Oct 6, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
“On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century,” so said President Barack Obama to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014, presumably referencing the U.S. Constitution. You may recall that the current biggest issue is his having initiated war in Syria by bombing ISIS without the constitutional approval of Congress. This is the third country that he has bombed without congressional approval preceded by Libya and Iraq, which gives him a legacy as a war president. Many recall that he was critical of President George W. Bush for having done the same thing.
All war powers are clearly described in Article I, Section 8 and the President is left with none. Once approved, he can execute the war as commander and chief, but still under the funding limitations imposed by the House of Representatives.
The obvious dig on being restricted to a document “written for a different century,” shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1). Some in Congress considered his having done so in Libya an impeachable offense stating thus in Concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 107, but Democrats did not wish to confine their president. Still, the Presidents phrase is a mockery to the Constitution and should be unacceptable and embarrassing to every American, whether said by a Republican or a Democrat. Ironically the Constitution is designed to harness presidents just like him, and his predecessor George W. Bush, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for their own constitutional abuser.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution (whether ignorantly or intentionally), which is based upon human nature and natural law, which does not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those that wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do and they will always need to be harnessed to that list. There will always need to be division of power and presidents will always, as James Madison said, “have a propensity for war” and wish to use any military power without consent. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can, in effect, purchase elections by “gifting” voters. The magic of the Constitution is that it, outside defense, does not distribute benefits to anyone. These are the reasons that it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. President Obama’s problem with the Constitution is that it restricts him from doing anything that he wishes and thus his belittling and embarrassing comment before the world.
One of my favorite classes to instruct is Contemporary Political Topics. Students are encouraged to first use the Constitution, then natural law in problem solving, rather than political party or philosophical persuasion. This base is justified because every politician has sworn to “protect, preserve and defend” this document. It is the instrument by which everything should be judged. They love it. Amazingly we have yet to find an issue where the Constitution does not address current problems.
So why should the president have the same restrictions on war as those presidents of a different century? It is because he does not fight on the front lines and is not at real personal risk. It is the sons and daughters of the nation who bleed and die for the cause and it is the taxpayer who funds the war. They, through their representatives in the House of Representatives, elected every two years by those most likely to suffer from the decision, are the ones constitutionally empowered to make the offering. War would than never be taken lightly. Suffering and cost to the nation would always have its proper place in the equation. When the war goes on too long the President must justify to the House the reasons why, and if the peoples’ representatives do not accept his reasons, funding can be limited incrementally to bring an end to it or cutting it off entirely. In short, the people, rather than just one man, make the decision to go to war. As it was under George W. Bush, and now is under Barack Obama, one man and his military machine, both benefiting from war, decide entry and exit, not the people.
The “rule book written in a different century” is still as reliable as before on protecting us on entry and exit of war. What we need today are presidents and legislators that love and use it. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply.
Aug 30, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
There is finally a break in the Justice Departments infamous Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal to Mexican drug cartels of hundreds of assault weapons. Under a July 18 court order emanating from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice is now required to produce an index of hundreds of documents sought by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act. It is required to produce the index, unfortunately not the actual documents, by October 1.
You may recall the refusal of Eric Holder to surrender to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, thousands of documents in his possession that would bring to light everything known about the supposed scandal which ended in the chief law enforcement officer in the land getting a contempt of Congress citation. The House was left powerless when Holder obtained from President Barack Obama executive privilege freezing the documents from congressional or public view—thus the charge of a cover up.
Executive privilege, or anything like unto it, especially withholding potentially criminal activity, is not in the Constitution. When Richard Nixon argued similarly in Watergate the media rightfully was all over him but the media is amazingly quiet on this story as potentially it could bring down a President long supported by the establishment press. Ironically Holder used a Nixon argument in his request that Obama assert executive privilege (Attorney General Eric Holder Letter to Obama, June 20,2012).
Until the release of the suppressed documents this is what is known or believed to be true. This administration’s contempt for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is well documented. Previous attempts to get Americans to give up their right to possess firearms have not been successful nor are likely to be. Since Americans will not willingly do so, imagine someone in power plotting to create the rational that would turn most reasonable people against these rights and gun sales at gun shows.
Seemingly the intent was for the government, through the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration (ATF), to secretly sell illegal guns to the Mexican drug cartels, and then blame those sales on U.S. gun shows to discredit them. The administration had argued that 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels had come from gun shows in the United States. The ATF gun sales, if undetected, would provide the government rational and support to close down the gun shows making it more difficult for citizens to obtain a firearm. The story is full of government intrigue, lies, conspiracy, and the murder of hundreds of Mexican citizens and an American Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry.
The transfer of the illegal weapons was done without consulting U.S. law officers outside ATF or the Mexican authorities. The government would have succeeded with the scheme were not some of the illegal firearms found at the scene of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, one of which actually the instrument of his death.
What is known about this nearly five-year-old scheme is an e-mail wherein Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, charged with executing the “Operation Fast and Furious,” boasted to a colleague of the operation’s propaganda value, presumably to vilify gun shows. It read: “Some of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby” (“Will Holder’s Watergate Become Obama’s Waterloo?” Americas 1st Freedom, April 2012). They knew precisely what they could do with the propaganda value of their sales—destroy the gun shows.
Wayne La Pierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, best expressed the seriousness of this illegal operation, apart from defrauding Americans of their constitutional gun rights, when he wrote. “In that ‘gun-walking’ operation, Obama administration operatives encouraged, bankrolled, and oversaw repeated felonies at gun stores and at border crossings with criminals smuggling at least 1,700 firearms into Mexican drug-fueled criminal commerce.” Regular citizens, doing the same thing would be serving time.
What has been disclosed reportedly proves that U.S. gun shows were not the source of cartel firepower, as this administration has repeatedly contended, they through their ATF were, and that Holder intentionally lied when he told Congress he had heard about “Fast and Furious” from the media, as did other Americans. “One Justice Department official has claimed his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refused to testify,” elevating anticipation that, so far, we may see only the tip of the iceberg.
The Court order requiring Holder’s Justice Department to provide a detailed listing of all documents withheld (Congress believes that number to be 74,000) together with information as to why the material is not being released, is a big step toward bringing to light potentially one of the biggest scandals in American history. This scandal could include evidence planting—the placement of 1,700 guns in cartel hands. Sadly the transparency promised by President Obama had to be delivered in a court order.
Aug 25, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
In yet another emerging scary scandal, not well publicized, the CIA recently acknowledged that it “had secretly searched Senate computer files related to an investigation of the agency’s Bush-era harsh interrogation program.” Searched Senate computer files!!! Good grief, that is our own government that they spied on!! Is there nobody safe from spying??? Their admission that they had lied for several months when accused of having done so and their apology to the senators to whom they had spied, does not make such acceptable. They readily placed the blame on three lower level technology staff members who, they said, “demonstrated a lack of candor” when doing so. Is there no punishment?
Left out of their “limp” apology is who directed them to spy on the Senate in the first place? Also minimized by existing coverage is the fact that this wasn’t just any group of U.S. Senators that the CIA decided to spy on, it was the Senate Intelligence Committee, charged with overseeing all spying sponsored by our government. In effect, the CIA was spying on its congressional boss.
The loudest complainant, and the one to take to the Senate floor to blast the unruly organization of lifting material from committee computers, was the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein. Six months ago, Feinstein insisted that the CIA removed from committee computers information that cast the agency’s post-9/11 interrogation tactics in a harsh and negative light, this presumably to avoid embarrassment and legal entanglements. Meddling with the Oversight Committee’s findings effectively tramples on the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government and, if not checked, destroys that balance.
What caused the CIA to spy on its own government was that the Senate was investigating them and about to release its incriminating findings. Despite CIA interference the Committee voted 11-3 to release a 431-page summary of its four-year 6,200 page, $40 million scathing indictment. Just why the complete document will remain classified, and thus secret, has not been disclosed but it can be assumed that the released version is the sanitized version. As a result the extent of the Bush-era CIA torture practice continues into the Obama-era and CIA misdeeds will not come to light fully until those responsible are safely out of danger of prosecution. With respect to the part that remains classified Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein threatened, “If someone distributed any part of this classified report, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.” Perhaps she should be reminded that secrecy and free government are incompatible.
The part released concluded “that the CIA’s use of brutal interrogation measures did not produce valuable intelligence and that the agency repeatedly misled government officials about the severity and success of the program.” Feinstein called the torture practice shocking, “The report exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation. It chronicles a stain on our history that must never again be allowed to happen,” she said. She was referring to the CIA’s use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics against dozens of terrorism suspects.
Maine Senator Angus King, an independent on the Committee, called the practice torture. “I don’t have any doubts on that fact. It’s a pretty hard read. It’s very disappointing.” But he was especially bothered by the amount of inaccurate statements emanating from the CIA that influenced the president and congress for years. He might have included the mainstream media and the falsehoods that will continue for decades in our history textbooks until everything is declassified and scrutinized by historians.
What appears clear is that the CIA used interrogation methods reportedly not approved by the Justice Department, that the agency evaded congressional oversight, and that the agency self-empowered itself as though independent and accountable to only itself. Also, clear is that the extent of its wrongdoing will remain hidden and classified so that no one is punished. This is the sanitized version.
But back to our original concern, apparently the CIA is so brazen that it spies on, and removes evidence from, the Senate Intelligence Committee charged with its oversight. Amazingly this to the point that they too, knowing more than any other organization the power and danger of the way-ward child, participated in keeping a part of the organizations wrong doings secret. One wonders if the U.S. Senate is that independent of the CIA, especially when this organization receives little more than a verbal retribution for spying and lifting evidence on it, an activity that should be criminal.
Aug 19, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many may not realize that Congress had prayer today before they deliberated. In a typical workweek, Monday through Friday, prayer is said every morning in the U. S. Senate and in the U. S. House of Representatives. Each House invites and pays a Christian minister to pray each day for a week that they are in session. Ministers apply for this privilege and they come from every sector of the country. This has been so since the 1st Congress in 1789 some 225 years ago and will continue as long as we are a Christian nation. Such affirms our nation’s faith in God as Sovereign Lord of this nation. This honors the historic separation of Church and State as outlined in the 1st Amendment, but not the separation of God and State, which the Founders strongly opposed.
The prayer giver this past week was Rev. Roger Spradlin, pastor of Valley Baptist Church in Bakersfield, California, representing a congregation of more than 8,000 followers. Prayers are similar requesting wisdom and courage. Spradlin prayed, “We acknowledge that our country is facing serious challenges, and that our world is in crisis. Give this body the courage that is necessary to lead” (Bakersfield Californian, August 1, 2014, p. 5).
The tradition of prayer in government assemblies is long standing. The first recorded national prayer was given by Reverend Jacob Duche,’ Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the First Continental Congress Sept. 7, 1774, even before the creation of the Articles of Confederation our first constitution and government. Notice the intensity of his appeal to God to help them obtain their freedom from British rule.
“O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
“Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.”
Even during the Constitutional Convention, prayer was referenced as a solution to the tension in the room on June 28,1787, when the patriarch of that assembly, Benjamin Franklin, stood and said, addressing the Chair: “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
“We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel . . . I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.”
Both House and Senate prayers are recorded daily in the Congressional Record. Some prayers give council and particulars, most are fairly generic and short. All ask for the assistance of Heaven.
So Congress asked God for help in their deliberations, this time through the prayer of Reverend Roger Spradin. Good! May we never forget to do so!! It is the essence of our strength!!
Jul 29, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Clearly our borders are not protected when children can cross, reportedly unaided: if children, then anyone. If anyone then we cease to be a country. Historically borders define a country, when they cease to exist, or to have meaning or respect, the country soon also ceases to exist.
The first sentence of the Constitution, the Preamble, charges the federal government with the responsibility of providing for the common defense. All common defense powers (except the Commander and Chief component) are then listed as powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. Protecting the border is clearly the responsibility of the Congress—who makes all the law. The executive branch enforces the law as written and understood by the Congress.
Clearly there exist laws forbidding illegal entry and clearly the executive branch has not, and is not, protecting the border. But such can be said of all presidents since before Ronald Reagan, although failure is more blatant now. I have told my students for 25 years that there would never be an effective southern border because neither political party really wanted one. I repeat this prediction today. The argument that our borders are too long to protect is easily dismissed when we reflect that the Chinese successfully kept barbarians out of China for hundreds of years by building the Great Wall without the aid of cranes, giant earth-moving trucks or any other technological marvels. Today, if we really wished to restrict entry, motion detectors, electric fences and drones could stop most, if not all the traffic.
I have consistently argued that The Council on Foreign Relations—-the most powerful special interest group in the United States– with vast influence in both parties and also in the establishment media, would not endorse any candidate for president pushing for a real border. A border where both countries had real security aimed at preventing passage. They have another plan called the North American Union patterned after the European Union.
This plan calls for the amalgamation of Mexico, the United States and Canada into first an economic union through NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, ushered in during the Clinton Administration, followed eventually by a political union. Canada and the United States are already near economic equals but Mexico, and Central America, added later under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, is not.
The North American Union plan, which has never been denied by the CFR, the powerful wall-street special interest group, is to give Mexico and south to Panama, thirty to forty years of near open border status to gain what they call “economic commonality” with their northern neighbors before political assimilation. (For those who may not understand, political assimilation is the end of the United States, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, as we know them). Southern foreigners would invade the United States taking the jobs Americans did not want and send some of their new wealth back home to elevate their families and the economies of their homelands. Many would retire to their place of origin with pensions and other amenities acquired from the United States—perhaps even Social Security and Medicare. Their children would seek the middle and higher-level jobs and being bilingual would have advantage over their American peers.
Although most of us are not ready to talk of the late, great America and believe that just getting back to the Constitution will always keep America great, the present foreign child invasion of the United States does demonstrate a non-existent border and such is a serious threat to independence and sovereignty. Apparently, the signal has been sent to prepare us for an open dialogue on actually combining the three large countries into a single, North American Union. Two notables proponents of assimilating the countries, who “have woven” this theme into their recent public speeches, are House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and former U.S. military commander and former head of the CIA, David Petraeus.
In The Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty, June 18, of this year in a panel discussion entitled “After America, What?” General Petraeus answered, “There is North America.” He went on to proclaim “the coming of the ‘North American decade,’ a vision he explained was founded on the idea of putting together the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico, some 20 years after the creation of North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA” (Jerome Corsi, “What Comes ‘After America’?,” July 7, 2014).
If the children of foreign lands can cross our borders unaided, as contended, it is difficult to argue that we have a border. Look for the internationalist, who do not understand or value our sovereignty, to come out of the closet arguing that it is now time to open the borders to all who wish to come. Such are enemies of the republic and will destroy the United States, as we know it.
Jul 16, 2014 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
In light of the recent White House Press Secretary’s threat, “We’re not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress. We’ve been waiting a year already.” Reportedly, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has been tasked with finding ways to change immigration law by executive order, thus bypassing Congress. The threat is not idle as President Barack Obama did this once before and promised to do so again in his most recent State of the Union Address.
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the Constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations, when contested, of that law—a division of power held “sacred” until the last few decades. The Constitution reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”(Article I, Sec. I).
The executive branch has NO authority to make law—any law!!!! Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently passed law of Congress, where that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Originally they were but interdepartmental directives.
For years some in Congress have been working on what is called the Dream Act that would extend amnesty and place illegal immigrants on a course toward full citizenship. Lacking popularity, twice it has failed to get the majority vote of both Houses of Congress required by the Constitution (once, between 2008-2010, when the President’s party controlled everything except the Judicial branch), thus leaving existing immigration law unchanged. A president can only suggest a need for new law in his State of the Union Address, and either sign or veto a law passed by Congress, which then, if vetoed, must be overridden by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses to become law. That is it. This is the law of the land and the Constitutional procedure violated by President Barack Obama June 16, 2012, when, failing to get a favorable vote from Congress, openly defied Congress and the Constitution by ordering a like measure to that defeated, implemented anyway.
This was the most open case of contempt for Congress and the Constitution and the President knew it. Prior to it on March 28, 2011, he said, with respect to the idea of nullifying Congress on the deportation issue. “The notion that I can just suspend deportations just through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”
So why would he “flip-flop” and knowingly violate the Constitution? Obama sees an inept Congress that has not placed any restraint on his previous unconstitutional executive orders. He brilliantly also sees a way to “buy” the Hispanic vote. If the Republicans resist he has a powerful campaign issue.
I warned at the time that if not challenged by Congress his alterations would become existing law by practice without the consent of the peoples’ representatives, voiding the role of Congress, and that he, upon finding a weak Congress, would repeat the practice of making law by decree. He has, and some have used the word dictatorial to describe the practice. Moreover, his alteration of existing law sent the message to Central America that new children would have a similar free pass to citizenship once in the United States; this encouraged the massive child illegal immigration that we now have. He alone is responsible for this national crisis.
To protect the separation of powers and end this crisis Congress must publically renounce his directive of June 16, 2012, and move to impeachment if he processes any other executive orders that conflict with existing law. They must immediately pass a law that the children be returned to their country of origin and direct the President to do so within 30 days. This would show his message of an open border for children to be false.
Democrats too should reign in their president. If they do not they, in effect, give permission to the next Republican president to defy Congress on something Democrats had previously established as law, like national healthcare for instance, and by a simple directive he too could not enforce that law. Democrats must see that their failure to insist on a retraction of the directive forever weakens the sole power of Congress to make all law and places us on the road of government by decree or edict of one man. We must choose the Constitution over party. How does a president’s defiance of Congress differ from what a king or dictator does? It doesn’t. The Constitution is there to protect all parties and all citizens from arbitrary and caprices rule. Please let it work.
