Dec 23, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
It was in the eighth grade when I moved from Santa to Christ as my main focus of Christmas. I well remember the star saturated night when the heavens overwhelmingly testified of God’s awesomeness. I could almost feel the words of my favorite Christmas carol “Silent Night” go down into my soul as never before as I both sang and pondered its words. Perhaps it was the scenic nativity-like setting where I found myself, hand milking my neighbors cow while he was away for a week, the three-sided shed that allowed my gaze into the dark but star-lite, cold, cloudless night which allowed my peak into the heavens and most of all, it was Christmas Eve. I was alone with Christ. It could not have been more impressive and it was the same every morning and night for the week after Christmas.
I never had that experience again in the same way but I always had an intense love for the carols that spoke of his birth: “Oh Holy Night,” “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” “Joy to the World,” and “The First Noel.” They were just different somehow—far more powerful than regular jingles. My background was not particularly unique for the time period. Santa was there for the children but he never competed with Christ for the spotlight. The transition to Christ just followed with maturity. Years followed years, I had children and now they have children and, because of home and church the songs have passed on as they had for hundreds of years before. But, unfortunately, this does not happen for everyone.
Today the earth is still bathed with happy songs but radio stations seldom play the ageless Christ-birth songs: “Far, Far Away on Judea’s Plains,” “With Wondering Awe,” “Away in the Manger,” and “O Little Town of Bethlehem.” Outdoor nativity decorations are virtually non-existent unless you make your own. Even indoor nativity scenes are hard to find. Stores have almost nothing to purchase that speaks to this Holy Night. Have we removed Christ from Christmas?
There are no television shows or movies that address Nativity themes but Hollywood never really did much in this direction anyway, the “Waltons” or “Little House on the Prairie” were the exception, but then again that was in an earlier generation. There is no Nativity symbolism on television programs today. Everything is “feel good” or Santa related. Even the Grinch is given more attention than Christ.
All references to Christ have been removed from our schools and teachers dare not encourage the singing of traditional Christmas carols, although any tune without the mention of Jesus Christ is encouraged. A culture that did not know the words of “Silent Night,” “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear,” “Joy to the World,” or, “Oh, Come, All Ye Faithful” would have been unheard of in my day, but is the norm today. Only the churches and homes give any exposure to Christ in Christmas, as was so for me and generations before me. Sadly some churches may give more emphasis to Santa than Christ. Neither churches nor communities have Nativity plays as once they did.
The reason for the season is Jesus Christ, that is why it is called Christ-mas but few homes show any evidence that He is center placed. Most Americans consider themselves unchurched (a term for those without religious affiliation) so the incentive to read, tell or act out the “Old Story” is mostly gone. Seemingly each generation transfers to the next less of Christ in Christmas.
Today we do not wish to offend other religions so Christmas has turned into Winter Break and Easter into Spring Break. I refuse to use these terms. Some advocate changing Christmas to Winter Holiday. The undermining of Christ’s special day is endless and seemingly intentional.
Why not change to a traditional Christmas this Christmas season, like generations before you. In your home play mostly the traditional Christ centered songs. Instead of a Santa, or reindeer in your front yard make a nativity scene. Take yourself or family to a church service. Find a service that will speak of that special night and rehearse the events of that most special day. Go caroling to shut-ins or to a nursing home. Read to your friends and loved ones on Christmas Eve the story of the birth of Jesus Christ—the one believed by all Christians to be the Savior of the world. If you have children let them act it out. Give Christ a few hours of your month. You will never be sorry that you took this challenge.
You may never have a special moment in a shed milking a cow on a cold starry night as I did as a 14 year-old boy but this same special feeling will find a way of filling your soul just as intensely in its own way. Then you will not be an accomplice in removing Christ from Christmas and will join those who wonder why anyone would want to.
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 17, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Take Action, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
What most do not realize is that December 31 is but the first fiscal cliff—the little one. Given the inability of both parties to deal with this little one, although they have known about it for almost two years, how can we have any faith in their ability to prevent the ultimate collapse of the economy if immediate and drastic changes are not made soon? Why not solve both now before options are more drastic later?
Neither party really represents limited constitutional government and both are addicted to debt. It is like an addict prescribing his own detox program. Consequently Freedom Works, a Tea Party affiliate, selected 12 of their own members and through the Internet invited 150,000 members to make suggestions on what should be done. The Tea Party Debt Commission was formed to provide the federal government a solution. Its final report summarized the problem, “Our government is doing too many things it can’t do well, or shouldn’t do at all, with money it doesn’t have. We are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we spend….”
The Tea Party Plan cuts, caps, and balances federal spending. The budget is balanced in four years, without tax hikes, and remains balanced. Federal spending is reduced by $9.7 trillion over the next ten years. The plan shrinks the federal government from 24 % of GDP to about 16 %. Finally it stops the growth of the debt and begins paying it down. Within a generation there would be no national debt. Bold indeed!
How do they do this? First, stop duplication of services. They note that the “Government Accountability Office counted no fewer than 47 job training programs, 56 financial literacy programs, 80 economic development programs, 18 food assistance programs, 20 programs for the homeless, 82 teacher-quality programs spread across 10 agencies, and more than 2,100 data centers. All told, we have nearly 2,200 federal programs.” Government is bloated, inefficient, and wasteful.
Second, repeal services that we can no longer afford and/or that are not authorized within the Constitution. These goals include repealing ObamaCare, eliminating four unconstitutional, costly, inefficient Cabinet agencies—Energy, Education, Commerce, and HUD—and reducing or privatizing many others, including EPA, TSA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Their report calls for ending farm subsidies, government student loans, and foreign aid to countries that don’t support us—luxuries we can no longer afford.
Third entitlement programs must be incentivized to give donors more for their money. Boldly they opened the unfunded liabilities door—the door neither party dares to open as potentially it could destroy career politicians and political parties. They concluded that they could make Social Security “sustainable and actually improve benefits by harnessing the power of compound interest.” They noted, “Three decades ago, Chile embarked on a bold transformation of its retirement security system. Today, that system [SMART Accounts] is the envy of the world, giving seniors far better benefits than the old, government-run system ever did.”
Shortly thereafter three counties in Texas adopted the SMART Accounts program in favor of personal accounts and thus those retiring today do so “with much more money and have significantly more generous death and disability supplemental benefits than do Social Security participants.” Moreover, they “face no long term unfunded pension liabilities.” The Commission recommends that, “all state and local governments should have the option of opting into the ‘Galveston model.’ ”
The Tea Party Debt Commission saw the Medicare program as outdated, inefficient, and corrupt and recommended six major changes that if followed would save, they predicted, $676,000,000 the first year and $2,030,843,000,000 in 10 years. These changes are first “let individuals opt out of Medicare under Senator Jim DeMint’s ‘Retirement Freedom Act.”’ Second, let all new Medicare beneficiaries enroll in the Federal Employees’ Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) introduced by Senator Rand Paul as the “Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act.” Third, reduce Medicare subsidies to actual cost of hospitals’ graduate medical education. Fourth, maintain Medicare’s physician payment rates at the 2011 level. Fifth, convert the open-ended Medicaid program into a capped block grant to the states. And six call on all states to reform their medical malpractice and product liability systems—tort reform.
Opting into the same Medicare program the members of Congress use, the second Tea Party change recommended, is much better for participants because it “relies on competing private insurers to provide benefits, and as a result has very little of the fraud and waste problems that plague today’s outdated and poorly designed Medicare system.” One wonders why Congress can make for themselves such a good system and leave us one with “between 10 and 20 percent of Medicare’s $450 billion annual budget being attributable to waste, fraud, and abuse….” Moreover, it suspends pension contributions and COLAs for Members of Congress, whenever the budget is in deficit.
The new plan offers a rational transition to ownership of our own retirement and more control and choice over our health care. Why did the government fail to accomplish the same thing—even behind closed doors? Their first concern is to protect their jobs and party. Outsiders, without a personal stake in the outcome, can see much more and do much more without the inevitable political wrangling. Learn more and review the details of the Tea Party Debt Commission’s recommendations by visiting FreedomWorks.org/the-tea-party-budget. Will Congress explore these changes with intent to make them? Not unless you demand that they do so.
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 10, 2012 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Presently 17 states have chosen not to setup insurance exchanges with respect to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law, commonly cited as Obamacare, primarily because they fear that doing so would bankrupt their state and they remain convinced that it is a serious intrusion on their constitutional jurisdiction—even freedom. Some were among the 26 states that suede the Federal Government for exceeding its constitutional authority. They may not know that they have one constitutional check left to exercise if they but have the will.
Those who spend any time with the Constitution know that the federal government is limited to a list of specific areas wherein Congress can legislate (Art. I, Sec. 8) and if a desired power is not on that list, or not added thereto by way of an amendment to the Constitution, they are prohibited from legislating therein. All other powers not provided in that document are left to the states and to the people as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Checks and balances were created in an effort to keep the federal government from creating its own authority and taking over everything. The Founding Fathers saw going off the list and thus doing something not authorized as tyranny.
Senators were especially charged to protect state sovereignty, the list, and the 10th Amendment, but Progressives in the early 20th Century weakened that protection by ratifying the 17th Amendment, which favored a popular vote for this office rather than, as it was before, having Senators selected by state legislatures who were purposely far more state sovereignty centered. State power was thereafter left unprotected and measures clearly of state jurisdiction and unlisted, such as health care, got through the badly damaged shield and became law.
The Supreme Court was also one of those checks and balances, but it too has become damaged when previous small perversions of the Constitution become leverage for yet other larger perversions, and original intent the intended interpretation, was replaced by past practice, a philosophy also accentuated by the Progressives Movement. What do we do when the Court too is compromised as in Obamacare?
The Supreme Court also has one other problem. Think of our government, as the founders did in the Constitution, as two parts, with power divided between two government teams—the federal and the state. The Supreme Court can never be the final arbitrator between these two teams as it is a valued player on the federal team, and thus not neutral. It will always tend to favor the federal team. What can the states do to stop federal intrusion into their arena even when such intrusion is blatantly clear to anyone reading the Constitution? Nullification.
The Founders left us with one final check on tyranny, but it is not well known and is little used. If the 26 suing states, or even the 17 who have rejected creating the insurance exchanges, instead just said “No! “The law is clearly unconstitutional and will not be implemented, in part or whole, in this state without a constitutional amendment so authorizing. If this law, which virtually destroys the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, is allowed to stand the states have no protected jurisdictions from the federal government and are merely appendages to it.” If enough understood that this law is the death of the philosophy of shared power, or federalism, they would oppose it. If even a minority of states stood together on this point it would stop this federal takeover of one-seventh of the economy in its tracks. State legislators, you are the last constitutional check. Are you listening?
Nullification has two historical precedents. Thomas Jefferson (principle author of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (referred to as the father of the Constitution) attempted to nullify The Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 created by their Federalist Party predecessors. These authors penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves objecting on the basis of the unreasonable empowerment of the president and the attack on the First Amendment, particularly freedoms of speech and press. The Supreme Court never took the case, largely because the bill was design to last only until 1801, (Federalists did not want it used against them should they lose the next election) thus the issue died naturally undoubtedly assisted by resistance of these states.
Next to use the Nullification Doctrine was South Carolina with respect to the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” believed by them and neighboring states to be unconstitutional. Opponents to it declared it to be “null and void” within their border and threatened to take South Carolina out of the Union if Washington attempted to collect custom duties by force. Andrew Jackson prepared to invade the state. A compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually lowered the tariff to acceptable levels and the issue faded away. States standing firm brought compromise.
Unfortunately for power-hungry federal politicians, the word health is not in Section 8, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment through Article V, which is the process for “change that you can believe in,” and thus our Founders would have considered it devoid of constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, health related concerns are state functions at best and cannot be moved to a federal jurisdiction without a 3/4th affirmative vote of the states as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The last acceptable constitutional check to federal tyranny is the state legislatures. Will states stand with the Constitution and its authors or be bullied into submission?
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.
Nov 19, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Some may not know how Thanksgiving Day became our first national holiday, nor its importance as a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer.” One of the very first acts of the new Congress was to pass a law requesting President George Washington “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” He complied and boldly wrote: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor,” establishing forever our national foundation as a God-loving and God-fearing people. He then proceeded to list the national favors, to which he gave credit to God, especially with respect to His help in the Revolutionary War.
George Washington further wrote, “Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the original and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safely and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.”
After listing God’s blessings to this people he asked that He pardon our transgressions and accept our prayers. He wrote, “And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplication to the great Lord and Ruler of nations, and beseech Him to pardon or national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discretely and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.” Then he simply signed it.
Those who refer to this day as simply “turkey day” undermine the very foundation of our national Christian heritage upon which every other foundation principle rests. Let us take this moment to thank God for the liberties we still have, and to ask forgiveness for our departures from the core values expressed in this proclamation, and in the Constitution—-resolving to restore them to prominence before they are all lost—-not by an enemy from without, but by our own ignorance and neglect from within. After all, it’s about liberty.
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.
Nov 12, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
For months the media has showcased their gladiators and we have been spectators with load applause to every twist and turn of political events in the 2012 presidential elections. The people, programed by their television sets, have dutifully chosen sides from the only two parties provided by the media and have obediently paraded themselves to the ballot box to cast their vote for the warrior most pleasing to them. In the games the rich from both sides gave large sums of money to boost the chances of their favorite to the tune of over 2 billion dollars, the largest in history. The winner was announced at approximately 8:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, just 30 minutes after polls on the West Coast closed. California was called for Barack Obama within 60 seconds of poll closings in California, but the real election for the president is December 17, not November 6.
Because we are not a democracy our Founders established a system by which wise men would elect our president rather than the populous as that system had proved fateful to freedom in Athens and Rome. When the masses get the vote they tend to vote for the candidate who will open the government chauffeurs more fully to them. There was no popular vote for the presidency until Andrew Jackson, when disgruntled followers started a straw vote which the media came to treat as the real and only vote. This is the “hunger games” vote loud and with much fanfare. The “real vote” is very quiet and may not even be covered by the media.
For the first 60 years or so of our history under the Constitution, the Electoral College voted for the masses in presidential elections. These non-governmental individuals, selected by the state legislatures presumably for their integrity, experience, success, and wisdom, were perceived to be less emotionally driven (they have seen it all) and less susceptible to the emergence of a tyrant or a candidates radical departure from established practice. It was a body not responsible to any other entity for their vote once selected by their State Legislature. Each State Legislature selected from the private sector a number of respected individuals equal to the number of members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senators their state was entitled to.
Today with the rise of the power of the popular vote by the media and the dominance of political parties, states do not wish to let the best informed choose independently of them. They want their favored political party to do so. So by October 1st of each election year, each political party submits a list of electors, should they win the general election in their state. Persons “holding office of trust or profit of the U.S. may not be electors” according to the Constitution.
Let us use California and its selection of 55 delegates as representative of the “winner take all” process used by most states. Here the Republican Party draws from their state party leadership as per Elections Code #7300. The Democratic Party does as well but they have each Congressional nominee, and each U.S. Senate nominee, designate one elector as per Elections Code #7100. Most other political parties offering a presidential candidate, the American Independent, Green, and Libertarian Parties nominate their electors at their state conventions as per Elections Code #7578, as does The Peace and Freedom Party, but they want half their delegates male and the other half female. So, for this election California had five different lists of 55 perspective electors. Because Barack Obama won the general election in California only the Democratic Party list counts.
Since Democrats heavily dominate the state, neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama really campaigned here. Each did stop by for fund raising from their wealthy supporters but the number of registered voters pre-decided the election. Essentially the state belonged to Barack Obama before the first vote was cast.
“Winner take all,” as outlined above, is common in all states except Maine and Nebraska where two electors are awarded by statewide popular vote and then by the popular vote within each Congressional district. This is known as the Congressional District Method.
Each State’s Electors meet in their respective States on Dec. 17 and vote for President and for Vice President and this vote is sent certified to the President of the Senate (the Vice President of the United States). This is the real election of the president. Once there, the 51 unopened envelopes (one for each state and the District of Columbia) are placed in alphabetical order until opened in front of both Houses by the Vice President on January 6th at one p. m. This final vote is read and the victor announced.
Initially the independence of the Electoral College could be manifest at this time protecting us from a candidate not in harmony with a Republic, or perceived to be a threat to it, but most States have removed this independence by threatening prosecution of what are now called “faceless electors” (those who depart from the party line). In other words, the College does not do what it was first designed to do. Electors’ wisdom and experience has no place to be expressed. Even so, faceless electors are rare as they are now selected, not for their wisdom and experience, but because of their total party loyalty. As such they rarely deviate from the party line anyway so the real damage to the concept was done when electors were linked to the party and the “winner take all” concept.
Barack Obama has kept his promise to fundamentally change America and is sincere in moving us from a Republic to a Democracy then deep into socialism so abhorred by the Founders. So theoretically the outcome of the election could be altered were the electors to abandon loyalty to party in favor of loyalty to the elements of a Republic as it once was. Will they do so? We will have to see in the real election of the president December 17.
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.
Nov 3, 2012 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Political scientists have long known that the first election in any presidential contest is the medias. They decide who gets coverage, how they are covered, and just as importantly, who does not. Other factors too weigh in, such as frequency of coverage, type of coverage, questions asked and etc. Media bias is now obvious to most and documented in many studies. No news flash here!
A case in point, national televised media outlets who favor the re-election of Barack Obama, and most do (especially is this so with MSNBC), will tend to play more clips of mega storm Sandy and fewer clips on new highly damaging reports to the President on the terrorist attack on our ambassador in Benghazi. Fox News, which tends to favor Mitt Romney, will cover the storm but will make certain that their viewers see the new evidence. This is normal bias, although accentuated the last few years.
But there is a story with respect to the media establishment’s consistent exclusion of presidential candidates from any political party outside Republican and Democratic. It happens every four years. Candidates not getting coverage are not known to be running by the public and thus are guaranteed to lose by those entrusted to tell us. Each election year a student invariably asks who I support. My answer, “I do not know, the media has not yet identified all presidential contenders,” intrigues him, as I am a political scientist. Every late October of an election year since 1992, I have written the Federal Election Commission to get this critical and consistently omitted information. They offer two reports, one “The 2012 Presidential Address List” and the other, “Ballots of Each State and the District of Columbia” from which the following is extracted.
Political Scientists have also known that there are always more than 200, closer to 400, individuals running for that high office and well over twenty political parties in the country at any given time, many of which provide a candidate. Presently there are 405 individuals running for president and 53 political parties functioning in the United States. Those running include past and present Governors, U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives. Certainly there are many less notables as well. Each candidate is required by law to register with the Federal Elections Commission if they have raised or spent $5,000 or more on their candidacy for president, so they are serious candidates.
Twenty-eight of these were powerful enough to make it on one state ballot or more with little or no national media mention. In an effort to limit ballot names each state develops its own hurdles. No state wants 400 entrées and to that end the media legitimately also assist in exclusion, but nothing justifies national, or near national, blackout of everyone except the two favored parties. Of the 28, three, in addition to the anointed Democratic and Republican party candidates, were able to get placement in more than half of the states in the union. These candidates were: Virgil H. Goode of The Constitution Party, Jill Stein of The Green Party, and Gary Johnson of The Libertarian Party. Anyone able to vault the hurdles of twenty-five states or more should have earned the right to debate Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. We have a right to know how they might differ from each other and the designated candidates.
The strongest case for media manipulation of the election is the Libertarian Party who frequently qualifies in every state in the union, but is consistently denied access to the television cameras of the debate. They have attended but are denied placement.
It is the same every presidential election, each of these parties providing a candidate for the last 30 years. The national media has seemingly funneled the “sheeple” (people who tend to follow without deep thinking) into only two corrals by pretending that there are no other choices. Remember, each candidate got into state ballots without national media help. Any party would field a candidate in all fifty states if given any real media coverage. America does have choices but only if the media inform us of them.
On October 23, the day following the third Mitt Romney / Barack Obama debate, four of the ostracized presidential candidates held their own debate. Unable to get a network to cover them, their debate was on the Internet and is available through U-tube. Participants included the parties previously named plus Roseanne Barr of the Peace and Freedom Party. Not one word, however, from the establishment press announcing the debate or commenting on it later. You had to learn of it from a dedicated columnist.
Perhaps our free elections are not as free as we have supposed.
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.
