Feb 11, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
“We Are All Socialists Now” said the front cover of Newsweek, Feb. 16, 2009, exactly four years ago. Editors Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas wrote, “Whether we want to admit it or not, the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state,” toward socialism, they observed, “even before Barack Obama’s largest fiscal bill in our history.” The magazine had a red hand (republican) shaking a blue hand (democrat) in favor of socialism. Both parties accepted the “growing role of government in the economy,” they observed. “The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries.” Moreover, “it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly.” The “sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world,” they noted.
If the “growing role in government” is how Newsweek measures socialism, four years later we are even more socialist than they supposed. In this time period the federal government obtained a controlling interest in General Motors, absorbed 1/7th of the economy under Obamacare, and expanded the power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to oversee most homes in America. This land expansion was in addition to their ownership of a third of all the landmass in the United States known as federal land. This does not count the controlling influence over all businesses by the eighty thousand new pages of bureaucratic rules and regulations descending upon businesses annually that effectively manage most everything else.
Clearly we are replacing our Constitutional Republic, which emphasizes limited government and individual freedom, and Newsweek tells us that we are just beginning. In light of their honesty it might behoove us to understand where socialist might be taking us by noting where socialism has gone before.
In 1975 the book, “From Under the Ruble,” authored by a variety of Soviet dissidents, all but one of whom were still living in the USSR, was published in the West. The participants were fully aware that their commentary on the socialist system smuggled to the “Free World” would undoubtedly unleash the wrath of the Soviet Bear and result in imprisonment, torture, and possibly death for them. Nonetheless, they felt that the West could avoid the loss of freedom they experienced if only it were warned.
Igor Shafarevich, a corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and former Laureate of the Lenin Prize, attempted, in his chapter “Socialism in Our Past and Future,” to tell the West what socialism eventually worked out to be in practice. This is, of course, after any significant means of resistance had been moved by gun control. That is the first thing that goes in any tyrannical government. He found the economic definition of socialism incomplete.
In practice socialism resulted in the meaningful governmental control of the means of production and distribution. In the U.S. this is done through thousands of rules and regulations on virtually every activity.
Socialism resulted in complete control of private property. Property was defined as anything that existed including one’s own family and person. This included subordination of the individual to the power of the bureaucracy and state control of everyday life. Try doing anything in our society today without first asking permission of the government. Sexual promiscuity is first tolerated, even encourage, but ultimately procreation on a selective and supervised basis follows. So far we have not lost the right of partner choice, nor did they in China, another socialist paradise, but their birth number is regulated to but one child.
For the USSR socialism meant the destruction of the family as the basic institution of society and the rearing of children away from their parents in state schools or daycare centers. Marriage as an acceptable practice was also minimized.
One of the most defining characteristics of all profoundly socialist countries was the government’s extreme hatred of religion and their commitment to its ultimate destruction. Today’s Progressives in the U.S. have a distance to go to accomplish this, but the value or necessity of organized religion is undermined.
The destruction of the hierarchy into which society has arranged itself was yet another characteristic under which Shafarevich lived. The idea of equality to a socialist had a special character. It meant the negation of the existence of any genuine differences between individuals: “equality” was turned into “equivalence.” Socialism aims to establish equality by the opposite means of destroying all the higher aspects of the personality. Turning “equality” into “equivalence” is progressing nicely in this country as well.
Newsweek’s invitation to “think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world” should dissuade us from going there at all. Why would anyone want to embrace a system that ended all semblances of freedom and which, for them, self destructed in 1989? At least in the USSR they would have been happy to trade their socialism for our freedom. Are we smart enough to listen to 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.
Feb 2, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
No one needs a military styled assault weapon for personal protection or hunting. Some wonder why we can’t let this part of the 2nd Amendment go?
Many may not remember their basic U.S. History courses and a little review might help us understand why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, their was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where, or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety, or even hunting, these were already assumed. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (if I may use this word in this context) squarely at the government. But certainly we need have no fear of the government today?
To understand it more fully one must remember that the early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt against them. They argued in The Declaration of Independence, that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” coming from a much higher source than mere man and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” God is referenced five times in this document and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is why the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction that is needed but they had no intention of giving up the same right that they exercised to give us freedom in the first place. Nor were they pious enough to assume that their correction would stay in place and that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction as they had.
The wordage of the 2nd Amendment was stronger than any other sentence in the Constitution. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” They saw this right as being connected with a free country and specifically forbade the federal government any authority with respect to it because historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
An armed populace had twice proved their value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. Many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans en-route, make sense. The Battle of Saratoga preventing the conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne was stopped, not by the military, but by angry farmers with their own military styled assault rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to come into the war on our side. It is doubtful that we would have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns—even military issue— was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed,” but also, “they should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
Five monumental things frightened many Americans in 2012 alone, beginning with the Presidents signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, which enabled him to kidnap and send to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention anyone he identified as a terrorist. This was followed by the “Media Monitoring Initiative” where the federal government gave itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media, primarily Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. In March we saw and heard Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, each, in testimony given to the Senate Armed Services Committee, inferred that the authority that they depended upon for military purposes came not from Congress, as required in the U.S. Constitution, but from unelected UN or NATO authorities. Also, on March 16, President Barack Obama issued his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order authorizing the Executive department to take-over, in case of a national emergency, all civil transportation, including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.” In June, frustrated by his inability to get through Congress a law on immigration he favored, and tired of making law the constitutional way, President Barack Obama, openly defied Congress and the Constitution on June 16, 2012, by ordering a like measure to that previously defeated, implemented anyway.
There has been a slogan for many years that runs like this. “I love my country but I fear my government.” Many Americans have come to believe that the real reason that the federal government wants assault weapons banned has less to do with the 16-year-old gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary, and more to do with disarming America so that it cannot resist tyranny. Given the unconstitutional antics noted above perhaps we should hang on to the 2nd Amendment in tact for the time being?
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.
Jan 25, 2013 | Constitution, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Finally, an organization is protecting the Constitution and it is not the House of Representatives, U. S. Senate, U.S. President, the U. S. Supreme Court, or the States, as should be the case. It is the least likely of all those who swear by oath, upon condition of taking office, to preserve it—the Sheriffs’ Departments in county after county and growing. Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon was the first with his January 14th directive to all sheriffs in his county that they would not be enforcing any law that violated the 2nd Amendment. Two days latter the New Mexico Sheriffs Association, with 30 of their 33 county sheriffs, next stood with “we also will protect the Second Amendment from the federal governments recent assault on it.” Then, the next day, 28 of 29 counties in Utah under the signature of the Utah Sheriffs’ Association informed the President that they will protect the 2nd Amendment for their people even with their lives—even from the federal government. In California 13 county sheriffs have made similar pledges.
The straw that broke the camels back for the county sheriffs was President Barack Obama’s signing some 23 executive orders on January 16, further restricting the rights of gun owners. The Utah backlash followed the next day. Sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement body in the United States and they understand that Congress has sole authority to make law, that law must originate with and be approved by both the House and Senate, and that the only power that belongs to the President is suggestion, through his state of the union address, and his veto, which can be overridden. The Utah sheriffs reminded the President that, “It is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally by executive orders” and advised that he remember, “that the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.”
Some 535 individuals make all the law on the federal level, not just a single person as was the case with kings and is the case with dictators today. All executive orders that have the effect of making law are unconstitutional; the President has no authority to make law. Doing so reduces the relevancy of the Congress and is a form of tyranny. Moreover, it is well to remember that a law cannot undo an amendment to the Constitution—only another amendment and that requires the support of 3/4ths of the states, so Congress is restricted also.
The Utah Sheriffs letter said in part, “With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.” This inference also includes the government.
The letter ended aimed directly at the President. “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”
Finally, we have a body that understands the Constitution, honors its oath, and is prepared to defend it—even against the federal government. Look for other counties all over the United States to follow. Is your sheriff, who took the same oath, willing to defend you? Why not ask him? Send him a copy of this letter. In light of the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by the President December 31, 2011, which authorizes the arrest of U. S. citizens on U.S. soil by the military and their shipment to Guantanamo Bay, where they can be held indefinitely without trial, you might wish to have the support of your county sheriff.
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.
Jan 22, 2013 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Forget Democrats! Forget Republicans and Liberals and Conservatives!! These are labels to cause someone else to do your thinking for you. This is about the Constitution that all elected officials, when elected, swore to uphold. This is not even about guns but about following the Constitution until authentically changed by amendment. This issue is so serious that it is a certain litmus test to political parties and individuals differentiating those who respect this document from those who do not!
The Second Amendment could not be made clearer: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Militia in their day consistently referred to the people. I have read every version of this sentence as it was formulated, principally by James Madison, as the second most important freedom next to the expression freedoms of the 1st Amendment. The Bill of Rights was arranged in order of preference with the exception of Amendments 9 and 10 as they dealt with the concept of general powers retained by the people and those reserved to the states, not specific freedoms as are Amendments 1-8. It is important because it protects the 1st Amendment.
I too weep for the children at Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now my own city of Taft, California, where I too was “locked down” while police resolved the gun violence of a 16-year-old student with a shotgun in the classroom. Last summer I had a three-year-old grandson die from an accidental gunshot to the head but these losses cannot, and need not, be resolved by violating the Constitution.
Mr. President, neither Congress, nor you, has any authority to do anything on “the right to bear arms” outside of changing the Constitution by an amendment. It is well to remember that the 2nd Amendment exists because the states would not support the new Constitution without a guarantee that you would never deprive their citizens of their right to bear arms. The language was as strong as they knew how to make it. No sentence in the Constitution was stronger. The amendment was specifically addressed with the federal government in mind. What is it that you do not understand about “shall not be infringed?” Congress, you may not legislate the 2nd Amendment away by giving authorization to some types of weapons over others or approving some types of ammunition and denying others. Nor may the President go into the Oval Office and unilaterally make an executive order limiting or denying these things as Congress alone is constitutionally empowered to make law (Art. I, Sec. I). Your making law should be an impeachable offense. Unfortunately, Congress is too weak to stop the Executive Branch from usurping its authority and that of the people—even that specifically denied them as in this case.
I know of the bogus argument that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the National Guard but anyone reading anything on the subject by the Founding Fathers knows otherwise. The militia was defined in the Second Continental Congress as every able bodied male 17 years of age and older—the citizens. The National Guard was created in 1903 by the Dick Act, which divided the militia into the organized and unorganized militia with the definition retained for the unorganized. I have taught the Constitution long enough to know all the arguments attempting to give place to the federal government over the guns of its citizens; none of them pass muster from the Founders’ perspective. These arguments attract only the less informed.
So times have changed, one might argue, and we now need federal involvement. If so, why not do it constitutionally as required by the Constitution? Don’t just twist the Constitution to mean something never meant, of which Washington warned us not to do, “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed” (Farewell Address).
Instructions for change in the Constitution are provided in Article V and can be proposed by either Congress or “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of several states.” Once proposed the federal government is removed from the picture altogether—it cannot empower itself. The states are given two ways in which they can pass their power to the federal government (remember, all power not listed in the Constitution belongs to the states and the people as per Amendment 10) but it requires 3/4th of the states to do so, either way. Notice that there exists zero power of the office of president to make change. Veto power also does not exist. Let Congress or the states initiate a proposed amendment to empower the federal government as we have 17 times before when the nation wanted a change.
The federal government does not like Article V because it requires permission from the states to enlarge its jurisdiction. That is precisely why this Article exists; still, it remains the proper and only constitutional way to change the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and anyone trying to do it in any other way should be removed from power as quickly as the Constitution allows—whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal. The biggest fatality in this gun debate is irreparable damage to the Constitution, and to freedom, if we do not insist on change the only way authorized.
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.
Jan 14, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
There are few parts of the Constitution more clear than, “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). In a vote taken well after midnight (the supposed deadline) December 31, the SENATE passed a bill raising taxes on those with incomes above $400,000 a year, a tax increase on this group from 35% of their annual income to 39.6%, and the removal of tax exemptions for those making $250,000 or more a year. The capitol gains tax on everyone was raised from 15% to 20% and there were many other adjustments on the tax code as well. This bill definitely did not originate in the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. So, does anyone care?
The Senate then forwarded their “revenue raising” bill to the House the day after the deadline presenting them with a single choice, be blamed for taking the country over the so-called fiscal cliff or not. It was blackmail! With no way to modify any of its provisions and the bell having already rung ending the tournament, they agreed. It is true that the House had not presented to the Senate any revenue raising solution as it opposed such, largely because President Barack Obama had made it clear that he would not sign any law that did not raise revenue on the rich. Still, the House is the only body that had authority to do so and their intention not to support a tax increase, by not originating one, should have stood regardless of what the Senate and President thought or wanted. Allowing these other bodies to do so for them has weakened this part of the Constitution and House authority. Henceforth, past practice wrongly will be used to legitimize future revenue raising by the Senate and this part of the Constitution, in effect, will be obliterated.
So why should you care? For thousands of years, until the Constitution, governments taxed their citizens whenever and whatever they wished. The people had no say. If the pharaoh in Egypt wanted bricks without straw from the Israelites, for instance, so be it. In our republic we have two legislative bodies, the House to represent the people, and the Senate to represent the individual states. Prior to 1913 the State Legislators elected the Senate so that it could protect the interests of the states from the federal government’s natural inclination to grow, absorbing state functions. This is called federalism—shared government. The House was to protect the interests of the people as its first and major concern.
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; “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 7).” This made it impossible for the people to be over-taxed for more than two years as all members of this body come up for reelection on the same date—every two years.
Addressing this subject James Madison, the father of the Constitution, 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 58).”
Taxes, the historic grievances of the masses of all ages, were left to this body alone to originate or initiate. The significance of this placement cannot be over-stated. In the Constitution only the masses could originate taxes as all revenue for the government came from the backs of the people. In the United States it is impossible to be over-taxed if we are following the Constitution. No other nation in all history, as far as we know, had this protection from their government. Once processed through the House, the Senate could modify as on other bills, but it must first come from the House. This cannot happen without permission from the people’s representatives.
This may seem like a small thing given all the hype on the Fiscal Cliff but the people really do not want to surrender their freedom from excessive taxation, which, prior to this document was virtually unheard of in the history of the world. Losing this is far more serious than what pundits said would be the worst-case scenario of the cliff because, once gone, it is unlikely to be retrieved. Members of congress are doing so incrementally by not insisting that the government stay within its bounds and honor the document that they individually have sworn to uphold. No one will destroy the Constitution all at one time but by their ignorance, or worshipful loyalty to party, are doing so one piece at a time. If your representatives voted for this please send him a copy of this article so that he/she will be more sensitive to this issue in the future.
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.
Dec 31, 2012 | Constitution
Dr. Harold Pease
In mid November 2012, the nation was greeted with a movement, seemingly originating out of nowhere that can only be referred to as successionitis—a desire of the people to leave the Union—not seen in the United States since the Civil War. Without the Internet it would have been totally ignored and never known by the rest of us. The establishment press did not cover it until it was too big to ignore, then coverage was minimal. The media was largely dismissive citing the reelection of Barack Obama as the reason and the movement, largely of racists, certainly extremists, was simply sour grapes on the part of those preferring Mitt Romney. Certainly the movement did not actually mean anything, they implied.
They could not have been more wrong!! Universally devoid of coverage were questions: why so many participated, why the movement came on so fast and was so strong, and why it was so geographically spread? Why would this not be a legitimate expression of the discontent of the people; even a warning to an overly controlling federal government?
True, the petitions began in Louisiana the day following the reelection of President Obama and within a week spread to all 50 states, but the anger had been mounting for at least 20 years when neither party appeared to follow the Constitution nor give heed to federalism—the concept of shared governance between the feds and the states, so critical to freedom. It is also true that Obama represents a divided nation as never before since 1861 and is seen by half the nation as a facilitator of that divide, especially with respect to his push for income redistribution, better known as socialism and class warfare. Just as before the Civil War, there seems to be no middle ground. If compromise means further loss of liberty, petition signers want no more of it. Those who watch the Constitution disregarded or undermined on virtually a daily basis believe that there is no more freedom to surrender.
Most of the petitions from all fifty states cited sections of the Declaration of Independence as justifying their requests. The Louisiana petition read: “Peacefully grant the state of _____ to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government. As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776: ‘When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government.’”
Moreover, the loss of freedom in 1776 is identified with what petition proponents see as tyranny today. The Texas petition read: “The U.S. continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the U.S. suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect its citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.” My guess is that a third of America agree with these charges, though not necessarily with the solution. Petition signers believe that the U.S. federal government is so mismanaged that secession is the only option for future prosperity.
By November 15 the following states each had over 35,000 signatures: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas had 116,000 by itself by the twentieth of the month. Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina were above the 25,000 required of each state for the President to keep his word to answer their petitions within 30 days of initiation. Thus far I have found no response by the President, nor does the media appear to insist that he make one. The government’s website no longer posts the count, the Presidents response, or the issue, but we have reason to believe that a dozen more states were significantly increasing their numbers daily and therefore would have easily passed the required number, and that the total for all states exceeded a million citizens by the December 7, deadline (“50 States File Secession Petitions With D.C.” American Free Press, Nov. 20, 2012, by Pete Papaherakles).
At this point the signers see their signing as only a veiled threat. Few really want their state to leave the Union and all know that this could not ever happen without the state legislature voting to do so. They also know that the federal government will never allow them to do so. How extreme for the media to believe so. For signers it was the only way that they could get attention to the issue so ignored by the establishment media and both major political parties – we are losing our liberty. But given the volume of signers, the geographical spread, and the speed and intensity of this dissent, the federal government should be placed on notice that there is anger out there not seen since the Civil War and it should work to remove such. Writing them off as some kind of joke only confirms citizen concern that those in power only seek to enslave them more fully.
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.
