Dec 20, 2011 | Constitution
Dr Harold Pease
Consider the dilemma of the mother of Jesus when she was told of her soon to be pregnancy without benefit of marriage. A quarter of a century ago Mrs. Mary Santomaro wrote an unusual Christmas poem that has become a personal favorite—“If Mary Had Said No.” It warrants deep and serious reflection. Normally my readers are not treated to a poem and/or something written by another but this Christmas message cannot be said more profoundly by anyone other than to whom the message was given.
She was a young Israeli girl
Living with her mother, Anne.
Thrilled that Joseph, House of David,
Sought her daughter’s hand.
Anne was happy for she felt
She had not long to live.
Joseph would be good to her,
A happy life to Mary give.
The betrothal was announced
To family and all friends.
The preparations had been made.
Soon wedding vows would blend.
But then a strange thing happened
One day as Mary prayed,
Gabriel stood by her and spoke
“Hail, full of grace…” he said,
Then, “…the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women.”
And he told her even more,
She would bear a son, this omen.
She wondered at his greeting words.
She knew no man. How could this be?
“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,”
“…the power…Most High…over shadow thee; …”
This young Israeli girl then spoke,
“Behold the handmaid of the Lord;”
She accepted what God had asked,
“… be it done … according to Thy word.”
We all know as a direct result
A Blessed Babe was born
And laid within a manger
Upon a blessed morn.
For thirty-odd years, Emmanuel,
Then we put Him to scorn,
Crucified Him on a Cross
And all man’s sins were borne
By One Who could repair
The wrongs that man had done
And once again restore to each,
Adopted daughter, son.
Since that time more have died
Willingly for His Name.
In every age, from every land,
Sprung from martyrs, they came.
Christians, they have long been called,
Followers of the Holy One,
Living what He taught and lived
That triumph over death he won.
Many people since that time
Fought great evils to live as He
Carrying the flame of Eternal Truth,
Heads bowed, on bended knee.
But what if Mary had said, “No!”?
Suppose that she had then
Told God, “It’s not convenient.”
“Can’t afford the stipend.”
She might have said, “There’s no way!
Everyone will talk!”
“I don’t want to have a child.”
Today, would any blame her balk?
But if she had, chances are
The world would long be gone
And none of us would be here
To choose the right or wrong.
Long before we even arrived
The world would have become
A more-sophisticated people,
Fewer, hedonistic, everyone.
There would be no call to peace,
No inalienable rights assumed,
The mighty would gobble up the weak,
No intercessions for the doomed.
Entire nations would disappear,
Progeny ripped asunder
For within their very bodies
Sprang no new lives to encumber.
Pretty soon God would call off the world
Knowing we would never change.
Why put up with us any more,
This people of such evil-arrange?
One thing, though, we’d have no need
To make decisions we now do…
To kill each other, do as we want,
Live our life and abort a new!
But Mary didn’t do that.
Not a wail of complaint was wrung.
“Behold, the handmaid of the Lord.”
For this Jesus Christ was sprung!
There are many, including my own daughter, that pray everyday that they might have one of these rejected babies because their own bodies will not allow their having their own. Instead, over a million and a half mothers in the United States annually choose to extinguish that which moves inside 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. Katie is his daughter-in-law. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 26, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
This is the season to be grateful and to acknowledge our many blessings, even in the midst of extreme difficult times for so many of our neighbors and friends. Even our own circumstances may have brought us beneath what we think we can endure. During such times it is sometimes hard to find things to be grateful for or to find the hand of God in anything. Finding someone whose life circumstances are much worse sometimes helps a little. One such was Martin Rinckart. He authored the beloved Christian hymnal “Now Thank We All Our God” which has given fellow Christians strength in their trials for almost 400 years.
In 1637 the Swedes and Germans were in the midst of The Thirty-Year War (Catholics vs. Protestants) and refugees from that encounter were flooding into Eilenburg, Saxony where Martin Rinckart was serving as Archdeacon of his native German town. A horrible plaque gripped the area leaving some 8,000 persons dead in a single year. Rinckart had to assist “at the beds of the sick and dying.” Although fortunately he maintained his own health during this time of death, he “had to read forty or fifty funeral services a day” including the services of two of his fellow clergymen. A fourth ran away, out of fear of getting sick, leaving him the lone church authority in this major crisis. He assisted in burying some 4,480 in all. In May of that year, his wife died. “By the end of the year, the refugees had to be buried in trenches without services.”
This horror was followed by a famine “so extreme that thirty or forty persons might be seen fighting in the streets for a dead cat or crow.” As the head of the church in his area “his door was surrounded by a crowd of poor starving wretches, who found it their only refuge.” He shared everything he had reserving “the barest rations for his own family.”
Next the Swedes returned demanding a tribute of $30,000 from the town. Such money was not available. After failing to entreat the invading general for mercy, Rinckart turned to those following him and, in the general’s presence, said “Come, my children, we can find no hearing, no mercy with men, let us take refuge with God.” He then “fell on his knees and prayed with such touching earnestness that the Swedish general relented, and lowered his demand at last to 2,000 florins.”
Apparently the words of his hymn were originally written as a grace to be said before meals but given his circumstances it became a song of strength in adversity. Listen to them. “Now thank we all our God with hearts and hands and voices, Who wondrous things hath done, In whom his earth rejoices; Who, from our mothers’ arms, Hath blessed us on our way With countless gifts of love, And still is ours today.” The first verse of this Lutheran hymnal is certainly a message of thanksgiving; the second, one of protection and guidance. “Oh, may our bounteous God Through all our life be near us, With ever joyful hearts and blessed peace to cheer us, And keep us in his love, And guide us day and night, And free us from all ills, Protect us by his might.”
Perhaps his life and song can make us stronger as well. At the very least it should give us a few extra things for which to be thankful. None of us are fighting over a dead cat or crow to eat. Despite our obstacles, deep inside we know that God still has our best interests in mind. When we next sing this song we will probably do it with more gratitude reflecting, at least for a moment, on our great blessings, as he did, rather than our trials.
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.
Oct 30, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
President Barack Obama, has just initiated another war even before the blood dried from his last one in Libya. His recent deployment of 100 U.S. military advisers (soldiers) to aid in central Africa, notably Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic, is amazing. Never mind that we are not yet out of Iraq, are still dodging bullets in Afghanistan, and are unleashing drones to kill designated individuals in Pakistan. Libya and the four central African countries have one thing in common; our involvement in both settings was started by the single decision of one man which is totally and completely unconstitutional.
Referred to as Operation Lightning Thunder, the Special Forces are to train, advise and not engage in combat, unless forced to defend themselves. Congress was informed of the engagement by letter October 14, but reportedly troops were already in Uganda two days prior. The mission is to root-out and destroy a ruthless leader, Joseph Kony, who has led a notorious 24-year campaign of rape and murder as head of Lord’s Resistance Army, who allegedly kidnapped boys to fight in his army and girls to sell as sex slaves.
This is so reminiscent of a similar deployment by President John F. Kennedy beginning the Vietnam War. Inevitably the advisors were forced to defend themselves when fired upon and we took casualties. We then were asked to support our troops with more troops. Some 13 years later, on January 27,1973, after 56,227 lives were lost, we signed the humiliating Vietnam Treaty ending the war. Have we forgotten how this “no win” war began—with just a few advisors?
Despite powerful humanitarian reasons justifying the action, we lack the treasure and ability to be the policeman of the world. Where does it end? Most of the world has dictators and tyrants as leaders. That aside, the President lacks the Constitutional authority to do so.
The making and funding of war were clearly denied the office of president in the U.S. Constitution because he “had the most propensity for war.” Only Congress has the right “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” War requires the blood of our young warriors, and this requires the permission of the people who are required to be the fodder in such. Only the people’s representatives can “provide and maintain a navy or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” and for “calling forth the militia…to repel invasions.” Only the people’s representatives can “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States….” Congress is directly responsible for any acquisition of property for military use. All of this is in Article I, Section 8 and belongs to the legislative branch alone.
Funding for war is yet another Constitutional concern and is clearly left with the House of Representatives. The Constitution says: “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” Two years is the designated time that a member of the House is elected and authorized to represent his people. So, President Obama cannot expend monies for military activity to central Africa, or anywhere else, without congressional approval. Article I, Section 7 requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….”
Mr. President, a letter to Congress announcing that you have already positioned soldiers in Uganda and plan to send others to the region is not consulting with Congress. As far as we can ascertain you did not even consult with your own party.
The only Constitutional power a president is allowed to have in the Constitution is as “Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, … when called into the actual service of the United States,” which is done only by Congress, not by himself. No president has Constitutional authority to engage in war without a declaration of war—even if done by other presidents before him. And there is no authority to defer this power to an international government—the United Nations—to do it for us. To commit our young to potential death unilaterally is not within a president’s power, and doing so should be an impeachable offense.
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.
Oct 21, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
One issue, among many, that isn’t dealt with in our presidential debates is government-sponsored racism. Almost all government forms require the filer to state his race. This accentuates race consciousness. The 2010 U.S. Census, requiring race identity, has only 11 categories; sadly, American is not one of them. Most of us are a mixture of many nationalities, even races, but American is never one of the choices allowed on any government form. We need to minimize our differences and be tolerant, but are constantly reminded of differences and the government is the greatest offender.
Mandated governmental statistics are submitted and comparisons are made with the intent of proving racial inequality and accentuating differences. Forgotten is the inevitability that if you look for inequality long enough, you eventually will find it. Race baiters (those who see and point out race in everything) have no problem finding it in everything. Moreover, monies are distributed on the basis of race to “fix” alleged differences which further accentuates prejudice, then racism. It becomes a cycle and is fueled by government who tries to right every wrong but in doing so creates other wrongs. It almost seems purposeful.
Consider the millions recently handed out by the U.S. Department of Education to four colleges in Kern County, California, solely on the basis of race. They are designated Hispanic-serving institutions, defined by having enrolled at least 25 percent full-time Hispanic undergraduates. This federal program, known as STEM, is focused to increase the Hispanic student college-going rate in science, technology, engineering, and math. The participating colleges will be dividing 31 million dollars over the next five years. Last year two of the four colleges divided 6.7 million dollars (The Bakersfield Californian, Sept. 27, 2011 p.3). The program, a part of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, is “to assist Hispanic Serving institutions to develop and carry out activities to improve and expand their capacity to serve Hispanic and other low-income students” (Taft Independent, Oct. 8, 2011).
Some serious questions arise from this. How can a near bankrupt nation, in light of its 15 trillion dollar national debt passed to our children making them future slaves, do this? Also, how many of the recipients are illegally within the United States? How can money extracted from our tax-payers be given to people of other nations when our own need it so? These are issues for another time. More pertinent to this article is the question, why should any race be treated differently than any other? When money is distributed specifically on the basis of color, how is this not racism? When Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, or even Whites, who are fast becoming a minority in California, see this, don’t they expect their fair share too. Doesn’t this breed race consciousness, then racism, and then potential conflict?
What is most bothersome is that two notions are accepted as fact and never questioned: all are abused except whites, and whites are always the abusers of others. Race on same race prejudice is never treated, and the government seems uninterested in evidence of our actually coming together. After all we did elect a black president. Chances are everyone has experienced some abuse, and government is incapable of solving all problems or even most problems without first taking a portion of your freedom. Could this be the intended outcome?
The argument in favor of race-based government programs is that “we are only making up for the racism of the past.” In doing so, aren’t we also producing the evidence for race-based favoritism in the future as the descendants of those prejudiced now to “right” a perceived wrong can use the same logic in the next generation to extract favors from the children of current favorites? Racism then has no end and government is its major facilitator.
So what would happen if the government ceased baiting racism? It would slowly subside. The American melting pot has handled this better than any other nation on earth. It does so gradually, almost unperceptively, primarily through natural intermingling and intermarriage. Most of us are not pure anything. Most have learned not only to get along but to appreciate one another’s diversity in foods, holidays, music, customs and etc. Our diversity is our greatest asset outside 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.
Oct 16, 2011 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
Steve Jobs died leaving five and a half billion dollars, thousands of high paying jobs (12,000 in his hometown Cupertino alone, plus countless others in support roles), and having made things better for every person on the planet. Having begun in a garage with his friend, Steve Wozniak, with only personal funding, and no government bailouts when things did not go well, he exemplified what has made the United States the most prosperous people on earth. He vies with Thomas Edison and Henry Ford as the world’s greatest inventor.
One wonders how he might have done if born under extreme socialism—such as Sparta, the ancient Greek city state and also the worlds’ first known socialist state—which model the Founders veered from in repulsion, in their founding of a land destined to produce at least 85% of all inventions of mother earth. How would a mind such as his have flowered under the more modern socialist states of the twentieth century, the USSR or East Germany perhaps, or in North Korea today? One is hard pressed to identify a single invention of significance under any of these states while under socialism. He would have been destroyed, as socialists traditionally kill or at least take the wealth of the rich and distribute it to themselves. Under more moderate socialism as in Europe, seemingly our model of late, we prefer to tax or regulate entrepreneurs to death—often before they get off the ground.
The philosophy of sharing the wealth has always resulted in bringing down those who create the jobs. You can hate McDonald’s, or Wall Mart or whatever, all you want, but they still give you your job. Do you suppose that those demonstrating in “Occupy Wall Street” today, (ironically using their various “Steve Jobs creations” to communicate with each other their revolutionary doctrine attempting to bring down “the stinking capitalist system”), understand how the free market actually saves them from third world poverty? No!!
The “share the wealth” philosophy is as old as mankind. Aristotle first wrote of it in his work Politics, Book IV twenty-four centuries ago when he noted that the poor will always envy the rich and the rich will always despise the poor. Neither can rule because neither can understand the other. The middle class, having enough of the goods of the world to not envy the rich, but being close enough to poverty themselves to understand the poor, is the arbitrator class. The free market also creates and expands the middle class. Karl Marx put force into the equation making the arguments for class warfare which make the Steve Jobs—all of them— the enemies of the state.
The problem with socialism, whether extreme under communism, which exterminates the rich, or more mild by taxing those creating jobs to accomplish equality for all, is that it destroys incentive for the producer. If a great inventor, such as Steve Jobs, cannot see a profit at the end of the tunnel why would he risk investing in the next new idea? Why would a medical doctor endure years of medical school and poverty if the government is not going to allow him, when finished, to charge what he may for his services? Altruistic motivators like “for the betterment of mankind” are normally not enough to vault the distance by themselves. There would be a shortage of inventors and doctors. Inventors deprive themselves of food, fabric, and fellowship, working late into the night to accomplish their vision of an Edison Illuminating Light Co. or the Apple Corporation rather than an eight-hour a day government job at a government-controlled salary. Government intervention in the market is like mixing a cup of sugar into the gasoline of a lawn mower. It may still work but the efficiency is greatly impaired.
Abraham Lincoln was well aware of the class warfare advocated by socialism, having read The Communist Manifesto, and saw it as a theory opposite that left to us by our Founders under the U.S. Constitution, when he wrote. “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprises… Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, this by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence… I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.”
Steve Jobs did well, in large part, because he could begin in a garage without governmental regulation. Big government advocates would have had him begin, at the very least, with a costly nine-month environmental impact study, followed by his obtaining a building permit to alter his garage, followed by a permit to do business, followed by filing forms dealing with social security and etc.; and there is always OSHA hovering over him. Get the picture? All this before he has any profits to confiscate for the benefit of those who do not support themselves.
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.
Oct 8, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Freedom Sunday, held Oct. 2, is now over. This was the Sunday when 539 ministers throughout the United States defied the IRS and federal government and did at least three things in common in their Sunday sermons. They identified where the candidates stood on the issues, what the Bible says on these issues, and where a follower of Jesus Christ should stand. Their followers, of course, are left to make their own decisions, but the clergy is no longer silent. The following day they mailed a recorded copy of their sermon to the IRS; all the evidence that is needed to deny their 501C3 tax exemption status.
Standing by to defend three first amendment rights, that of freedom of speech, religion, and even assembly, is a group of 2500 attorneys united under the Alliance Defense Fund should the federal government wish to enforce the previously constitutionally uncontested Lyndon Baines Johnson Amendment initiated in 1954. Thirty-three pastors successfully did this in the year 2008, 84 in 2009, and 100 in 2010 with no retribution. In fact, no church’s tax exemption status has been taken away for having done so in the 57 years the amendment has been in place. Proponents encourage other ministers to follow their Pulpit Freedom Movement by going to www.speakupmovement.org or by phoning 1-800-telladf. Consider the over-the-pulpit political statements made by Martin Luther King, Jr., Jessie Jackson or even Jeremiah Wright.
The ministers argue that the Johnson Amendment which resulted in the tax exemption legislation known as 501C3, wherein tax exempt organizations cannot endorse or oppose candidates, was actually designed to deal with two businessmen in Texas who had used tax exempt money to oppose the future President Johnson, and that the legislation was never intended to be used on churches. Whether that is so or not, the IRS viewed it so and constantly threatens to apply it. The effect has been to “silence and chill the pastors.” At election time pastors frequently receive a letter reminding them that they can lose their 501C3 status should they make political statements as a pastor.
The movement demands a return to pre-1954 when there was no government censorship on the pulpits of America at all, whether left or right on the political spectrum—true separation of church and state. Both persuasions should have pulpit freedom.
Is this activity constitutional? Absolutely!! It is an American tradition. Many of the Founding Fathers were clergymen and used their pulpits before and after the American Revolution to foster a better understanding of liberty. The Constitution only denies the requirement of a religious test “as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.” The First Amendment also specifically denies Congress from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” Any attempt to muzzle the clergy is unconstitutional.
The urgency of the ministers picking up their traditional role as a conscience of the culture is critical for the saving of the culture. Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltville, Maryland said it best. “In the next decade or so what America will be for the next few hundred years, I believe, will be decided.” Speaking directly to his clergy colleagues he continued, “Would you want to be someone who stood by and did nothing and had no voice in changing America for good, that lives through years of regret that you did nothing when you could have spoken out? Or, will you be someone, no matter how small your congregation is, or how large your congregation is, that will take up the challenge to follow Christ and endure momentary discomfort in trying to figure out how to articulate the message? That is a little price to pay for the benefit that we can bring to the entire culture.”
No pastor should fear the IRS. Clergy, it is your constitutional right and responsibility to speak boldly and clearly on any subject that you think important. If not you, who? If not now, when? Your government has muzzled you with fear and intimidation. Remember parishioners came to you for guidance. A good Shepherd will give it to them. Clergy who were unable to participate October 2, are invited to do so on another Sunday. Again, who will speak if the church is silent? After all, it’s about your liberty, please pass this along.
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.
