Apr 11, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Are your city or county government leaders ICLEI members, or is your city an ICLEI city? If so, you, or they, may not fully realize that the United Nations has a big influence over your local government decisions. You need to void this influence as quickly as possible.
I too was slow to see the influence of the United Nations on city, county, or state governments but the documentation supporting that influence is now overwhelming. I was conversant with their use of environmental prongs to standardize regulations and govern allocations of resources on the nations of the earth through the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and through their United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), but we were okay because we had not signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol Treaty. There were so many other fronts in trying to preserve our Constitution and Republic this seemed less unimportant.
While I battled the loss of freedom elsewhere, the United Nations formed in 1990 the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI, to ideologically infiltrate local governments into “winning enactment of global-warming legislation at the state and local levels.” A tentacle of a giant UN octopus has reached into our local governments. Now becoming recognized for what it is, it appears almost everywhere. It claims over 1200 local government members in 70 different countries. Of that number 130 are members of our county and city governments in California alone. California’s ICLEI cities include Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento, which sheds light on how California could be so easily enticed into AB 32, formally known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This legislation, sometimes referred to as “cap and trade,” is driving businesses from the state and flooding those who stay with regulatory nightmares.
ICLEI’s purpose, according to their web page, is to “Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies… Mobilize local governments to help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements such as the Rio conventions…. Forge multi-stakeholder partnerships such as Resilient Cities, a global framework on urban resilience and climate adaptation where local governments, international agencies, development banks, ministries, institutes and others, collaborate.” The master plan is Chapter 28 of Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 “proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coast-lands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and ‘protecting’ the atmosphere.”
But Agenda 21 is far more than just extreme environmental regulation—that is just the beginning. The New American magazine gave the best description of what it includes. “It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption—in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21” (“Your Hometown and the United Nations,” February 21, 2011, p. 14). In short, it will affect every person on earth and that affect is not likely to be positive for individuals or their local governments. Like a vacuum cleaner it siphons power from local and state jurisdiction to the United Nations.
The list of environmental groups, foundations, and government agencies supporting Agenda 21 is mind-boggling. Local opposition is underfunded and overwhelmed.
“Sustainable development” (not defined) is the wording used to describe their end result. This is the most appealing part of Agenda 21 for visionaries of a perfectly, totally managed, world governing environment. Unfortunately, it is way too open-ended allowing the ruling class (the planners, of course) to modify the rules as necessary. Gone would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but Utopians do not think that far in advance. Fortunately, locally elected leaders generally do, but they need to rid themselves of this UN influence, like a cancer, to remain locally controlled and free. Once again, are your city or county leaders ICLEI members? Why not ask them?
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 30, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Every evening as I watch the news I hear the Democrats blasted for their irresponsible, wasteful spending leading this nation to its highest national debt with over $6 trillion accredited to President Barack Obama alone. Just this week Secretary of State John Kerry gave the Palestinians some $500 million not to attack Israel. Last month Egypt reportedly received 16 F-16 fighter jets together with some 400 tanks; their likely target Israel, our supposed friend. Every year we give them $1.7 billion in foreign aid. All this while we close down White House tours allegedly because we do not have the money to keep them open. We presently spend (waste) about $20 billion dollars annually on “buying” friends, called foreign aid. The spending goes on and on with Democrats, according to the news, responsible for most of it.
So, if true, why attack the Republican Party? They are not in charge Democrats are! That was so for Obama’s first two years in power, but decidedly not so since 2010. When Republicans retook the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi handed the gavel of leadership to John Boehner, Republicans assumed the major responsibility of this Congressional body—taxing and spending. The Constitution reads, “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” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1). Neither the Senate nor the White House can constitutionally initiate taxes. All the Republican controlled House has to do to stop irresponsible spending is to not originate the bill to cover the expenses. The annual House Budget could leave out items formerly approved. Deficit spending could end simply by their refusal to pass new deficit spending bills.
It is true that the President has not had a budget, although required by law, in over four years and he is already almost two months late in proposing one this year as well. Until such time as one is processed constitutionally the House budget should be the official federal budget. It is also true that no tax law can originate to cover his expenses without first the consent of the House of Representatives. Hence only the House Budget really matters. If a president spends money not first approved by this body he is, in effect, raising revenue, a power that he does not possess and both parties should share in his condemnation. Sole power of impeachment also originates from the House, and a president perpetually attempting to exclude the House of its sole power to raise revenue might be reminded of the second power. Also, given that a president’s salary is also a budget item, the House might explore the possibility of not raising revenue for this purpose should this body feel threatened by a president’s usurpation of the House power. This procedure was openly used by state legislatures on zealous royal governors to help bring them into line during Colonial American History.
Why do the House of Representatives alone have this power? The power of the purse (both taxing and spending) is one of the most important powers of the Constitution. The Founders resolved that it should be left with the representatives of the people, thus making it impossible for the people to be over-taxed without their consent for more than two years as all members of this body come up for reelection on the same date—every two years. To my knowledge no other people in history have had control over their taxes. It is a priceless freedom.
Addressing this subject James Madison observed, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The U.S. Constitution mandates that “the House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.” This power alone he added, “can overcome all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse… (The Federalist, No. 58).”
So Republicans, if you do not like the above reckless spending charge that I have attributed to you, assume your Constitutional House of Representatives duty to protect the people from such and do so immediately. You are in charge in this matter, not they. Your failure to act weakens this part of the Constitution. Mankind waited almost 6,000 years to have freedom from excessive taxation. You do not have the right to lose it for posterity.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 23, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes
Dr. Harold Pease
As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 224 years old. It may surprise readers to learn that for most of these years, 124 to be exact, we had no established federal income tax and handled our national debt quite well. Today most pay at least a fourth of their income to the federal government. Prior to 1913 you kept for yourself what is now taken from you. And what would you now spend it on were it not taken? Not on the basics such as food, housing, and utilities for they are covered in what you are allowed to take home. You would spend the extra fourth of your salary on thousands of items that are made by others as well as services you might like. This not only would enrich your life but it would provide millions of jobs for others making those items or providing those services as well. Many middle class folks could purchase a new car every year with what they are forced to give to the federal government.
Would you spend it more wisely than the federal government? Certainly! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society, and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistributing it to those who do not. Even some non-tax payers get income tax refunds—so corrupt is the system. Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these areas will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies provide largely government jobs, which are almost entirely consumption jobs (jobs that consume the production of society but produce nothing consumable). Such jobs cannot produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk, or even a can of hair spray. They bring another guy to the table to eat, but not another to produce something to eat.
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 maximize their authority the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Out side 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.
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time they did so the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. I ask my students what would happen if they took one lolly-pop to kindergarten and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Or, I give one student the answers to the next exam and the others find out. What would they say? Try taking away long provided benefits from a privileged group, as for example food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.
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. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt as might be supposed. Seldom do they qualify for the federally subsidized programs anyway. The fourth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them thus creating a haven of jobs of which those who wished to work could and would have no excuse not to. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford with some states offering more and others less as the Tenth Amendment mandates.
So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. Ironically 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, which inadvertently stimulated the economy. I am certain that there is someone out there that could find a supposition in the above to fault, but no one should be able to argue that our approaching $16.7 trillion national debt is fair, has really worked for any of us, and is a better plan. I personally like the idea of being able to purchase a new car every year.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 18, 2013 | Constitution, Take Action, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
The approval rating presently for Congress, according to the Washington Post, is 14 percent and few Americans believe them capable of providing the leadership that is so desperately needed in our time. Few, if any, command universal respect and there are no Patrick Henry’s, serious advocates of freedom even if they do not get reelected. The last time the parties worked together was during the Bill Clinton tenure and the last time a majority of Americans had any real hope for the future was during the Ronald Reagan Administration when he ended the “Cold War.”
That may have changed for many on March 6, 2013, when one man stood, initially mostly alone with but a few Tea Party friends, on the Senate floor arguing for 13 hours far into the evening, even against his own party, for what he believed to be right. Most of my students have no idea what a Senate Filibuster is, as it has never occurred in their lifetime, but it allows a Senator to speak on a topic for as long as he can stand and speak. He may entertain questions from colleagues but he must never yield the floor. He may not leave the Senate Chambers, even for a restroom break, or sit down.
Such passion for liberty has never, in my lifetime, brought both ends of the political spectrum together and reminded us of our shared core values. Civil libertarians and Tea Party supporters buzzed their approval on social media. The American Civil Liberties Union referred to the event as historic and courageous. As the night wore on more people watched C-SPAN at one time then reportedly ever before.
America had a new hero and the phrase “Stand With Rand” gained popularity in a single evening. Not from the establishment press which largely ignored the new “Patrick Henry” of our day, and the significance of this moment, but decidedly without it.
Rand Paul, son of presidential contender Ron Paul, intentionally held up the confirmation of John Brennan as the new CIA Director because he had been elusive on the subject of drone use to kill Americans on U.S. soil, merely thought to have terrorist connection. This had happened in Yemen to a 16-year-old American boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Paul wanted assurance that it would not happen here. Failing to get it from the nominee he next asked for it from the Obama Administration. Certainly they would agree that such would be unconstitutional and a violation of the 5th Amendment’s due process provision to do so. Brennan’s stalling on the question amplified the need for such a statement which was even more amplified when the President seemed to be stalling also. The filibuster should have ended within the first hour. The world waited for an answer. That clarification finally arrived from Eric Holder the next day, but why was it not easily forthcoming.
Fear of the U.S. government is stronger today than at any time since the American Revolution and it does not help hearing that the Department of Homeland Security is buying up enormous quantities of ammunition to use somewhere and on someone: presumably on Americans because DHS has no function outside the country. As kind as they have been to illegal immigrants, even letting 2,000 incarcerated inmates go in early March, because of impending cuts due to the hardship anticipated from the Sequester, it is unlikely that they plan the ammo for them. Nobody seems to know. Since the word “terrorism” is not adequately defined or limited, (the best the government has given us is “Al-Qaeda-like” organizations) both ends fear a revolving definition. Vice President Joe Biden has already called the Tea Party terrorists, and Occupy Wall Street folks have already had clashes with law enforcement. If the federal government is anticipating a clash with her own citizens, it would be a short step in logic to assume drone strikes could be used on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil as well.
The assurance sought for by Paul should have been supported by everyone giving an oath to support the Constitution as such a course, by the federal government, would effectively end the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. What makes Rand Paul especially credible is that everyone who knows him attests that he would have done the same thing, and made the same case, in a George W. Bush Administration.
What was just as revealing with respect to the Rand Paul filibuster was who was not there defending our right not to be shot down by a drone in our own country. Only 15 Senators participated with Paul leaving 84 others to explain to their constituent’s why they had not defended the Constitution as their oath demanded. They were: Senators Ted Cruz (Texas), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Pat Toomey (Penn.), John Thune (S.D.), John Barrasso (Wy.), Tim Scott (S.C.), John Cornyn (Texas), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.) Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Sadly, the following morning both Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator John McCain of Arizona took to the same Senate floor and castigated Paul for his stand.
For me this was a moment of truth separating those who are real patriots from those who once were. Senator McCain was a co-author of the infamous National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by President Barack Obama New Years Eve 2011, which authorized the President, through his military, to kidnap any U.S. citizen thought to be associated with a terrorist organization and ship them to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention. Such action would strip Americans involved of their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the Bill of Rights. Rand Paul voted against that law too.
No wonder he stood for 13 hours in defense of our liberty and the Constitution. If there is any hope in our saving our Republic it will come from those who stood for our core values this day. Will you “Stand With Rand” too?
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 10, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Finally the 10th Amendment is beginning to be used by states to prevent the Federal Government’s overreach of Constitutional powers. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Last I heard 26 states were showing their resistance to Obamacare by opting out of exchanges. Nine State Sheriffs’ Associations have put the Executive and Legislative Branches on notice that they will support the traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights and 336 elected county sheriffs have inferred that they will protect their people on this issue—even against federal agents coming into their counties. Federal marijuana laws are openly defied by some states. States’ refusal to implement the Real ID Act, passed in 2005, is a form of resistance. Even Governor Jerry Brown on federal mandated prison requirements, earlier this year, suggested that the Federal Government back off, “We can handle our own prisons.” When enough states say no, the feds will back away.
Unconstitutional overreach is epidemic and there is now measurable push-back. The “check and balance” part of the Constitution is the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Nullification. States do have the authority to “Just Say No!” but to be effective they need to do so collectively, the larger the group the more effective. We have previously covered its use in 1798 and 1832. We have treated Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Fathers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, on the subject. This column restricts itself to arguments made in support of this doctrine by Alexander Hamilton traditionally seen as an advocate of a strong federal government and thus the “father” of American liberalism. All emphasis in his quotes is his own. Today proponents of big government incorrectly believe that every law, executive order, or judicial decision is constitutional.
He wrote, “If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers entrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union… EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION” (The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, The New American Library, 1961, No 33, pages 204-205).
Thus the door which the less informed propose, that they can enforce any law that is passed by the federal government because of what is called the supremacy clause (“The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme law of the land”), is closed. Those laws “not pursuant” to actual constitutional power are invasions of authority, even usurpations, and should “be treated as such.” So, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land only so long as it remains restricted to original grants of power.
In fact, so strongly was it believed that the Federal Government not depart from original grants of power in the Constitution all federal authorities were required to swear by oath that they would abide by this understanding. Hamilton wrote, “It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS” (The Federalist Papers, No. 27, p. 177). Once again, original intent is the only constitutional interpretation permitted. Notice that the Supreme Court is not excluded from “the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction” anything else are invasions of authority.
Every act outside of enumerated authority is contrary to the Constitution and thus is void. Hamilton continues, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid” (The Federalist, No. 78, p. 467).
So, what should happen when the Federal Government overreaches its enumerated powers? Hamilton answers this question also. “The Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (The Federalist, No. 78). Simply, states should use the Doctrine of Nullification—“It ain’t happening here.”
The states are the guardians of this principle Hamilton explains because they “will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent” (The Federalist, No. 26, p. 172).
There exists no argument for any other interpretation other than original intent in The Federalist Papers. Once again we have focused upon Alexander Hamilton because he is traditionally seen as an advocate of a strong federal government and thus the “father” of American liberalism. In a free society it is healthy to see the states exercising their united right to nullify; may they do so frequently. On following the Constitution all should be united.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 6, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
All over the land, from California to New York and from Florida to Alaska, thousands gathered on February 23, to remind the federal government that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They are saying, in effect, “Back off Mr. President with your executive orders and Congress with your proposed new laws, you are on sacred Constitutional soil.” The establishment press was weak, almost non-existent, in its coverage. The 124 cities participating largely had to enter their own pictures of their event on the Internet to get coverage—so weak was press response. Seventeen such rallies were held in California alone, a state already sensitive to the loss of gun right freedoms and threatened with more of the same by a largely hostile democratically controlled State Legislature. Bakersfield, California alone had 2,000 participants with standing room only. Late participants had to park a half-mile away to find a place but they were willing, so angry were they at both their state and federal governments threatening their “God given rights.”
Angry elected county sheriffs too are continuing their rise against Congress and the President for the same reason. “Leave the Bill of Rights alone.” Their movement, starting in mid-January, also has yet to break through the unsympathetic establishment press. In a previous column, “Sheriffs vow to Defend 2nd Amendment from Federal Government!!,” we provided breaking news that still is largely unbroken. Simply stated, elected county sheriffs (each county in the United States has but one) have put their names to a document vowing to defend their citizens from the federal government if federal agents begin enforcing gun laws outside the limits of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Utah’s Sheriffs’ Association went as far as to say, “we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”
As of February 14, nine state sheriff’ associations have signed similar pledges to defend their citizens from either Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders (remember the president cannot make law) or any gun legislation coming out of Congress that, in effect, damages this constitutional amendment. Those states refusing to comply are, as they came on board: Utah, Florida, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wyoming, Indiana, and the most recent Illinois.
Even the California State Sheriffs Association’s letter to Vice President Joe Biden was stronger than had been expected, putting him, and the federal government, on notice. “It is the position of CSSA, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the statutes of the State of California, that law-abiding persons who meet the established requirements have the right to acquire, own, possess, use, keep and bear firearms. This right shall not be infringed.”
By Mid-February, 336 elected county sheriffs have signed pledges that they will not enforce any unconstitutional gun control laws or executive orders, seventeen of them in California. This kind of resistance is unheard of and more counties and state associations are expected to follow.
Some states are preparing for the worst should the federal government become even more tyrannical on enforcing unconstitutional gun laws or decrees. Wyoming’s new “Firearm Protection Act,” threatens federal officials with up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines if convicted of attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on the gun rights of Wyoming citizens. Reportedly, Missouri and Texas have similar legislation pending.
According to the Patriot Newswire, Police Chief Mark Kessler of Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania wants citizens as a reserve force to defend against federal agents coming into his jurisdiction. There would be extensive training required for the voluntary reserve unit and it would not have arrest capabilities but would be called in on short notice should he need it to protect his citizens. They would provide their own firearms.
Obviously we are riding a wave of resentment at, and fear of, the federal government, and with good reason. All this would go away if the federal government would return to the limits placed upon it in the U.S. Constitution. Pray that it will. One note of interest, the county sheriff is the only elected law enforcement agent in the United States. As such he has more authority than the FBI or ATF in his county or any other bureaucratic law enforcement agent.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
