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.
Oct 1, 2011 | Constitution, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Governor Rick Perry is accused of referring to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. To consider the authenticity of this claim we must return to the deceptive strategy of its origin.
Since Social Security was not on the list of the qualifiers of general welfare—Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution—government had no power to forcibly extract a portion of a man’s wage and force his employer to match this fund—not even close. So they used the power to tax to justify this action. But Congress had no power to tax for powers that it did not have. Never the less the government took over the responsibility for everyone’s retirement and the people lost the right to their own money—the portion that was forcibly extracted as a condition of employment. Moreover, since the federal government would now do this for them, they had no incentive to do it for themselves.
At the time the Supreme Court had ruled much of the New Deal legislation unconstitutional and Social Security probably would have met the same end had Franklin D. Roosevelt’s new Court Packing bill not been threatening the independence of the Supreme Court. They let this one slide. To do so they had to agree to place the new tax monies in the “Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and … not earmarked in any way” (301 U.S. 619, 1937). They should have gone to Article V, adding an amendment to the Constitution empowering the federal government to do so, but they were uncertain that it would pass so enacted an end run around the Constitution instead.
The money taken under the guise of taxes was not set aside for the giver’s future at all, as most believed, but just added to the general fund and spent. If private firms did the same thing, the federal government would call it a Ponzi scheme and perpetrators would serve time. When taxpayers do retire, they will have to depend upon the resources of future generations to cover what was promised. The system could never end without injustice to the “old” people. Each generation rightfully came to believe in their entitlement, having allowed FDR to spend their contributions on the previous generation.
Payroll taxes and benefits payments began in 1937. Ida May Fuller, a legal secretary, paid a total of $24.75 into the system between 1937-1939. Her first monthly check issued Jan. 1940, was $2.00 short of this. “After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92 (Research Note #3: Details of Ida May Fuller’s Payroll Tax Contributions, Social Security Administration).” How can this not be a Ponzi scheme?
Those receiving social security in 1935, never having paid a cent into the program, were grateful, of course, for the generosity of the nation and became beholding to the party in charge of the handouts. This insured the democrats’ continuance in office for the next 17 years. Prosperity returned in the fifties and sixties, and a challenge to the now established and popular program was unthinkable. People saw Roosevelt as having saved the country. Only now, younger historians, not favorably conditioned to a worshipful response to Roosevelt, recognize and document that it was not the New Deal but World War II that pulled us out of the 21-year long Great Depression.
Over time more groups that paid nothing or very little into the fund have received benefits: spouses, widows, children and the disabled—even illegals. I have a friend who brought his mother to America and she received benefits until her death. Government figures estimated in 2010 that 54 million were receiving Social Security benefits. Without significant changes the program will crash by 2036 say the Social Security Board of Trustees in their 2011 Annual Report.
We agree that somebody does owe our elders the total of what they paid into the program, but it is not the new generation. They did nothing wrong. Why should they pick up the tab for commitments made before their birth? How can government take their money, spend it on others, look them in the eye, and tell them that this isn’t a Ponzi scheme? They are its biggest victims.
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.
Sep 26, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Rick Perry views social security as a Ponzi scheme, a state issue, and even unconstitutional. Mitt Romney argues for its’ constitutionality because it has been around for so long. Who is right? Two views prevail, original intent and past practice.
Original intent, what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, largely based upon natural law, history, and their experience with governmental abuses of the past, was the only intended interpretation by the Founding Fathers. This was the way the Constitution was interpreted until the Progressive Era in the 20th Century, primarily the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. Thereafter past practice gained dominance. But when a Supreme Court ruling is rendered outside original intent (a rogue decision), other laws may stem from this departure and the departure in time becomes the new base for additional departures such that, again over time, what is constitutional is opposite of what was constitutional. Have I lost you?
For example, prior to this moment there is no constitutional authority to force a person to purchase anything as a condition of citizenship. But if the Supreme Court rules National Healthcare constitutional it would be a rogue decision making constitutional the government’s insistence that you purchase health insurance and upon this precedence other things as well. In time, perhaps healthy foods will be required or only green-fueled automobiles. Who knows where the precedent could lead us. This is called past practice and potentially could destroy original intent and freedom.
Social Security started in 1935 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal program that basically extracted payroll taxes from those employed and matching donations from their employers. Theoretically these funds were to be held by the federal government and returned as old age insurance. The theory was based on the notion that the people would not secure their future without being forced to do so by government mandate.
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution identifies the four areas where the legislative branch can make law as being: 1) to tax, 2) to pay the debts, 3) to provide for the general welfare and 4) to provide for the common defense. The rest of this long sentence with 18 paragraphs was qualifiers on these four areas. The power to tax had but one qualifier, the different types of taxes had to be uniform. There were no qualifiers on “to pay the debts.” General welfare and common defense each had eight qualifiers so as to prevent the federal government from using these broad phrases to justify anything it wished. So, if social security is not on the list, or even remotely related to any of the qualifiers that are, how can the government get away with mandating the extraction of someone’s pay and force the same from his employer? It did so by calling it a tax (a rogue decision).
Original intent says that the power to tax is limited to the legitimate purposes of government as listed. Simply put, government does not have the power to tax for powers that it does not have. This was the most extreme overreach of governmental power to that date in U.S. History. But this was ignored by the Supreme Court that was at the time threatened by President Roosevelt’s Court Packing Bill that would have brought the Court under the control of the Executive Branch because the Court had already ruled as unconstitutional much of his New Deal program.
In Helvering v. Davis, social security was upheld as a tax because, “The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way (301 U.S. 619, 1937).” This presented a thorny problem not yet resolved 75 plus years later. The money taken under the guise of taxes was not set aside for the giver for a future date but just added to the general fund and spent. When these people do retire they will have to depend upon the resources of future generations to cover what was promised.
A second case, Steward Machine Company v. Davis, resolved the same day by a one vote majority, argued that it “is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare (301 U.S., 548, 1937).” In other words, we will not limit ourselves to existing qualifiers on general welfare as intended by the Founders (a second rogue decision). The constitutional procedure for adding something to the list was by way of Article V but this too was ignored for perceived expediency.
So, who is right? Rick Perry uses the correct interpretation of the Constitution, original intent, and Mitt Romney uses past practice, which over time can destroy the Constitution as I have shown. The problem could be resolved by having social security added to the Constitution by way of an amendment, as it should have been in 1935, but this time have it earmarked for the recipient so that it would actually be there for him.
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.
