Dec 5, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Those who understand the Constitution know that the election of the president does not actually happen until December, this year the 19th, and never in November. They also know that a popular vote has never been legitimized by the Constitution or any amendment to it. In fact, the people as individuals are actually excluded. We have discussed why in previous columns. The selection of a president was left entirely to the state legislatures and what is called the Electoral College.
The Constitution reads: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” Only indirectly were the people involved, more populated states having more members of the House of Representatives and thus more College Electors.
But these Electors (special citizens) sometimes referred to as “wise men,” because presumably their major function was to preserve the republic freshly created, were not to be Senators or Representatives, “or Persons holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States.” Those with a vested interest, outside the common good, were excluded. They simply wanted persons of seasoned integrity, stability, wisdom and achievement but actual qualifications were left to the state legislatures. Political parties did not then exist to confuse this process or promote special interest.
These “wise men” or Electors, as the Constitution refers to them, are “to meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President … they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.“
Thus the “real” presidential election is held in the 50 state capitals plus the District of Columbia and the results sealed and sent to the President of the Senate. Sealed suggests out of public or media view, the results to be known at the same time as sister states when opened before both houses of Congress. Congress determines “the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” This year it is December 19, as mentioned. The press rarely covers this election because they can’t spin or manipulate it.
When Congress reassembles, “the President of the Senate,” Vice President Joe Biden, “shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed,” today 270.
So how did the popular vote come about when there exists no language in the Constitution for it and it undermines state dominant influence in the process? The breakdown began in 1824 after the Electoral College denied the presidency to Andrew Jackson, the most popular man in America due to his success in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. His supporters, believing the denial to be an injustice, created a straw vote so that the people could participate in the election even though this vote had no power.
Over time the media empowered the popular vote, and itself, by treating it as the “legitimate” vote for the president belittling the College process as unfair and undemocratic. Seldom do they remind us that it works because we are not a democracy, but a republic, and that none of the branches of government are democratic, most especially the Senate and Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson had to wait until he could convince the seasoned citizen voters (wise men) of the Electoral College that he was not too emotional for the office. He did so four years later in 1828. Today the media seldom cover the real election of the president in December; such is their distain for it.
Political parties also contributed to the breakdown. Today instead of looking for Electors possessed with understanding of, and loyalty to, the concepts of a republic, loyalty to political party became primary. With winner take all legislation in most states, almost forcing electoral consensus as a state, even making it unlawful for Electors to deviate from the party line, the independence of the Electors to protect us from those who would destroy the republic in favor of democracy or socialism has been sacrificed.
Granted the “real” presidential election in December, when the Electoral College vote is taken, is the most difficult part of the Constitution to understand and is easy to oppose because it is so undemocratic. I ask my students how many months they spent studying the propositions on the last California ballot prior to voting? Months? Days? Hours? Seldom was it more than the least amount possible to give them a “gut” feeling. I then ask why they should have the same vote power as one who did spend months studying an issue? When put this way they better understand the principles of a republic, and why our system historically has gone to such great lengths to find those who do.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 26, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
California U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer threatens measures to end the Electoral College, as has someone every presidential election. Those in this camp prefer the popular vote but without the College a close race would make the election far less settled and result in massive civil unrest perhaps even civil war. Thank God we have the Electoral College that legitimizes the outcome.
In the 2016 presidential race Trump’s projected win is 306 electoral votes to Clintons 232, but Clinton bested Trump with 1 1/2 million more popular votes out of 125,505,086 cast for the two. The divide is a little over one percent. Imagine the endless recounts, accusations of voter fraud that would have to be investigated, and the time to determine the outcome legitimizing the winner—if that were even possible. Some took to the streets the next day before we even knew the popular vote count. As volatile and emotional as the reaction to the Trump victory was, who can guarantee that the losing side would not revolt as in other countries.
One might argue that in a democracy everyone should have an equal vote and a simple majority should be what counts. But the Founding Fathers did not create a democracy. They universally opposed it because it had failed in Athens and Rome and in every other place it had been tried long-term and hoped that descendants would never turn what they created into such. The word democracy is not in any of our original governing documents—the word republic is. Benjamin Franklin referred to democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what they would have for lunch; the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Realizing that the majority is not always right and, as such, could trample the rights of the minority becoming very tyrannical, they created a republic instead, thus we pledge allegiance to “the republic for which it stands.” A lynch mob is a democracy; everyone voting to hang the accused except the one proposed to be hung.
There is no language in the Constitution authorizing a popular vote for the president because the people tend to vote for leaders who can give them the most from their vote, but the Constitution is designed to give nothing to anyone except the opportunity to maximize their talent in an environment of freedom from excessive government. The moment government takes from one and gives to another, recipient voters henceforth expect something from their vote and politicians have shown that they can be purchased. President Obama offered free cell phones to entice voters and Bernie Sanders free college. It becomes a “blood sport” as to which candidate can give the most “goodies” to get elected. “Gift giving” should not be in the equation.
The Founding Fathers left the election of the president to the states through their population. The vote system they created, referred to as the Electoral College, spread the vote geographically by states, and favored the informed over the less informed. Everyone knew that a popular vote could be won by a few populated states, (today as few as ten, some say four), and that rural states or sections would never see the candidate nor would he make an appeal to their interests. To equalize the population advantage and encourage candidates to make a larger geographical appeal, the College gave population-deprived states disproportionately at least three votes. Although candidates could probably still ignore the rural states, the College made it decidedly less tempting to do so.
As described in the Constitution, states select a number of voters for the president equal to the number of members of Congress (both House and Senate) that they have. These non-governmental individuals, selected by the state legislatures presumably for their integrity, experience, success, and wisdom, are presumably less emotionally driven and less susceptible to the emergence of a popular tyrant or someone who defies the Constitution. Remember, Adolph Hitler was elected. Presumably this would have been thwarted had Germany a functioning electoral college to mitigate the emotion or ignorance of the masses. Under a democracy a dangerous man, knowingly hostile to the concepts of a republic, could occupy this position to destroy it.
The citizens chosen to be Electoral College voters do so in their separate state capitols usually in late November and that vote is sent to, and read by, the vice president of the United States before a combined session of both Houses of Congress usually the first week in December. This year it will be December 19. Normally there is little coverage of the “real” election of the president and this, usually negative.
This process is certainly not without its problems, but when the ill informed have the same vote strength, or higher (because they are the majority), as the well informed, the Electoral College offsets this by placing the weight of government in favor of reason and experience over emotion. It remains the best system in the world. I realize that in a day when we have high-speed communication it is easy to assume that, as a result, we have high-speed knowledge and experience as well. As a college professor in the subject area, I can emphatically argue otherwise. Nothing replaces the benefits of reason and experience and these don’t come high speed.
So the states with their populations have voted and Trump has 36 Electoral College votes more than the 270 needed and Clinton 38 under—a clear, clean, decisive vote for both winner and loser. Thank God we have the Electoral College. Why would we wish to change to a system that almost guarantees confusion and chaos?
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 13, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In the third of three presidential debates Chris Wallace asked Hillary Clinton if there were any limits on abortion for her. “You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortions.” She made it clear that she supported Roe v. Wade “so long as the life and health of the mother are taken into account,” including late term abortion.
In response to the same question Donald Trump responded. “Well, I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now… Hillary can say that that’s OK. But it’s not OK with me, because based on what she’s saying…you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.”
Most media reaction was very critical of Trump saying, as did Hillary in the debate, that late term abortion “did not happen that way” and that the procedure was very rare. It was very dismissive but what was not emphasized is that Trump’s expressed position on abortion is the strongest of any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. So who is telling the truth?
First, in the assertion that “the fetus has no constitutional rights,” Hillary is wrong. Reagan correctly gave clarity to this question in his Proclamation of Personhood rendered January 14, 1988, when he wrote that the God-given right to life, identified in the Declaration of Independence as an inalienable right, extended to all humans whether born or not yet born. “That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies born handicapped, and the elderly or infirm,” he wrote. Moreover, the right to exist, once existing, is defended in the Constitution under the 5th and 14th Amendments that “no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 requires that the President swear an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution and this includes protecting all persons irrespective of their age.
Reagan ended his proclamation with, “I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America’s unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.”
Second, Trump is both wrong and right with respect to his assertion that, “you can … rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day.” Any review of abortion pictures on the Internet show tiny human body parts separated from the whole body, but these are depictions prior to 26 weeks of gestation when a scalpel was used to cut up the body making it easier to expel, probably not after that time.
The law of the land regarding partial-birth abortion is stated in 18 U.S. Code 1531 and reads. “The term ‘partial-birth abortion’ means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion—(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.”
In practice, and depicted graphically on the Internet, a physician inserts forceps into the womb guided by ultrasound, grabs an infant leg pulling it into the birth canal and out. When all but the head is outside the mother’s body, scissors are used to make a hole in the back of the infant’s head large enough to insert a tube sucking out the brains and collapsing the skull killing what in a few seconds would be a living baby. The breach method is favored as the baby is killed in the womb rather than outside which feels too much like murder. Apparently, Trump’s graphic description of partial birth abortion is mostly correct, despite media objections.
On a personal note, as my parents were returning from a movie my mother slipped and fell on the ice in front of their home. After assisting mother into the home and onto a bed, dad left to find a doctor and I arrived two months early delivered by my grandmother. Although small I was clearly a human, not just tissue or an unfeeling fetus, at no time in my existence, from conception forward, was I not a human. How can I not defend other preemies my age? And if I had constitutional rights five seconds after my birth how could I not have them five seconds before?
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are supposed to apply to all Americans including Americans almost born and Trump is more right than wrong on the evil of partial birth death. When we finally get Justices that use the Constitution as framed, as promised by Trump, the Constitution will protect even the babies. Then America’s darkest secret will be exposed and removed, and Planned Parenthood will not be secretly selling baby body parts for research.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 28, 2016 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
I have not endorsed a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan because in every election in my lifetime, the prevailing argument has always been the lesser of two evils. But if you are voting for the lesser of two evils aren’t you still voting for evil? As a devout Christian I do not wish to vote for any evil. Outside basic Christian values, I have gravitated to two things that dominate my political loyalty; the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, and opposition to what is now called globalism, the transfer of power from nations to regional governments and then to a world government. Political party is not my base for determining truth.
I have never supported the lesser of two evils voting practice because both candidates were “evil” using these barometers. But what if one candidate is many times more “evil” using these criteria than the other? Historically, lying or abuse of power concerns could be exposed in a free press and perpetrators could be removed either by impeachment or in a subsequent election. The nation could recover. But what if we no longer have a “real” free press and one side clearly dominates and excludes information? What if we reached a point in “evilness” that recovery is very unlikely, and a president uses the power of government to punish or silence political opposition, as did Richard Nixon with the IRS?
What if our outgoing president, Barack Obama, already defies the Constitution with executive orders circumventing the law-making powers of Congress and is already using the IRS against Tea Party groups? What if he has politicized the Department of Justice (DOJ) allowing it to overlook irregularities such as the secret tarmac meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on an airport runway in Phoenix Arizona over DOJ’s possible prosecution of Hillary. This, and the politicization of the FBI resulting in its subsequent failure to recommend prosecuting Hillary on her 33,000 national security bleach-bit deleted emails as it would have anyone else doing the same thing and giving all those pleading the Fifth Amendment on the email scandal immunity from prosecution. Political corruption is obviously at its highest level in U.S. History. What if justice in this country has already been politicized?
What if the establishment media is also politicized to the point that it is just an extension of the Clinton campaign and only Fox News and talk radio are willing to share the Wikileaks emails, what would be, in any other election, devastating to Clinton? Her voters may never know of these scandals. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe are openly Clinton advocates and important feeds to many smaller newspapers as well. The following televised news sources are openly favoring Hillary Clinton for president: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC. Could not an election be managed by such media exclusions?
The Obama Administration attempted to silence the email disclosures. Secretary of State John Kerry, on October 18, unsuccessfully used his influence to get the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to cut off Julian Assange’s Internet access putting an end to the transfer of the Clinton incriminating emails flowing therefrom.
If the Obama Administration has corrupted and politicized the IRS, DOJ and FBI and Hillary is his designated replacement, what hope do we have that she will correct these present examples of misuse of power and not continue to use these agencies, and the politicized media, to further defy the Constitution and punish her enemies? None. She benefited from these tyrannies. More likely she will continue their use adding dozens more agencies to the list as evidenced by her assistance in the scandals of the nineties, the last time the Clintons occupied the White House. Millenials have been largely denied coverage on these scandals: Whitewater, Filegate, Cattle Futures, Travelgate, profiting from the Lincoln Bedroom, Chinagate, White House Looting, Pardongate, and using the IRS on adversaries.
No person in America’s political history has had more scandals attributed to him/her than Hillary Rodham Clinton. WND TV, in May 2015, listed the number of passed scandals at 22. Right now there is Benghazi, the 33,000 bleach-bitted security emails, DNC attempts to derail Bernie Sanders, and the Clinton Foundation plus a half dozen others stemming from the WikiLeaks revelations. Scandals follow her like flees on a dog, often two or three simultaneously. There exists nothing that suggests that such will not continue. She has always ridden the fine line between legal and illegal.
Now Trump has many “warts,” is not a particularly religious man, is not politically polished or verbally refined, and is sometimes offensive to those around him, but there lacks concrete evidence that he is any more “evil” than any of his predecessors. So the real issue is not the lesser of two evils but one “evil” verses many “evils” and we cannot assume that we could recover from the damage to the Constitution, the dive into world government, and the resultant compromised Christian ethics that would result in the next four years from a Hillary victory. The disparity of evil between candidates is greater than ever before, which now necessitates our choosing the “evil” of one over the “evils” of the other. In this sense every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary. This election may be a matter of saving the Constitution and our national survival. Are non-Trump voters willing to accept responsibility for damage to these entities?
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 16, 2016 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Not since Barry Goldwater in 1964 have I seen the establishment turn on one man with a unity and vehemence, as though from the very bowels of Hell, as it has Donald Trump. It’s a full court press consisting of big governments types from both political parties, the establishment press (all networks except Fox), Hollywood moguls such as Steven Spielberg, and the billionaire club notably: David Rockefeller, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this alliance, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another and destroy anyone who threatens this money and power flow, thus their warfare on Trump.
They are not all that concerned about the character of Trump—not even his disgusting video—as the character of Hillary, the one they do support, is far more flawed; nor do they particularly care about his sometimes hurtful comments. Bill Clinton is accused of having sexually assaulted women; even raping Juanita Broaddrick, while his wife used her power to punish his victims. As a defense attorney Hillary defended the rapist of a twelve-year-old child, even knowing the perpetrator was guilty, and we all saw the video of her laughing about her success in doing so. With a President Hillary the elite will stay in power so they use their power to minimize her many scandals and maximize Trump’s character flaws. It is as simple as this. They have even allowed her to garner perhaps $300 million after leaving broke from the Whitehouse. She is one of them.
So-called conservatives, like former president George H. Bush, plan to vote for so-called liberals (actually socialists) like Hillary Clinton in this election. Loyalty to this semi-secret combination is very strong.
Virtually all of these elites mentioned can be described as “globalists” or friendly to globalism, a term that emphasizes transferring power from nations to an international body such as the U.N. If successful the Constitution will not be the ruling document and the United States will not be a separate, independent, and sovereign nation. Such eventually spells the end of the United States and liberty as we know it. Even the phrase “open borders,” as used by Hillary (revealed in Wikileak’s October dump), calls for an “open border hemisphere,” implies the same.
What happened to political opposition to globalism? In fact, there never really was much after J.P. Morgan purchased the 25 largest newspapers in 1917 and personally placed an editor at each “paper to insure that all published information was in keeping with the new policy” determined by a new organization that he cofounded with John D. Rockefeller, The Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is the most powerful special interest group working for world government in the U.S. The New York Times, now leading the charge against Trump, was the most powerful newspaper purchased.
The financial elite have always had consensus on preserving their power and wealth and have always owned most of the mainstream media and both major political parties. The big government, big business, and big media forces that now wish to drop an atomic bomb on Trump because he is opposing them on free trade, open borders, and America first, each sacred to them, are exposing themselves as having always been on the same side. As with Hillary and George H. Bush, they always have had a private message that differed from their public message.
This is why there is so little difference in foreign policy between Democrat and Republican presidents. They get their advisors from the same Wall Street special interest group, The CFR. They all support extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 900 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. They all support international trade agreements that undermine the interests of our country and export jobs formerly held by Americans. Despite Republican opposition to open borders such was never effectively stopped when they were in power; the flood of illegals never ended. Finally, the establishment despises nationalism.
On domestic policy the elites all supported the bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers private Federal Reserve Bank, which they manage. Despite Republicans having the purse power they have allowed Barack Obama to double the national debt. None problem solve with the Constitution as first consideration. They all support problem solving on the federal or international level rather than the state level. Nor do they talk about limited government.
The establishment opposition to Trump certifies that he is not one of them. He will not be controlled by them, as have his predecessors from both parties. Nor will any special interest group control him. This may be the first time in 100 years that this is the case.
Now Trump has many “warts,” is not a particularly righteous man, is not politically polished or verbally refined and is sometimes offensive to those around him, but he still represents the best chance to break free from the 100-year-old elitist secret combination which now has a choke-hold on our government, the Constitution, and liberty itself. Certainly he has a much better chance of doing so than Barry Goldwater, the last presidential candidate that really tried. If he does not score a win this time there may not be another chance.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 4, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Reports have been surfacing in the non-establishment press of a prison beating of Ryan Bundy by three guards charged with his care. His wife Angie had to take to the radio to get attention to the beating. Apparently Ryan still had a bullet in his arm placed there on January 26, eight months prior, by FBI agents while he was approaching their roadblock in the Oregon arrest. The driver having been fired upon left his truck with hands held high with the intent to surrender to the officers. He was shot dead. The only witnesses were the officers and those they arrested.
Eight months later, on August 9, Ryan was awakened at 5:30 a.m. and told of an impending court hearing. No advanced warning. The story as told by Angie, on the Bryan Hide Show, follows. “You have court.” “You have to come.” “Where are you taking me?” “Can I at least go upstairs and tell my brother what is going on so at least someone knows where I am?” They would not allow him to call his attorney or anyone. Ryan was escorted up the stairs to his brother Ammon. “They are taking me somewhere,” he told him. “They say to court.” “I just want you to know should I not come back.”
As Ryan turned to go back down the stairs the deputy shoved him. He grabbed the stair railing breaking his fall. Two other deputies coming up the stairs began beating on Ryan from below. Ryan’s injuries consisted of a dislocated wrist, broken thumb, and head bruised and cut open. Ammon viewing the attack began banging on his cell door attempting to bring attention to it so that there would be witnesses. Ryan was escorted to a cell in the court building across the street in Portland and left for the remainder of the day in solitary confinement. There was no court, as asserted by the officers.
It is possible that the prosecution wanted the evidence of the bullet received while Ryan was approaching the FBI roadblock removed, with no witnesses other than themselves, because they then could contest the vehicle being fired upon prior to the roadblock. According to Angie they would not allow pictures of the procedure and no paperwork regarding the removal would be given him. His refusal to agree to the “secret surgery” was the probable reason for the beating.
Ammon was able to get a call to his wife who phoned Angie Bundy, and she was able to get the word out to others. The resultant flood of concerned calls was believed to have stopped the so-called secret court hearing. Angie is uncertain whether Ryan received any medical treatment for injuries sustained by the deputy beating.
An in house hearing of the altercation was held August 12 with an employee of the jail serving as judge. Ryan was not allowed to give his side of the story. No attorney was present. No independent or outside source was provided. Cameras were everywhere but officers claim no footage existed of either the beating or the hearing.
Ryan was sentenced to a month in “segregation,” otherwise known as solitary confinement. His trial for initial imprisonment was to begin Sept. 7, but he was to remain in “segregation” until Sept. 17, making preparation especially difficult. It is a 24-hour per day lockdown with only 15 minutes a day to phone his family or shower or to do any other necessities. Angie did not mention whether he was allowed to contact his lawyer during solitary confinement.
Most Americans were sympathetic to the Cliven Bundy Nevada Standoff of April 14, 2016, when the federal government intentionally slaughtered Bundy cattle and proceeded to roundup and remove another 300 to 400 free ranging on public land managed by the Bundy’s for generations—even before the Bureau of Land Management (1946) existed.
For most that sympathy did not follow when Clivan’s two sons Ryan and Ammon decided to assist Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, in a similar confrontation with the BLM in Oregon for which they had completed their sentences. A year after their release both were rearrested, reconvicted and re-incarcerated because the federal government did not like the ruling of their own federal judge. The Hammons’ returned to prison peacefully but their neighbors were angry at the injustice.
The Bundy’s, having appreciated the support of the hundreds that had joined them in their previous attempt to protect their multi-generational use of land in Nevada, came in support of the Hammond’s. They soon found themselves in leadership positions in the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by Oregon ranchers on January 2. They mistook this action as supportive of getting back to the Constitution.
The nation viewed the Nevada Standoff as a defensive nature, an American family defending their home and property from federal tyranny. The takeover and occupation of the Refuge facility, although not inhabited at the time, was viewed as an aggressive act. The Randy Bundy trial begun Sept. 17, 2016, will decide the penalty for that aggression but it is difficult to justify the pre-trial Bundy beating by the Oregon Sheriff Department. We hope that exposure to this travesty will bring the sheriffs’ to justice. No one should be beat while under the care of the law.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
