May 13, 2011 | Constitution
by Dr. Harold Pease
Seemingly everyone asks me what I think of Osama bin Laden’s death. Of course I am delighted but my pause bothers them. Where do I start? Have you an hour? Mostly questions yet unanswered. I know so little!! But those asking me know less but they seem not to be bothered by this. I always want all sides and in this action there are so many. Most see it as an act of real leadership and they unquestioningly believe the President’s every word even though there is little so far that is confirmed independent of him or his people. Would they be so believing were it President George W. Bush? After the first thirty documents I need yet another thirty and possibly another after that before I can “know” with clarity—rarely certainty. But it is my profession to question, then question again. The following are the things that bother me most.
Where did the president get the authority to invade another country and assassinate or kidnap someone without its permission or knowledge? Certainly not in the U.S. Constitution!! Even if done in this country, his authority to do so would be constitutionally questionable. Some remember that this was not the first attack on an individual ordered by a president of the United States. President George Bush kidnapped President Manuel Noriega of Panama, brought him to the United States and had him convicted on U. S. drug smuggling charges. Last I heard a very defiant Noriega is rotting in some Georgia federal prison. Then as now, I ask where are the Constitutional grounds?
Throughout world history this action would be considered an act of war. Had we done this to China or Russia this would be World War III. Were either of them to have done the same to us, missiles from us would have been fired on them the next day. Perhaps it is the $16 billion that we give Pakistan each year that keeps them meek. Notice that they have said that they will not tolerate a repeat of this in the future. Certainly Pakistan’s sovereignty was violated but in a very real sense so was it also of every little country in the world. All are left to fear that the same could happen to them.
Then too, I wonder what the Muslims think of our supposed religious sensitivity to their faith. What I can gather, so far, is that sea burial is for those who die at sea not for those killed on land than taken to the sea. Moreover, the preferred burial is on land and by the family. I understand that his schism of faith prefers unmarked graves and little notoriety. I sympathize with the view that we did not wish to leave radical followers with a sanctuary but don’t they already have one in the residence from which he was taken or couldn’t they still create one as we did when we created the grave of the Unknown Soldier? Was there a Muslim of religious authority present to make certain that everything was done or said in the Muslim way? Everything seemed so rushed. Too rushed! There was no time to ask any country whether it would receive the body so why not just say so rather than falsely suggest that the sea burial was because no country would receive the body. One might ask but who cares, this guy deserved nothing because of what he did. I too do not believe that he should be treated as a religious man but it’s the pretense at sensitivity that I suspect and am offended by.
Was there really any intention of taking him alive? I am not convinced. Would he not be a treasure trove of secrets to destroy al Qaeda through intensive interrogation? Why not let him feel what others with him felt at Guantanamo Bay? A bullet is a too easy and quick way out, allowing him to die as a martyr for Allah. Would he not have suffered more by remaining alive for a time, and tried for his crimes against humanity? Anticipating execution is part of the punishment.
Finally, I wonder about the timing. In political science we learn about media frenzies when all the media drop previous stories and rush like piranhas to the new fresh meat. Many media frenzies like earthquakes or tsunamis’ are unpredictable, others not so. In either case, other stories are dropped. I teach my students to always look for who is in charge of the timing and what other stories, previously important thereafter are ignored or buried, in this case the slaughter of civilians in Syria, Donald Trump’s 10 point lead in the republican presidential race, and the so-called “birther” issue. One of his wives said that he had not left the residence for five years. For months we had a CIA team in place a short distance from him watching the property day and night. Could this event have been scheduled a week before or a week later? It did boost the President’s sagging popularity by at least 9 points, but dare I mention these things?
All this said, I find no reason not to believe that everything went down just as the President said, still time has taught me to turn every stone before determining finality, and that for both republican and democratic presidents. So when I pause in my reply I just need a little more time for the finality that others have so early.
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.
May 4, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Tea Party
Dr. Harold Pease
When President George W. Bush left office the national debt was about $10 trillion—the highest in our history and a serious, unacceptable problem. Today, two and a-half years later, it exceeds $14,340 trillion. We are on the eve of destruction, as Barry McGuire sang in his 1965 anti-war hit “Eve of Destruction,” and both parties are responsible.
The President wanted to spend $3.7 trillion this year. Our total income for the year is about $2 trillion so that would leave a deficit of $1.7 trillion which will be added to the $14 trillion that is already placed upon the backs of our children and grand children. I am having difficulty understanding why this isn’t a sell-out to them.
In fiscal responsibility both parties flunked Economics 101 and proved themselves inept. Spending, even if money does not exist to be spent, is the drug addiction of both parties, although presently amplified by the Democrats, as never before in U.S. history. The printing presses are already going full steam as the Federal Reserve gave itself power last December (with presidential knowledge) to devalue your savings by printing and distributing $600 billion by June 1, of this year. We are on a course neither party fully is willing to stop. The time has come for the states, under Article V of the Constitution, to take charge and do so. The only answer to avoiding financial collapse is a balanced budget amendment and it must be enacted ASAP as Congress and the President are out of control.
All state constitutions except Vermont’s require a balanced budget in their spending. Such parameters within their borders make it easier for them to say “no!!” to new spending without also raising taxes. Basically one spends only that which is received.
The Constitution does not have a balanced budget amendment largely because of the Founders attitude that only gold and silver would be the medium of exchange in the states as expressed in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. This would automatically inhibit governments’ temptation to first create and then inflate paper money. We got off track rather quickly and by 1797 Thomas Jefferson wrote in irritation, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Taylor of Caroline, November 26, 1798; reproduced in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson v. 10, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh).
A Constitutional amendment to restrict the federal government from further enslaving our children with debt could come from either the states or the Congress. Since 1975 thirty-two states have petitioned Congress proposing a balanced budget amendment. Two more, are needed to complete the 2/3rds requirement of Article V in the Constitution forcing the ratification process. This process necessitates the acceptance of 3/4ths of the states which, with the flagrant abuse of our money supply on the part of the federal government, should be a given. The beauty of this is that a spending addicted president, whether republican or democrat, is by-passed. No signature is sought and no veto power can be exercised. So states let us get two more states on board.
Congress was one vote short of passing a proposal for a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1997 but interest waned until the Tea Party Movement reinvigorated the demand. The Senate presently has a good amendment under consideration. Outside of war or an “imminent and serious military threat to national security,” Congress and the President must submit a balanced budget. It has an 18 % spending cap. To exceed this for one year requires a 2/3rds approval of both Houses for “a specific excess.” Declared war, or “an imminent and serious military threat to national security,” also allows excess of the 18% but the excess must again be specific. The bill requires 2/3rds of both Houses for any tax increase and forbids the raise of the debt ceiling without a 3/5th of both Houses vote. Finally, it gives the government 5 years to get their fiscal house in order before the balance takes affect (Human Events, April 11, 2011, p. 13).
The Founders gave us two paths to constitutional change, the Congress, and should they fail, the states which could by-pass them. Would one of you finally come through for the people, or do you both wish to continue to leave us on the eve of destruction?
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
Apr 20, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr Harold Pease
Donald Trump’s recent assertion that he isn’t convinced that President Barack Obama was born in the United States but hopes that he can prove that he was, took the lid off a story that has laid under the table too hot for the establishment news to touch for years. Those even hinting such could be the case are normally met with the word ”birther,” designed by proponents to cause the inquirer to shutter in shame as did the vampire to the cross in mythical horror stories, or to the anti-communist confronted with the word McCarthyism in the 1950’s. That one word is seemingly their only answer and defense. Properly discredited, without an ounce of evidence presented to the contrary, he proceeds no further and is silenced, which is the intent. But what if it is true?
Just because the media will not touch this story does not make it not believed. Arizona, also not convinced, just passed a law requiring that to be placed on the ballot in their state those running for elected office must first show a birth certificate proving citizenship; at least 12 other states are sure to follow. If this happens, and the President cannot do so, he may not be on the ballot in perhaps a fourth of the states in the 2012 election very likely ensuring his defeat. Such a law is also under consideration in the House of Representatives.
One’s citizenship is an important constitutional question since citizenship is mandated as a requirement for the highest office in the land. If the Constitution is not enforced when violated the requirement is weakened or destroyed by past practice and anyone in the world can be our president. The Constitution clearly mandated that only one of our own could be our president. If citizenship cannot be proven than Obama must vacate the seat making Joe Biden President.
So here is what we know. Barack Obama does have a Certificate of Live Birth. Contenders say that this is not the same as a Birth Certificate because such is always embossed with the seal of the state of issuance and signed by a recognized authority of that state. Obama’s certificate, they maintain, has no signature and Xerox copies cannot prove embossment. Moreover they argue, that his Certificate of Live Birth also demonstrates evidence of having been tampered with. In Obama’s defense some states only issue Certificates of Live Birth, so in those states this is their birth certificate.
Obama’s paternal grandmother reportedly told her pastors that she was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya. The two pastors reportedly have signed affidavits to that fact. Moreover, his mother enrolled him as a student in Indonesia where such enrollment necessitated renouncement of citizenship in any other country (The New American, November 24, 2008, p. 8). It is also contended that his religion at that time was listed as Islam. It is not disputed that Obama attended school in Indonesia for four years but clarity on the other issues remain lacking.
Obama has refused to release his medical records or records from Occidental or Harvard College. Contenders say that the reason he cannot do so is because they would demonstrate that he received financial aid on the basis of having applied as a foreign student. Releasing his college records should put this allegation to rest but the president still will not do so further feeding the argument that he may have something to hide.
One must also note that there exists some false reporting on the contenders (or those posing to be contenders) side. This is not helpful as it discredits honest sources. Snopes.com had to declare as false a story alleged to be from AP insisting that a forced release of Obama’s Occidental College transcripts two weeks ago, did verify the above allegation. No such AP release exists. This does underscore the need for clean investigative reporting or a bi-partisan congressional review.
That said, apparently there are a vast number of others, besides Donald Trump, who “are not convinced President Barack Obama was born in the United States but hope that he can prove that he was,” despite the establishment medias,’ seemingly deliberate, attempt to villainize anyone suggesting such with the word “birther” rather than investigate the claims. Lets put this story to rest for both Obama and his accusers.
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.
Apr 16, 2011 | Constitution, Economy
Dr. Harold Pease
The paranoia with respect to a government shutdown is amazing. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit such an extremist, emotional response. It appears designed to frighten the least informed either for or against the other party, thus the terminology and subsequent blame game.
So what does a government shut down look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No? Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? NO, No, No! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and cops, prisons, and teachers remain in place.
There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen short of an overthrow of the government from within or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.
How do we know this? Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of these things happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice. So what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.
So at worst a government shutdown is still really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. This is precisely the Tea Party position (“cut it or shut it”) and the reason they do not fear such. If you have a budget of $3.7 trillion and you have taxes covering only $2 trillion simple math tells you that either you double taxes or cut half of your expenses. You simply can’t keep increasing the national debt, now nearing $14.300 trillion, which has been laid on the backs of our new slaves—our children.
When you have cancer you must surgically remove the infected tissue. Of course it is painful, but the longer you wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both shutdowns, were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8, so in time such cuts should become permanent cuts or be subjected to the amending process for appropriate authority.
Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with “the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920’s” and Republicans because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).
So a government shutdown is really only a partial shutdown that may actually be healthy. Lets call it such in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed?
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.
Mar 30, 2011 | Constitution
Dr. Harold W. Pease
Two years ago the nation was astounded to learn from a survey conducted of high school seniors in Oklahoma that 23% could not identify the first president of the United States. But wait, their parents apparently aren’t too bright either.
In a survey conducted earlier this year by Newsweek magazine of a random sampling of 1,000 adult Americans, summarized by Andrew Romano, 29% could not identify the name of the current vice president of the United States—Joe Biden. Nine percent could not correctly answer, “What Ocean is on the West Coast of the United States?”—The Pacific. Eighty percent did not know “who was president during World War I”—Woodrow Wilson, and 40% did not know who we fought in World War II—Germany, Italy and Japan. With respect to individuals, 59% could not identify what Susan B. Anthony did—women’s rights activist, and 23% were ignorant of what Martin Luther King Jr. did—civil rights activist (Newsweek, How dumb Are We? By Andrew Romano, March 28, 2011, pp. 56-63).
It gets worse. Seventy-three percent did not know what the main concern of the United States was during the Cold War—the spread of communism. The Cold War ended in 1989 only 22 years ago so most adults lived through it. This makes the ignorance here even more blatant and inexcusable.
Their most startling conclusion is that 38% of American adults would not qualify to be citizens of their own country were they required to pass the same test for U.S. citizenship required of non-citizens.
For me, what the sampling showed of our ignorance of the Constitution was especially appalling. Knowledge of it, and its imposed limitations on the federal government, are absolutely critical to preserving our liberty. So how did the adults do? Amazingly, a third could not identify the date of the signing of the Declaration of Independence—July 4th, 1776, and 2/3rds, 65%, could not identify what happened at the Constitutional Convention—the writing of the Constitution. Only 74% of adults could identify the first three words of the Constitution—“We The People.” Sadly, 61% did not know how long a U. S. senator served—six years, and 81% could not identify a single power of the federal government noted in the Constitution. May our Founders and others, who risked their lives for this freedom, forgive us for our ignorance.
Unbelievably, 27% did not know who was in charge of the executive branch of the government—the president, nor did 42% know who would next be in charge should both the president and vice president be unable to serve— the Speaker of the House. A whopping 63% did not know the number of justices on the Supreme Court—nine. Seventy percent were unable to answer, “What is the supreme law of the land?”—The Constitution.
With respect to the difficult three-year struggle to get passage of the U.S. Constitution, 88% could not identify even one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers making ratification possible—James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, or John Jay. Forty-three percent did not know what we call the first 10 amendments to the Constitution—The Bill of Rights, and 94% did not know how many amendments the Constitution has—27. Some 67% amazingly could not identify the economic system in the United States—free enterprise.
The study concluded that we are “imperiled by our ignorance.” How can anyone reason otherwise? As a nation are we constitutionally illiterate? Too bad the study was not done on the 535 members of congress or on the executive branch. Would we find a third of them not qualified to be citizens of their own country as well? Given their neglect in preserving this document as designed by the Founders, I think 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.
Mar 23, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr Harold W. Pease
We finally did what John McCain, a Republican Party Presidential candidate, said that we should do in Libya and it was Barak Obama, the Democratic Party Presidential candidate and ultimate victor, who then did it—enforce a no-fly zone on another country who poised no military threat to the United States. Are there any real differences between the two major parties on foreign policy? Where is the authority for a single person to approve military action against another country which action has always been considered an act of war?
Although I have no sympathy for Moammar Gadhafi, how would we feel if Libya was the super power and did the same to us? Of course, I realize that this was done by coalition forces (mostly France and Britain) through the power of the United Nations, but whose kidding who: it is mostly our aircraft, our pilots, our ships and our Mohawk Missiles.
I am concerned about the constitutionality of this action by either a Democratic or a Republican President. The making and funding of war were clearly denied the President in the 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 peoples’ 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 “ or “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 clearly left with the House of Representatives. The document 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 to attack Libya, or anywhere else, without congressional approval. Article I, Section 7 requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…” As far as we can ascertain he did not consulted with Congress. No! Not even with his own party!
The only power the president is allowed to have 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. Senator McCain and President Obama, and democrats and republicans, have no Constitutional authority to engage in war without a declaration of war—even if done by other presidents before them. 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 presidents’ power and should be an impeachable offense.
By the second day of bombing, Moammar Gadhafi’s troops were targeted and civilians killed. In time an American pilot will be shot down and rightfully held as a prisoner of war. This justifies sending even more troops with, “We Must Support Our Troops,” signs and we will be at war with yet a third country in the Obama administration.
I, together with other Tea Party Patriots, recommend immediate defunding of this war by the House of Representatives and withdrawal. Any other course of action entrenches us further and violates two of our core values: constitutional limited government, and fiscal responsibility.
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.
