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.”
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.
