to. “You may not take up this case at this time’” or “you may do so given the following regulations.” This is an essential part of the “check and balances” of the Constitution which has unfortunately never been used.
Unfortunate is Congress’s failure to provide this balance, worse is the failure of many justices to pay any attention to the list provided, which has been the case for most of the past century. Far worse is the tendency of so many justices to just make up an interpretation based on no law.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said. “Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution—try to discern as best we can what the framers intended, or make it up.” On making it up, he added: “No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.”(Wall Street Journal Opinion, Oct. 20, 2008).
Today the Court is evenly divided between those who make it up and those who follow what the Founders wrote. At least a Justice Kavanaugh has shown that he will not make it up.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 16, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Are you qualified to be the next Supreme Court justice? Perhaps. The only statement in the Constitution with respect to the existence of the Supreme Court lists no qualifications. It reads, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Technically anyone can be a justice and that might be the point. If you suddenly found yourself newly appointed with a case pending next month, what would you first read outside the case summary? Not voluminous law books. Probably the Constitution as written without deviation from it! Today law schools are filled with courses that read what the Constitution has become—case law—but not necessarily the document. Over time the two may even be at variance with each other.
To stay with original intent perhaps we would be better served with a historian who knows the history of why parts were placed in the Constitution and reads the actual writings of the Founding Fathers, most notably the Federalist Papers and the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, and understands that this group of statesmen were the most unusual of any previously assembled.
Nor do law schools place a high enough priority on human nature or natural law (law that does not change) as does the Constitution, and as do philosophers, so perhaps a philosopher might be a better selection. Common sense is often close to natural law and no profession has to be more in harmony with “nature’s law” to survive than a farmer; so perhaps a farmer.
Legal precedent is good but if a decision with little or no constitutional basis is not immediately challenged it has power to influence future decisions which are then infected. It costs a plaintiff perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to contest and go through the court system with a case that might result in reversal.
The problem with precedent, which is the primary base of law school instruction, is that one small perversion from original intent justifies another leading to a continuum of distortion. When distortions get large enough they may also invite or allow “jurisdiction jumps” to areas not even mentioned or inferred in the Constitution such as abortion, nationalized healthcare, or marriage. When this happens they become a threat to federalism, a pillar of the Constitution. Federalism is the shared and equal division of power between federal and state governments, neither the master nor servant of the other, each supreme in its area of jurisdiction, as the 10th Amendment, if followed, mandates.
Such also permits the undermining of time-tested principles such as Thomas Jefferson’s old adage, “The best government is the least government.” Precedent does not necessarily inhibit bigger government, which becomes an enemy to the Constitution intentionally designed to limit government. In time advocates of big government inevitably see the Constitution as outdated and its enemy. This is precisely where we are today.
The lack of listed qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice is indeed very curious given the detail for those serving as President and House and Senate members. So omission of listed qualifications for the Supreme Court is by design, not mere oversight.
The President is limited to a four-year term of office and is selected by the states through the Electoral College. Because we are a republic, not a democracy, the Constitution purposely identifies no popular vote for this office. He also must be “a natural born Citizen” and at least 35 years of age and “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
A member of the House of Representatives is elected every two years, must be at least 25-years of age, a citizen of the US for at least seven years, and “an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” A member of the U.S. Senate is elected for a six-year term, must be at least 30-years of age, nine years a citizen and an “Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
The assumption that a jurist must be a law school graduate, has practiced law, and then been a judge is not necessarily bad of itself, but the assumption that jurists can only come from this limited privileged group is. To know the law is certainly an advantage to a jurist but when law conflicts with, or undermines, original intent or natural law, it is not. Legal is not always constitutional and this may be more easily discerned by one less trained to solve problems with more laws.
The President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” These people serve for life but he is under no obligation to appoint a law school graduate. His primary concern is to select nominees that will follow the Constitution as so many have not, hopefully a Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the traditional law school graduate, will. Still, we have been conditioned to believe that only those in the law profession are qualified to serve. A tough Senate confirmation lies ahead.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 2, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The Second Continental Congress, having been convened for six months, had been engaged in the wrestle for or against independence, the vast majority of delegates being decidedly against such drastic action most of this time. Surely there should be a way of reconciling their differences with Great Britain instead.
This was so, even after the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Bunker (Breeds) Hill and the British occupation of Boston. We were at war. King George III had already rejected the Colonists’ Declaration of Rights and Grievances, arguing the violation of their rights under British law, and the pacifist Olive Branch Petition, which reaffirmed colonial loyalty to the king and blamed their problems upon Parliament alone. Moreover, he had declared the Colonists in open rebellion. A full six months prior to the signing a declaration of independence, Parliament had removed the colonies from the protection of the British military, ended all British trade with them, and authorized the confiscation of any American vessel on the seas. Still, delegates could not bring themselves to separate from their “mother,” the British Empire.
On July 1, 1776, the Patriots finally risked “putting the question” to a tentative count but were numbingly shocked by the result. Four colonies New York, South Carolina, Delaware and Pennsylvania did not support declaring independence from Great Britain. The Patriots needed to show solidarity. A vote of only nine colonies would show disunity.
This is where the brilliance of John Adams, from Massachusetts, and Richard Henry Lee, from Virginia, came into play. They got Edward Rutledge to use his influence to persuade South Carolina, for the sake of unity, to join those supporting independence, if Pennsylvania and Delaware could be persuaded to do likewise. Convinced that that could never happen, Rutledge agreed. Next, Adams and Lee worked on Delaware which had three representatives, one for and another against independence and a third, Caesar Rodney, who was pro declaration, was recuperating from health problems at his farm 80 miles away and probably would not be able to be there to vote the next day. Apparently he had skin cancer and a sore on his face the “size of a large apple.” The Delaware delegate favoring independence sent a messenger to Rodney to try to get him to the Convention for the vote. This necessitated an 80-mile all night ride by the sick delegate.
Now they needed to change the vote of Pennsylvania with seven delegates, four of who were against independence. Amazingly Adams and Lee convinced two of these to be absent for voting the next day. This would place Pennsylvania in the camp of the Patriots three to two. New York, without instructions to vote for independence, remained neutral refusing to vote at all. The gamble was that in these agreements in South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Delaware there existed too many ifs, and would everyone do as promised? They needed a “little miracle,” perhaps three.
Sometime after lunch the next day July 2, 1776, Caesar Rodney, “caked with mud from head to foot,” having ridden though a severe thunderstorm and torrential rain “entered the assembly room, and when his name was called for Delaware he rose with difficulty but in a clear voice stated: ‘As I believe the voice of my constituents and of all sensible and honest men is in favor of Independence and my own judgment concurs with them, I vote for Independence’ ” (Declaration of Independence: The Keepsake Album of its Creation, by Joseph P. Cullen, American History Illustrated p. 34).
This “little miracle” made Delaware the 10th colony for a declaration that these colonies were free and independent states. The two lesser “miracles” followed. Pennsylvania followed as planned when the two con-delegates did not show to vote as promised, leaving a simple majority for independence, and Rutledge kept his word and persuaded South Carolina to become the 12th colony for the sake of unity. With New York abstaining the Patriots could announce to the world that the vote had carried without an opposing vote. All this happened within 26 hours, when the day before, at 10:00 a. m., only nine colonies supported independence.
A draft of The Declaration of Independence had been written, reviewed by committee, and tabled on June 28, until after an affirmative vote for independence. This achieved, its finalization by the whole house followed on July 4, 1776, passing 12 to 0, again with New York abstaining. But could all this be vindicated on the battlefield, as war with Great Britain was certain to follow as a result, that seemed just as improbable perhaps needing additional “little miracles,” or would these men merit only the gallows, but that is a story for another day?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 25, 2018 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many may not remember their basic U.S. History courses as to why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where, or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety or hunting, these were already assumed. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (pun intended) squarely at the government. But certainly we have no fear of the government today?
One must remember that early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt. They argued in The Declaration of Independence, that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” coming from a much higher source than mere man and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” God is referenced five times in this document and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable 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.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is the primary reason the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction needed but they had no intention of forfeiting the right to revolution they exercised giving us liberty in the first place. Nor did they assume that future generations would never need the serious self-correction they used.
The wordage of the 2nd Amendment was stronger than any other sentence in the Constitution. “A well regulated militia [the people], being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” They saw this right as being connected with a free country and specifically forbade the federal government any authority with respect to it because historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
An armed populace twice proved its value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. First, many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans enroute, so they could retrieve their guns to use against the British, makes sense.
Second, the Battle of Saratoga preventing the conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne was stopped, not by the military, but by angry farmers with their own military styled “assault” rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to inter the war on our side. We would not have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns—even military issue— was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed,” but also, “they should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
But many do fear our government today. If freedom is measured, as it was in Jefferson’s day, by the “least government is the best government” we are less free today than when ruled by the British. We fear when all three branches ignore constitutional restrictions of their power. When the Executive Branch issues more restrictions on our behavior, through executive orders, than Congress passes new laws. When Congress will not limit itself to listed powers. When the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in such a way as to bestow themselves with powers never intended by the founders such as healthcare, marriage, and abortion.
We fear when unelected bureaucrats (DOJ, FBI and CIA) refuse congressional (the peoples’) oversight. When justice for sharing classified documents differs widely for a Clinton from that rendered General Petraeus. When pro-Clinton investigators exonerate Hillary on her 33,000 deleted emails on a personal server (many classified), are the same investigators as on the Mueller Special Counsel designed to alter the results of a presidential election, equal justice is compromised and the Justice Department is weaponized.
The Second Amendment is the Constitution’s final check on tyranny. We have the same right of revolution the Founder’s used, fully expressed in The Declaration of Independence. Widespread gun ownership has never been a threat to truly free societies. An armed citizenry keeps the government on notice of the governs’ ability to resist should inalienable rights be taken from them.
A popular slogan runs. “I love my country but I fear my government.” Given the unconstitutional antics noted above perhaps we should hang on to the 2nd Amendment as designed as our final option against tyranny? An option we hope never to have to use again.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
