Dec 30, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, PH D.
Congress just passed the gigantic $625 billion dollar sweeping National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 with a vote in the House 350 to 69 and in the Senate 84 to 15. Establishment media coverage seemed to center on what did not make it into the act such as, a crackdown on sexual assault in the military and provisions making it easier to close Guantanamo, rather than upon what did. Most maintained the image that the annual act merely funded the military for another year, as has been the case formerly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Left in place was the extremely controversial 2012 provision authorizing the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, and detain without trial, and held indefinitely, American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.” Simply stated it defied Habeas Corpus (your constitutional right not to disappear at the hand of government), the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (preventing the military from having a law enforcement function in the United States), and essentially gutted large portions of the Bill of Rights especially amendments 4, 5, and 6 with secondary damage to 1, 2 and possibly 8. It is the single most dangerous law passed by Congress in U.S. History.
Only socialists and Tea Party advocates seemed to understand that a non-specific definition of terrorism, such as that noted above, can easily be turned into a revolving definition of terrorism and used to wipe out either an opposing party or philosophy. Imagine being arrested, kidnapped, and secretly shipped to Guantanamo Bay for defending the Constitution. Such is possible under the 2012 version left unchanged. Republican President Richard Nixon used the IRS to persecute his political enemies in the 1970’s, as has Democratic President Barack Obama in the last five years. Neither political party is exempt from fault on this version. Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain pushed it through the Senate and Democrat President Barack Obama, promised to veto it, then signed it. Sadly only 2012 presidential candidates Ron Paul and Rick Santorum opposed it.
Unfortunately the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 is still unconstitutional, still unacceptable, and even more dangerous than its predecessor. Newly added is Section 1071(a) which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center’” authorized to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.” Section 1071 (g) is more explicit defining a captured record as “a document, audio file, video file, or other material.” This effectively expands the surveillance of the Bush 43 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) defining, as never ending, the War on Terrorism and his resultant Patriot Act, requiring citizens to report certain activities of other citizens. Factor in the government’s several expensive NSA facilities especially those of Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Bluffdale, Utah, the latter of which is designed to accommodate a yottabyte of information. Factor in also the known collection by NSA of every email, telephone conversation, social media post, and text, of every U.S. citizen for the last eight years and it is easy to see why the federal government now wants a Conflict Records Research Center.
Only the following U.S. Senators understood the danger to the Constitution and freedom by voting against: Barrasso (WY), Coburn (OK), Corker (TN), Crapo (ID), Cruz (TX), Enzi (WY), Flake (AZ), Lee (UT), Merkley (OR), Paul (KY), Risch (ID), Sanders (VT), Sessions (AL), Shelby (AL), Wyden (OR). Senators not listed do not understand the Constitution and its checks and balances enough to merit your vote regardless of which political party they represent.
Perhaps Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz said it best when he told his constituents: “Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial.” We agree and that is why the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 is still dangerous, still unconstitutional and still unacceptable in a free country!!
Dec 23, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Tea Party
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The Washington Post recently disclosed the coming to fruition, after nearly a decade and 19 secret meetings, of a huge trade agreement known as the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP, “which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade.” It will be the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region without the input of a single U.S. member of Congress. This in violation of Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that mandates that all legislative powers reside in the House and Senate and in no other body. In fact, members of Congress have not been allowed to even see the treaty whereas privileged corporations have no problem with access.
Critics, mostly Democrats and Tea Party proponents, resent the secretive nature of the agreement’s origin. Those feeling especially threatened include: global health advocates, environmentalists, Internet activists and trade unions. “The treaty has 29 chapters, dealing with everything from financial services to telecommunications to sanitary standards for food” demonstrating the wide variety of areas believed to be affected by it, but again, it is the secretive nature of it that is most offensive. Apparently TPP participants signed “a confidentiality agreement requiring them to share proposals only with ‘government officials and individuals who are part of the government’s domestic trade advisory process’.” That excludes you, me, the media, and Congress.
The Post acknowledges that the agreement “encompass a broad range of regulatory and legal issues, making them a much more central part of foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking.” Such is curious. The Constitution requires the approval of your two U. S. Senators and your House member for every regulation upon you. There exists no language that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not affect “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. The admission that the TPP will influence foreign policy is interesting as only the U.S. Senate may influence foreign policy as per Article II, Section II. Giving a “more central part of foreign policy” to an international agency virtually voids the Constitution in this area and would have been thought treasonous by our Founders.
The Post identified “60 senators (who) have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, both Democrats, have been especially vocal about the Obama “Administration’s refusal to make draft text available.” Were it not for unintended leaks, notably that of Wikileaks in early November, who published the chapter on intellectual property, this and so much more would still be off limits to the media and everyone else. This chapter alone raised many questions about copyright protections and obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to be potentially, as one critic called it, the treaty to “restrict access to knowledge.” And this is but one of 29 chapters.
The implementation procedure of the internationalists was to gain consensus among the countries signing it, then present it to both branches of Congress for a simple, without debate, up or down vote. Again, this procedure flies in the face of the Constitution. Treaty making, an agreement between two or more countries, is a shared power with the Executive Branch. The President “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” President Barack Obama has not sought advice, indeed he has not even allowed the Senate to read his treaty until finished, even then he will accept no changes in it. Then he will present it to both houses for a simple majority instead of only to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally mandated. All this blatant deception was to wrap up in Singapore in early December to be presented “fast tract” to Congress before Christmas as a done deal.
Law by a single man excluding Congress nullifies the latter and should be an impeachable offense. International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership siphons decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and will affect every American. Any Congressman who supports such violates his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as has the President.
Dec 16, 2013 | Constitution, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
What are my constitutional rights in school with respect to Christmas? It might surprise some to learn that the Constitution does not allow the government to prevent you from doing most things that you do at home also in public—even at school. The Constitutionally ill-informed like to refer to the “separation of church and state” as the rational for a prohibition of religious or seasonal expression in public places. No such language exists in the Constitution. To prevent you from doing these things would be as unconstitutional as mandating that you do.
Actually the language of the First Amendment, from which opponents to religion derive this falsehood, is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Such was included for the sole purpose of preventing the government from creating a state approved organization of religion as had happened in Europe for more than a thousand years. Simply, government may not establish a state religion. Instead, government is charged with protecting “the free exercise thereof.”
So decorate your school Christmas trees (not diversity trees), distribute your Christmas cards with Biblical messages on them (not Holiday Cards) to your school mates, greet your school friends and colleagues with Merry Christmas (not Happy Holidays), sing “Silent Night” and “Joy to the World,” in your school choirs and for heaven sakes do not let your teachers or administrators change Christmas Break to Winter Break or “Sparkle Season.” You have a culture and heritage to preserve, so say the courts. You may even have a nativity scene in the classroom or on school grounds but outside activities are better left to parent organizations.
Some might say that I am giving you the view and practice of 50 years ago. That is so but amazingly that view remains in place. Whereas the Supreme Court has participated in constitutional distortion in so many other areas in the past, the original view, the “free exercise” of religion, still holds. The Court has not ruled on any measure that would silence those who celebrate Christmas openly and in public places. If it did so it might fairly be accused of creating an organization of the irreligious to destroy religious freedom.
Yes, you might get a letter from the ACLU threatening your “free exercise thereof” of religion but the Supreme Court has never upheld their view—in fact, the opposite has been established in case after case. Because they have been successful in creating the opposite public impression they can bully and bluster the ignorant into forfeiting this constitutional right.
Should they do more than bluster, which is unlikely given their loss ratio, defending your right to celebrate Christmas in the traditional—even historical manner—is protected by the Constitution and defended by the Alliance Defending Freedom who have recently sent a letter to more than 13,000 school districts nationwide offering their free legal assistance. Attorneys all over the country volunteer their services to protect this part of the Constitution. Should a student or faculty member feel threatened by their leadership or wish council on this subject they can be reached at 1-800-835-5233 and such are invited to visit www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org. The Alliance will be happy to send a letter encouraging them to honor your First Amendment rights.
Alliance literature notes the things that may be done in the public setting. Colleges may decorate campus Christmas trees. Christmas programs may include religious songs. The courts have recognized for many years that Christmas carols have achieved a cultural significance that justifies their being performed in public schools. Moreover, teachers may constitutionally present Christmas passages from the Bible when treating the event in the historical sense. The First Amendment does protect the right of individuals to private religious expression on public property—even nativity scenes. Even showing paintings of Jesus Christ in public parks is constitutional. May the government sponsor religious displays inside government buildings? Of course!! How could the Supreme Court rule otherwise? Moses with the Ten Commandments is chiseled in stone on their building. Prayer is held every working morning in both the House and Senate chambers and each dedicate a room for quiet meditation and prayer for our legislators.
So I invite you to push the limits of freedom. How else will it be retrieved? If not you then who? If not now then when? Doing nothing only exacerbates the problem and encourages opponents to bluster and intimidate all the more.
Merry Christmas my liberty loving friends.
Dec 9, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
Until thirty years ago we were taught that we were a republic and not a democracy. Today we treat them as the same—a serious mistake. Two Amendments, the 16th and 17th, both ratified in 1913, laid the groundwork for the destruction of limited government, which is the foundation of a Republic, the Constitution, and liberty. A review of our one hundred year history reveals the continued damage to your liberty as a result.
What largely brought about the give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 100-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet that they could turn on at will. They could purchase anything—even people. Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to grow the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Outside these four powers the federal government had no power to tax or spend.
General welfare then meant everyone equally and at the same time as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.
So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years before 1913? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend, on ourselves, every cent of what the federal government now takes.
The “financial water faucet” created by the 16th Amendment effectively enticed states, counties, and city governments to “cash in” their areas of “birthright jurisdiction” for money consequently the forfeited power (most of it totally outside the Article I Section 8 list), flowed to Washington DC. So why does the government now need a fourth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding—that is why! The answer to less tax is less government and always will be. A side benefit is more freedom.
The freedom lost by the 17th Amendment, ratified on May 31, 1913, is harder to explain and mandates the readers’ understanding of what a Republic is. In such there is no federal government over the states. Think of it as a marriage where one party performs domestic duties (the states) and the other foreign policy duties (the federal government). Neither is boss over the other. Neither manages the other. As in any good marriage they are equal but sovereign over their areas of jurisdiction.
The major protector of state sovereignty was the state legislatures who picked two of their own body to protect state interest from federal intrusion and sent them to the U.S. Senate. The media undermine this concept by their term “states rights,” always portrayed negatively, but the ability to combine to hold the federal government to the listed powers of the Constitution is absolutely critical to remaining a republic and remaining free. It is the only body powerful enough to do so. This is why we have two law making branches of government, one the U.S. Senate to protect the interest of the states.
All this protection from government’s natural inclination to grow, dominating and controlling everything that it touches, was unwisely removed by the 17th Amendment and states today are not shielded from federal intrusion. U.S. Senators are elected precisely as are House of Representative members by popular vote. In fact, they may not even know of, care about, or be loyal to state issues.
These two 1913 Amendments largely destroyed our status as a Republic and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. We can look back and see the trail of damage of both. The 17th removed our shield from federal intrusion and the 16th enticed politicians to feed at the trough of “free” federal money for their own personal elevation consequently siphoning authority to the federal government. The result, the federal government has its dominating presence in every aspect of your life and in everything that moves. Only the ill informed can call this freedom.
Nov 20, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
On November 1, 2013, President Barack Obama, by executive order entitled “Preparing the United States for the impacts of climate change,” decreed himself to be over climate control—this without a shred of constitutional authority. Executive Orders have the force and effect of law and only the Legislative Branch is empowered to make federal law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). Moreover, Article II, which houses a president’s power, does not list anything remotely similar to climate control regulation. As such the states alone have all non-delegated powers and unless they forfeit that power to him by way of an amendment, as per Article V, he is not only stealing Congress’s power to make law but also the states’ sole jurisdiction over climate regulation, if any.
The E.O., begins: “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to prepare the Nation for the impacts of climate change by undertaking actions to enhance climate preparedness and resilience, it is hereby ordered as follows.” Then follows five pages of small print outlining the “actions” that will be. But there is no authority actually cited, as has been the practice with previous presidents, because there is none. He made it up.
The Order establishes a Task Force consisting of seven Democratic Governors and the Republican Governor of Guam together with 14 mayors, two county officers and two tribal representatives, also mostly Democrats. They are charged with working with state and local officials “to strengthen climate resilience,” (a buzz word for more control of state and local functions) and helping local governments “make smart decisions.” Smart decisions imply falling in line with, in this case, Democratic Party federal government thinking. Many of us remember the Environmental Protection Agency similarly created by a Richard Nixon executive order some 43 years ago and how it now influences a sixth of the economy. Government likes to grow.
By a mere stroke of a pen one man, with no authority to make rules for us, initiates a process to unleash mountains of new regulations on unsuspecting farmers, businesses, and property owners, as happened with the EPA, in this case dealing with droughts, flood control, carbon emission, wildfires, green space and who knows what else. Businesses will have to fill out a Climate Action Plan before they can proceed. Building codes will have to be updated. I see sweeping new changes to land use and resource policies. I see a further weakening, almost to non-existence, of state, county, and city jurisdiction and in turn the amplification of federal power over every person in the United States. One builder once told me that a third of the costs of a new home was compliance with EPA rules. Perhaps a similar amount will be needed to meet all the new mandatory climate guidelines.
But the biggest damage is what it does to the Constitution when the executive branch replaces Congress as the lead rule-making body. When Congressmen, because of loyalty to party rather than to the Constitution, excuse their president, as did Republicans under Nixon in 1970 and Democrats now under Barack Obama, become too weak to take back their power. When States no longer have the will to use the Doctrine of Nullification, as did their predecessors, in 1800, 1832, and in the 1850’s to preserve federalism and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. When the Constitution is revered in name only, which is becoming common to both parties.
Of course, as with all federal programs, states, counties, and cities will be funded as they fall in line with “smart decisions.” In 43 years from now will climate related rules and regulations, emanating from an unelected bureaucracy, dictate another one-sixth of the economy? The EPA precedent says yes.
The Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of powers has been heavily altered between these two imperialistic presidents—Nixon and Obama. The Constitution allowed only the Legislative Branch to make federal law. A law’s review by 536 individuals (435 members of the House, 100 Senators and 1 President) served as a filter for bad law as only one bill in thirty survived to enactment. Congress must say no to this and any executive order that has the effect of making law. We must return to the Constitution with Congress alone making all federal law or, in time, we will lose the rest of our liberty.
Nov 18, 2013 | Constitution, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Last Friday, November 1, each member of Congress in a most quiet process chose whether they and their staffs accepted the Obama exemption to their having to live under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If lawmakers didn’t act, staffers were exempted by default—automatically. Do you know how your two U.S. Senators and member of the House of Representatives voted?
Most people were not supportive of Obamacare when first formulated. Today, if a vote were taken, most people would vote against it as well, especially in light of the now established fact that most will have rate increases and higher deductibles. Although promised otherwise by President Barack Obama, most will not be able to keep their doctors or providers. Big business and unions are opting out of it as fast as they can. In what appears aimed to mute congressional opposition to the forced healthcare law, President Barack Obama has allowed Congress to opt out leaving only the American people enslaved by the legislation that they created. Again, do you know how your two U.S. Senators and House member voted?
At first some members of Congress convincingly denied that they had received an exemption but Senator David Vitter published the Obamacare language next to the Obama exemption. The first read in part: “If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange the employee will lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes” (See Section 1512, number 3). The second, the Obama Congressional exemption, coming through the Office of Personnel Management, page 6, read in part: “The revisions adopted here have no impact on the availability to Member of Congress and Congressional Staff of the contribution established in 5 USC 8906” (Alex Pappas, “Republican accuses fellow lawmakers of ‘lying’ about Obamacare exemption,” 9/19/2013).
The President, who has no constitutional authority to make law, unilaterally changed the law and voided, otherwise mandatory, congressional participation. Presumably to grease the skids for members of Congress accepting what in any other setting would be called a bribe. Now they defined their employees as “official” or “not official,” to determine whether or not staff members had to enter the exchanges with the designation of “not official” not having to accept Obamacare.
The hypocrisy of forcing the people to live under what they themselves will not is beyond description and at the height of political corruption. If the president is going to lead us into socialized medicine then he must accept it for himself. If the Supreme Court is going to rule it constitutional they too must live under it. This should be the litmus test for the reelection of every U.S. Senator and member of the House of Representatives for the next several years to flush out of office those who exempt themselves from the laws that they make for others. All members of Congress made this decision on November 1. Did they choose to live above the law? If so, corruption has never been so clear and stark.
Most House Republicans have opted to submit themselves and their staffs to the costly provisions of the law although they despise the law and played virtually no role in its inception. But so far, ironically, Senate Democrats, who all voted for it, appeared hypocritically split on the issue. Still, we believe that no exemptions should be made for anyone who works in government. How will they govern correctly if they have immunized themselves from the pain they cause others?
Senator David Vitter is leading a Senate fight to nullify the exemptions for lawmakers and their staffs. His bill would require all members of Congress and the executive branch to purchase health insurance without taxpayer-funded subsidies— just like everyone else. No exceptions. If this lacks sufficient congressional support we support Senator Rand Paul’s Constitutional Amendment designed to require our government to live under the same laws that they make for us. They are not our masters but our servants.
As this automatically goes into effect without a member of Congress doing anything and as many will let that just happens, it is imperative that you carefully phrase your question to them leaving no wiggle room. We suggest, “Are you, or any of your staff, exempted from or receiving any subsidization from Obamacare.”
