Nov 5, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
In a recent headlined story of the Los Angeles Times, “Bill to protect journalists clears Senate panel,” The Senate Judiciary Committee, in a 13-5 vote, proposed to forward Dianne Feinstein’s bill to limit 1st Amendment rights of bloggers. Although hailed as a protection for “real” journalists it allows the government to define such and establish criteria for those reporting on the government and other news events. Such has infuriated the younger generation who get most, if not all, of their news from websites and believe that anyone has the right to report any news that they witness. It also offends Constitutionalists who believe it to be a serious violation of the First Amendment.
Feinstein ostensibly targets bloggers who reveal national security information, which today is expanded to virtually anything negative of the government, but her example is “a 17-year old with his own website.” To get an emotional reaction, she links the 17-year old in possession of a “five dollar” website with Edward Snowden’s extraction of classified information, a most unrealistic scenario. Besides many believe Snowden’s whistle-blowing revelations justifiable because the federal government had gone far beyond acceptable limits when it recorded everyone’s email, Facebook and phone messages, which it still does.
At issue is whether the media shield laws, which most states have, apply to bloggers as well as journalists. This allows reporters, who report information that the government does not want disclosed, to be shielded from having to reveal their sources to the government. The Feinstein amendment to the federal Media Shield Law (itself constitutionally questionable) would limit the law’s protection only to “real reporters,” not alternative media types like bloggers.
Housed in the Feinstein bill were phrases “covered journalist” and “legitimate news-gathering activities,” obviously only “professional mainstream journalists”—criteria that could exempt even this column. Therein lies the problem. Who is a “legitimate” reporter and who will decide? And if this law were in place who would dare criticize the government? In a free country the government cannot be in charge of its own criticism.
To be an “approved journalist” S. 987, the Feinstein Amendment, requires such to meet one of the following criteria: one must work as a “salaried employee . . . for any continuous three-month period within the two years prior to the relevant date” or, have “substantially contributed . . . a significant number of articles . . . within two years prior to the relevant date” or worked as a “student journalist at an institution of higher education.” The effect is to control the media by controlling those who are the media.
Throughout world history tyrannical governments have attempted to control two things to preserve their power: information and weapons. Kings always fear negative information about their governance and work to eliminate such when possible; then weapon control is less needed. But when they fail to stop the dissemination of negative information weapon control, in our case gun control, becomes critically important to them. The more regimental a government becomes the greater their desire to restrict information and weapons. We are no different. It is no accident that the Bill of Rights identifies and removes these possibilities from the federal government altogether. Amendment I, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” and, Amendment II,“ . . . the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Sorry Senator Feinstein you cannot define the press, nor can you make law with respect to it, most certainly none that limits free press as is the effect of your bill. Many feel that the Internet and blogs are the only real free press that we have for exactly the reason that you wish to limit it—anyone can put anything they wish on it. Libel and slander laws still function to keep disclosures honest should they hurt the innocent. The defense of John Peter Zenger against libel charges in 1735 is often seen as the cornerstone of press freedom. He was found innocent when he railed against the corrupt colonial governor because it was the truth. Your legislation appears merely to be a veiled attempt to damage or end the free press. See video of her offering amendment in question at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bywtn9RIDRw
Oct 23, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Dr. Harold Pease
The great majority of our establishment press almost gleefully speak of the plummeting Tea Party image over its support of defunding Obamacare, which was linked to the partial government shutdown. This should not surprise us, as the vast majority of the press, excepting FOX News, has never been friendly toward this movement. The view that it instead may be soaring is treated nowhere in their coverage. That Senator Ted Cruz, a Tea Party senator, received an eight minute standing ovation from a large crowd when he returned to Texas is unheard of and certainly supports the view that many seem favorable to a member of Congress finally willing to fight; that he isn’t just there to protect his party or job.
So who is the so-called Tea Party? I know a little about it because I helped form it—as did you. It was one of the most spontaneous political movements in U.S. History somewhat similar to the spontaneous rise of the Republican Party, where people united in the 1850’s in their opposition to the extension of slavery; or the Populist Party movement in the 1890’s, based largely on its opposition to the gold standard and supported the Free Silver movement. In each, as with the Tea Party, there were no known original leaders. Tea Party founders, you and I, loved the Constitution, which limits government, and the free market philosophy, that together made us the freest most productive and prosperous nation on earth. Understood also was that both parties must get back to these philosophies lest freedom and prosperity be lost to future generations.
Actually the movement began in opposition to George W. Bush’s $700 billion stimulus bailout package at the end of his term, which received bi-partisan support from President-Elect Barack Obama and the Democrats. Both parties were on the same page and taking us in the wrong direction—bigger government and debt insanity. Tea Party groups began to spring up everywhere in early February 2009, each with their own leaders. Three city leaders in the East, learning of the simultaneous rise of sister cites, contacted each other to compare notes. They liked the name Tea Party because they wished, by that name, to emulate our founding philosophy. Even so, they were uncertain what their core values should be so they invited Internet submissions from the thousands who felt similarly. Still, there was no known single leader. My daily submissions encouraged getting back to the Constitution. The three most frequently submitted core values, and the one’s selected, were: limited constitutional government, free market and fiscal responsibility—precisely the collective views of our Founders.
In my community the leader of the movement was Julie Demos, a second grade teacher, who had had no prior political experience. She was perfect. This was the gathering of the people who no longer wished to use political party, but the Founders core values, in promoting good government. Between three and five thousand folks gathered at the Liberty Bell in April 15, 2009, many spoke, including myself. Over 600 cities throughout the nation had similar gatherings. The movement was not party based. We wished to attract those who wished to get back to these core values. Our own Congressman Kevin McCarthy and House Speaker John Boehner, were denied the podium for that reason. They attended and viewed the proceedings as spectators as did everyone else. This was not a Republican Party rally! Fifteen thousand heard myself and others speak on getting back to the Constitution at the Tulare Ag Center on July 4th in support of over a million who gathered in Washington DC. Two other times such numbers gathered in the capitol before years end.
When I was young I assumed that I would have been with the patriots at Lexington and Concord when the British came to take their guns, or with Patrick Henry when he gave his famous speech that was highlighted by the phrase, “Give me liberty or give me death.” I would have been at Valley Forge with George Washington. When I learned much later that only a third of the people were patriots, another third too apathetic to care, and yet another third Tories, who actually assisted the British during the war, I wondered whether I would have had the clarity of thought to have picked the right side. Would have you? It comes to this, if you share the core values of the Founding Fathers you will befriend the Tea Party movement, then and now; if you do not, then it is likely that you would have been a Tory, then and now.
The Tea Party fight is not just about defunding Obamacare, which turns over to the federal government one-seventh of the economy, it is this and so many other things that have been taken over by the federal government without clear constitutional language as per Article I, Section 8. Any other approach weakens the Constitution. It is about over-taxing one part of the population to feed the other. It is about over-spending to the point that the entire economy collapses. It is about liberty itself. Tories in the American Revolution could not see any of this and opposed liberty. Tories today, from both parties, are equally blind. Some of us value movements and people, like Ted Cruse, that actually fight for liberty and that is why he received the eight-minute standing ovation. So please don’t be angry at the Tea Party for standing for our founding principles, instead be angry with those who demean them.
Oct 17, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
The likelihood exists that before this column is read the republicans in both the House and Senate will have compromised themselves out of any real resistance to Obamacare. The House of Representatives first voted to fund the entire government minus Obamacare on September 20. It moved next to delaying it one year for everyone—not just Congress, the unions, and big business—to make it fair. The House then moved to delay the individual mandate for a year plus make Congress live under the same law rescinding the exemptions promised them earlier by President Barack Obama enticing them to go along. The House then abandoned its original cause, defunding Obamacare. To counter the blame given them for the shutdown by the openly hostile press they next funded 11 critical functions of the government. Harry Reid and Senate democrats rejected everything.
That republicans caved in so easily and that the democrats would not buy into the fairness argument (historically their strongest tenant—fairness) is very disturbing, but three other areas are even more so. First of these is the blatant media bias in favor of one party and the Senate and the universal villainization of the other party and the House in their non-neutral coverage. All pretense of neutrality is gone.
Second, the damage to the U.S. Constitution, which gives clear direction on this issue, that was ignored by the Senate and now also by the House who should be most protective of this power. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House.” By refusing to honor this clear constitutional prerogative of the House as the only body that can initiate taxes, which includes defunding originally funded items, such clarity is lost and the Constitution is damaged.
The third, and far more disturbing result of this battle, is that our spending addiction will never be solved and this inability heralds the likelihood of a future complete fiscal collapse of our economy and probably that of the world, as they are so dependent upon our dollar. A position once considered too extreme to voice I now hear everyday. If our leaders were intentionally making choices to collapse the economy how would they differ from those they now make?
What arguments support this view? Almost all evidence shows that Obamacare is going to be far more costly than promised with no real evidence that it will be any better for the vast majority. Our national debt rises between three and four billion dollars a day, which we without guilt pass on to the next generation. Even as I write this column the President is proposing a debt-ceiling raise of a million dollars per minute. He, and the Republican House of Representatives (they for not defunding things, like Obamacare and free cell phone for the poor, long ago) are responsible for seven trillion of our now 17 trillion-dollar debt. Before he leaves office he will have increased our national debt equal to the debt remaining unpaid by all previous presidents of the United States combined, and yet half of our folks remain mesmerized by his promises.
The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962, including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W Bush, and five times under Barack Obama. This is our 12th debt raise in 12 years. We raise it every year to accommodate our need for a “fix.” Congress sadly never says no. Does anyone really believe that our debt-addicted government will ever stop the addiction on its own? Fully a third of our population do not earn their bread by the sweat of their brow but vote to get the government to take it from an-others labor and give to them. We are told that those receiving food stamps are now a third of our population having doubled under Obama’s watch.
Yes, we have a two-class society—the takers and the contributors. Takers will always vote for the party and politicians who will promise them more. When that number exceeds 51 percent we will never escape the takers and will have effectively made the contributing class the new slaves. Some believe takers to be very close.
So, go ahead and tell me that after the democrats win this debt crisis, their 7th time under Obama, that they will spend less hereafter and won’t need another income “fix” next year. Tell me that those who receive free cell phones or food stamps or other government handouts will wake up and see the damage that is being done to the productive base of this country. Tell me that after reading this column they will vote for a party or individual that advocates first reducing, then eliminating, these and so many other well meaning but bankrupting programs. Tell me!! The Tea Party provides the only resistance to this self-destructing philosophy and look at how the media and both parties vilify them.
When the real government shutdown comes, and it surely will unless we quickly change direction and get back to the Constitution, we may not have a President, Congress or Supreme Court. For a time we may have real anarchy, hunger and bloodshed. Notice what happened in Wall Mart this week by greedy food stamp recipients when they weren’t even hungry. And most likely The Constitution, now shredded by both parties, won’t be able to save us from ourselves as now. Let us not pretend any longer that what is now openly talked about on the street could never happen here. Would to God we wake up in time to “sober up” and make serious spending cuts so the the impending real government shutdown never happens.
Oct 9, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
As of day 9 of our federal government services slowdown (only 17 percent of which has been shutdown) it becomes very obvious that there are two warring sides and no middle. Democrats blame republicans and republicans blame democrats and confidence in our Congress is now at an all-time low of eleven percent. There appear to be no neutral news sources. So what are the indisputable facts that I can certify?
Every September the U.S. House of Representatives passes what is now referred to as a Continuing Resolution funding the government for another year. It is normal to have bickering over specific programs and amounts. It is also true that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House and that constitutional power was exclusively left with this branch in as much as it alone, of the two, was to represent the people, in this case protect them from excessive taxation. Not funding items is also a common practice and has not been particularly controversial or questioned until now. Funding is the constitutional prerogative of the House and the Senate should back away because by not doing so they do probable irreparable damage to Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.
This aside, conservatives believe that it also will enhance federal power to the tune of one-seventh of the economy and will place the IRS in charge of mandatory collections, an organization presently accused of targeting conservatives, especially religious and Tea Party types, for extra scrutiny. Louis Learner, a prominent IRS administrator, having pled the Fifth to the above noted charges before Congress, reportedly referring to them as “terrorists.” Obviously Tea Party folks, whose core value is to get back to the Constitution, fear abuse of power should the federal government have both the power to enforce taxation and have access to medical records as well.
So why won’t the Democrats simply back off and honor what is traditional to honor? The House has agreed to fund the government—ALL OF THE GOVERNMENT—even the parts that they traditionally oppose, minus Obamacare, and they did so September 20, 2013—ten days before the shutdown. The Republican controlled House of Representatives DID NOT shut down the government but did just the opposite. It fully funded it giving the democrats every thing that they wanted without opposition except this one thing. Again, why won’t the democrats accept this? Because it is their signature legislation and they rightly see this as a threat to the legislation. Socialize healthcare they have coveted for fifty years.
On September 27, the democratically controlled U.S. Senate under Harry Reid stripped the defunding language out of the bill and sent it back to the House refusing to compromise. The next day the House Republicans still voted to fund the government entirely plus fund Obamacare, if Senate Democrats would delay Obamacare for one year for everyone and would repeal the medical device tax. To this point President Barack Obama had given exemptions to big business groups and Congress. In support of the public outcry, “I Want My One-Year Delay Of ObamaCare!” the House voted to give a one-year exemption to everyone, not just the privileged few.
Two days later, Sept. 30, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats refuse to compromise and stripped the two amendments from the Continuing Resolution returning it to the House. The House again agreed to full funding of the government, to delay the individual mandate for a year, and to take away the health care subsidies given members of Congress and their staffs earlier this year. Many wondered why Congress would pass a bill that they themselves would not abide by. Requiring Congress to live under Obmacare, just like the rest of the American people, was sure to move Senate Democrats. It didn’t.
As with the other compromises offered by the House in addition to fully funding the federal government, including every pet democratic expense, it was refused and stripped from the resolution. The House was the only body doing any compromising and it was doing so with itself from a position of strength to an ever weaker position. Some suggested that there was no need for the President or the Senate to compromise; the House did it for them. Still, the media wrongly blamed the republicans for the government shutdown.
Next the House appointed conferees and sent a message to the Senate requesting a conference meeting to resolve their differences. This too was rejected and on midnight Tuesday, October 1, the government shut down. On that same day the House began passing single authorization appropriation bills in an effort to keep payments flowing for veterans and for NIH kids with cancer. Other bills funded the National Guard, Head Start and the National Park Services—eleven spending bills to date. Harry Reid rejected them all.
The most recent House Republican compromise offer, October 9, was to create a super committee consisting of both parties to work out their differences on this issue plus the upcoming debt ceiling resolution due October 17. I predict that the republicans will eventually go for a higher debt ceiling and democrats the new Super Committee. This accomplished the Super Committee will talk itself into oblivion as have earlier Senate Super Committees and accomplish nothing leaving Obamacare funded after all. On debt ceiling raises the republicans are normally outfoxed and on defunding they have repeatedly compromised the strength of their position without any democratic help.
Oct 3, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare
Dr. Harold Pease
The fear with respect to our latest “government shutdown” is amazing. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit such an extreme emotional response. It appears designed to frighten the least informed either for or against the other political party, thus the terminology and subsequent blame game.
So what does a government shut down look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No, they stay on the job and receive full pay as before. Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? NO! No, No! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and cops, prisons, and teachers remain in place. Will I still get my mail? Yes. The U.S. Postal Service functions as an independent business unit. Will I still get Social Security benefits? Yes! And food stamps? Yes. And unemployment compensation? Yes. And veterans’ benefits? Yes, at least until late October. And will there still be a functioning federal school lunch program? Yes, at least through October (66 questions and answers about the government shutdown, by Gregory Korte, USA Today Oct. 1, 2013).
Then why the hysteria? My point exactly!! Because these two words, “government shutdown,” and the possibility of missed food stamps send the largely uninformed into frenzy, they finally awake from their stupor. They largely know nothing, although they should, of the wrangling of government to protect them from themselves and oppose any proposed government diet that might reduce their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders that are least likely to disturb this base, like defunding Obamacare.
There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen short of an overthrow of the government from within, the collapse of our financial structure (which is becoming ever more likely do to our obsession to live beyond our means), or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.
How do we know this? Because we have had 17 government shutdowns since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service, the Reagan Administration having 8 of them alone. Because in 1979 the government was shut down for 10 days while Congress argued over a proposed salary increase for the legislative branch. Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of the bad things mentioned above happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice.
Then what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.
So at worst a government shutdown is really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services and a delay of payment for some few federal workers. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. This is precisely the Tea Party position (“cut it or shut it”) and the reason they do not fear such. If you have a budget of $3.7 trillion for a given year and you have taxes covering only $2 trillion during the same time simple math tells you that either you double taxes or cut half of your expenses. You simply can’t keep increasing the national debt, now almost $17 trillion, which has been laid on the backs of our new slaves—our children.
When you have cancer you must surgically remove the infected tissue. Of course it is painful, but the longer you wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both the last two government shutdowns were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8, so in time such cuts should become permanent or those areas need to be authorized in the amending process in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with “the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920’s” and Republicans because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).
So, a government shutdown is really only a partial slowdown that may actually be healthy. Let’s call it such in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed and they overreact?
Sep 25, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
In a 230/189 vote the U.S. House of Representative recently voted to fund the government but defund Obamacare. Can it do so constitutionally? Historically throughout the ages, the people have had little freedom from excessive government which became the cause of the American Revolution. Ramses, an Egyptian Pharaoh, made the Israelite slaves gather their own straw in addition to making the bricks. The greatest concerns of the masses have always been excessive taxation and unpopular wars because the first took their hard earned money and the second potentially their lives. Under the Constitution, and for the first time in history, they could prevent either.
Everything hinged upon funding which was given exclusively to the House of Representatives—the only power that they alone had. “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” To fund anything, in this case Obamacare, first approval is required by the House of Representatives. If that does not happen taxpayer money cannot be spent. The people, through their representatives to Congress, have determined, after a three-year closer scrutiny of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), that it does not protect the patient, is not affordable and is not even workable; hence in the interests of the vast majority of the people needs to be defunded.
Spending can only occur after raising revenue and since only one body is authorized to initiate this, it follows that if they refuse to initiate it the issue ends, regardless of what the Senate chooses to do. Refusal is understood. Neither Senate or Presidential acceptance is necessary as on other bills—the people have spoken. If the House won’t do the necessary first part, second and third parts cannot follow. It might be well to remember that this grant to the House, in Article 7, is a grant of power separate from and preceding Section 8 which itemizes the law making, thus spending, powers of Congress. In this particular instance, raising revenue, the House has clear distinction and is set apart from the Senate. Any other interpretation would undermine, even destroy, the peoples right of approval of taxation—the right not to be excessively taxed. A right no other people in world history has had, as far as I am able to determine—a most precious freedom.
House opposition to funding Obamacare would have been far more powerful if made a “stand alone” bill not attached to general funding, but it is not. “Stand alone,” having no other parts, would have left the Senate no wiggle or compromise room once it went to them, nor would there be for the Joint Conference Committee thereafter that reconciles any differences between the two houses. There would be nothing to reconcile—Obamacare is merely defunded. No expenditures for Obamacare would follow. This course is recommended should the Senate strip defunding language from the bill when they get it. Such action on their part would be a slap in the face of The House of Representatives and they should accept it as such.
One benefit of keeping a defunding bill separate is that the President then could not as easily accuse the republicans of attempting to shut down the government. It would have nothing to do with funding the government. It would be a separate argument, which goes as follows. Not expending money is less likely to shut the government down than over expending which is what the House says the bill contributes to. Presently we are unable to pay our bills to the tune of between 3 to 4 billion dollars a day.
Choosing to defund in the normal budget bill, instead of as a separate bill, is a decidedly weaker approach. They subject themselves to a no vote from the Senate and a promised veto from the President, were it to make it through the Senate. Overriding the veto is not likely. The people lose again and the clarity of the Constitution, that the House alone has origin authority, is lost.
The long-term practice of not specifically raising revenue but instead listing expenditures, then asking for that amount of money, does cloud the issue and does allow the Senate to, in effect, raise revenue otherwise prohibited by clear constitutional language. We should have a separate bill disconnected from the budget, specifically intended to raise revenue. Since the budget bill is seen today as raising revenue we are probably stuck with the practice until some real constitutionalist get into office. If Obamacare expenses are omitted can the Senate, or Joint Conference Committee add them by amendment? Yes, and it will, and that is the problem!! For now it appears that the only hope of the House is to stand firm on the defunding issue in the Joint Conference Committee.
Still, the intent of the Founding Fathers was to give the people, through their House of Representatives, the power collectively to say no to any proposed federal tax, which she is decidedly doing. Members of the Senate should drop their resistance accepting the authority of their sister law making branch lest they play a dominate role in the loss of it by their ignorance of the Constitution. If this check on excessive government is destroyed, we may one day return to forcibly making bricks with straw that we are also forced to gather.
