Aug 25, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush seemed eager to attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan. After all, Afghanistan was the home of al Qaeda, the organization credited with the travesty. Something smelled bad. Every night we seemed closer to attacking Iraq, and the media was clearly an accomplice. Both parties became “sheeple” in support. Even Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party presidential candidates, voted for it.
Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was Osama bin Laden. Not one was from Iraq. Later we learned that 80% of the prisoners held at Guantanamo were Saudis (“Our Enemies the Saudis,” U.S. News and World Report, June 3, 2002, p. 49). So why were we not attacking Saudi Arabia instead? Nor did any evidence exist linking Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Actually bin Laden was a religious fanatic and Saddam non religious and afraid that the clerics would gain power in Iraq as they had in Iran.
Both Bushes hated Saddam Hussein, and Bush Jr. had a personal vendetta against the horrible dictator for the unsuccessful assassination attempt on his father at the Kuwaiti Airport. The dictator in question used chemical warfare against his own people, the Kurds (Congressional Record 9-13, 1988, p. E2914). But if we went to war against every human rights violating dictator, we would be at war with half the world. Prior to Bush Sr.’s confrontation with Saddam, the US provided him with equipment that later fortified his bunkers (“Building Baghdad’s Arsenal” The New American, Nov. 17, 2003, p 6.)
Still, as my friend and colleague Dr. John D. Eigenauer starkly put it, “Iraq did not declare war against the United States: Iraq’s military at no time took up offensive positions against the United States or its citizens. The government of Iraq did not attempt to sabotage American interests abroad, damage American industry, harm US nationals, or hinder US growth.” He continued, “The United States attacked a nation a fraction the size of itself, with only a fraction of the population of the US, with only a small fraction of the Gross National Product of the US, and a tiny fraction of the military strength of the United States…. Iraq had no hope of defending itself in any serious sense, no chance of inflicting meaningful casualties, and no opportunity to negotiate a truce or advocate compromise.” He concluded, “The government of the United States of America—my government—conducted an unprovoked war of aggression against an essentially defenseless nation.”
But almost as troubling as attacking without proven provocation was the deception surrounding the reason. We were “hell bent” on entering this war no matter what. First we argued that Iraq was linked with al Qaeda and therefore an accomplice to 9/11. When that argument lost credibility we argued that we needed to make the UN relevant—put teeth into her—as Iraq had defied her. Then we moved to the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” argument. Finding none after insisting such existed, our leaders argued that as soon as developed they would be used against us; all the time Saddam Hussein was villainized by our government and media amazingly, far more than was Osama bin Laden, the real enemy. We were told that a preemptive strike was necessary to protect us from the inevitable Iraqi attack, ironically the philosophical argument used by the Japanese for their attack on Pearl Harbor beginning World War II. The final argument was that we were fighting for democracy in Iraq. Who could oppose our extending to them what we had?
Left out of the argument was the fact that Iraq was the second largest oil producing country in the world after Saudi Arabia, and that the oil company Halliburton, with strong links to the Vice President, benefited greatly with some plush oil contracts.
To the 4,415 who gave their lives in Iraq, I commend you for your service so honorably provided. To those who intentionally provoked a war for personal gain or power and deceived the American people in so doing, this moment in history is not a proud one. As combat operations end August 31 and our troops return to the shores they should be protecting, I will be delighted.
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 articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 25, 2010 | Constitution, Immigration, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
If anyone wonders how the new Arizona illegal immigration law, coming on board July 29, will affect Arizona, they need only to look at Prince William County, Virginia. They have had virtually the same law in effect for three years. Commissioner Cory Stewart who spearheaded that law said, “We had some of the same problems Arizona did. We had so many illegal immigrants coming into the county causing trouble, causing crime, and exploding the number of English as a Second Language students in our school system. We passed a pretty strict measure in 2007 and it has had great results.”
Under their law, Stewart said police must check the immigration status of persons “for a small crime, shoplifting, DUI, being drunk in public-any of those crimes.” They are then taken to a magistrate who normally “holds them in jail pending trial, because they are illegal immigrants and obviously there is a high risk of flight. They serve their sentences and we hand them over to federal authorities for deportation.”
The benefits of the new law were immediate and clear. The county experienced a 38% reduction in violent crimes, in the number of uninsured illegals giving birth in hospitals, and in English as a Second Language enrollment. All of this resulted in a drastic taxpayer cut, and popularity of the law soon soared to 80%. The law has saved lives with the drop in violent crimes. Illegals tended to move on to other Virginia counties, thus increasing their problems. As a result, and in spite of the fact that they initially ridiculed the new law, Fairfax county, and Montgomery County, MD soon implemented the same law as Prince William county.
When asked how many lawsuits were filed against the police or county by citizens claiming discrimination after the law went into effect, the answer was none. “There has not been one substantiated claim of racial profiling,” Stewart argued.
Of some note is the lack of national attention when a county was enforcing federal law, largely neglected by the Feds. It has also not been of particular interest to the Media. But when Arizona wanted to put an end to the violence spilling over the border (Phoenix is now the kidnapping capitol of North America) all hell turned on them. Now the Federal Government, who is supposed to protect the states, is suing its own state because the state is doing the job the government is constitutionally required to do.
In response to this suit, thousands of small contributors are sending money to support Arizona. Most contributors are retirees who cannot believe in their country’s unwillingness to defend it’s citizens. This money is coming from every state in the Union, and thus far amounts to over a half a million dollars- pocket change to the lobbying groups defending the President’s suit. The Feds are seen as the national bully and are not likely to merit well in the PR game as they pick on a state that is finally willing to stand up to them- even with a favorable (virtually managed) establishment press.
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.
Aug 25, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
It seems ludicrous that a government would create laws and restrictions on it’s military that would virtually leave them fighting with one hand tied behind their back. And yet that is exactly what our government has done in the past, and continues to do now.
According to U.S News and World Report, June 30, 1975 citing the just released, formally top secret, “Rules of Engagement for the Vietnam War” (Congressional Record June 6, 1975, pp. S9897-S9904) our men had to fight under horrendous conditions not imposed from the enemy but from our own State Department. What follows are some of those rules. On-ground assaults in urban areas “known to shelter enemy forces generally had to be preceded by loud-speaker warnings and leaflet drops.” Our troops could return fire “only when the enemy was positively identified and in close contact. Sniper and mortar fire were not counted as ‘contact’ unless ‘such fire interferes with the scheme of maneuver or is inflicting casualties or damage to equipment.’ ” Only flat-trajectory weapons (rifles, machine guns, grenades and recoilless rifles) could be used in civilian-populated areas, which largely exposed our men, and “then only if there was a specific, identifiable target.” Obviously on the ground, U. S superiority in firepower was deliberately not exploited.
Nor was it in the air. Pilots were not allowed to fire where they thought the enemy was hidden- even when fired upon- until they were “sure the strike would be positively oriented against the source.” And in many areas there was the nightmare of getting approval at higher levels even if you spotted the enemy or you were taking ground fire. The chain of command often went through the “province chief, district chief, sector commander and a battalion or higher command” which by the time this was completed, the enemy had disappeared. Enemy airfields were off limits if a “plane with a third nation’s markings was present.” Dams, locks, dikes and targets within 11 1/2 miles of the enemy’s major cities were “banned without prior approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Good luck on that one.
These rules actually aided the enemy, and it is because of them that this 14-year-long-war lasted so long and was lost. (We base our date from our sending advisors’ under President John F. Kennedy to the Vietnam Treaty ending the war under President Gerald Ford.)
On another mission his unit suffered casualties from an exploding device that had been placed in their path minutes before. He said, “There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties and two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home.” A rule of engagement prohibits our troops from entering and searching a home without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present. Access to the house was denied, and the perpetrator escaped.
Placating the enemy by not using our full resources and imposing rules on us that actually aided the enemy in Vietnam led to our defeat. We were told then that we had to focus upon winning the hearts and minds of the people. It did not work then; why would we suppose that it would work now? Historians claim, “Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it.” Apparently we are. Tell that to the dead in both wars.
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.
Aug 25, 2010 | Constitution, Take Action, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
For those of us who have been awakened to the onslaught of government control in our lives, a feeling of helplessness often pervades. We simply do not know what to do after recognizing the danger. Here I present six critical steps that you can take in the process of regaining freedom.
The first step is becoming aware that freedom is in jeopardy. Many of us are already there. The second is to become articulate in our founding documents, especially the U.S. Constitution. Give emphasis to Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment. The arguments they used for freedom are every bit as applicable today as they were then, for they are based upon natural law that does not change. Familiarity is easily acquired as almost no one reads these documents today.
Third, attach yourself to trusted organizations and websites ideologically in harmony with the Founders. Websites I suggest are NationalCenterforConstitutionalStudies.com, askHeritage.org, WallBuilders.com, TenthAmendmentCenter.com, and our own,LibertyUnderFire.org. Most media easily show their ignorance of the Constitution. Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs were the only national shows with any Constitutional emphasis (CNN recently cancelled the latter show). The National Rifle Association is the major defender of the Second Amendment, which indirectly also protects all amendments.
Share their messages with others but send only well reasoned non-offensive material. Avoid derogative references to individuals or parties. To save our republic we will need both major parties. Remember some people may not be philosophically were you are. They will join you as they lose more liberty.
Fourth, participation in the Tea Party Patriot movement is now critical. Anyone serious about his or her liberty should be an active participant. The organization at the national level gives focus to the more dangerous freedom stealing bills and zeros in on the most vulnerable members of Congress prior to a vote on that particular issue. Their Action Alerts allow you to focus your concern with thousands of others.
Fifth, find candidates who support the Constitution. You can only do this if you understand the document yourself. Supporting the Constitution is far more than just using the word frequently. We must cease electing Constitutional illiterates.
Donating time might include other things as well. I have a friend who is attempting to establish liberty trees in every town, another who is attempting to get every city to adopt the slogan “In God we Trust”, and still another who is organizing the pastors to forget their theological differences and come together to protect the Constitution as the early patriots did.
I have friends, even relatives, who have said, “If you are going to tell me one more time to write my congressman, forget it. I’m not interested.” Upon inquiry I find that they have not even done that. Step one is not enough. You must do all seven. We need every soldier on the front lines and in the trenches. So far your “guns” are your time, talent, and money. By becoming involved now they can remain just these. We must have those who will do all seven steps and stay the course. It won’t be easy but if you need motivation for doing so look into the faces of your children and grandchildren. Your loss of liberty is also their loss. Let us not have their slavery on our hands.
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.
Jul 28, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
George Washington said, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” The Founders understood that the biggest obstacle to freedom was the tendency of all governments to grow, absorbing power unto themselves. He also observed the natural inclination of the people to shove decision making power upward to the seat of government as they became more apathetic and indifferent. One force pulls and the other pushes, but in time they accomplish the same thing: eventually all significant power resides in Washington D. C. thousands of miles away, just as it was in Parliament in Colonial times, and the people are not free. The Founders planned to stop both forces by authorizing only a legislative branch to make rules. This legislative branch was limited to only specific grants of power, listed in Article I, Section 8.
Nothing better represents the tendency of government to grow like fire more than the following fictitious, but all too real, account written by an unknown author:
“Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, ‘Someone may steal from it at night.’ So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.” Never mind that the yard had had no theft problems previously.
“Then Congress said, ‘How does the watchman do his job without instruction?’ So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
“Then Congress said, ‘How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?’ So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.
“Then Congress said, ‘How are these people going to get paid?’ They created a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
“Then Congress said, ‘Who will be accountable for all of these people?’ So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
“Then Congress said, ‘We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cut back overall cost.’ So they laid off the night watchman.”
The reason this story is so powerful is that it is so readily apparent in any government run program; virtually everything it touches is wasteful and broken. In addition to adhering to the Enumerated Powers, The Founders’ collective view to never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level would stop most waste. Instead of limiting their power, we gave them charge of education, energy, banking, part of the auto industry and now our healthcare–none of which are Enumerated Powers and thus unconstitutional. The recently passed Health Care Bill created 159 new committees and commissions to manage all the new power. And we wonder why we have lost so much freedom.
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.
Jun 30, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan does not have bench experience or even much courtroom experience. She hasn’t even logged over three years of private practice as a lawyer. She has been a life-long academic and a far left ideologue, thus not likely to support anything remotely conservative in any decision for the next 40 years that she could be on the bench. She is anti-military and probably supports the Gay and Lesbian agenda. She also has distain for the Second Amendment. Any of these should bring question to her legitimacy as a justice. If such were offered by a Republican president with the opposite philosophy in place, the Democrats would go berserk and, rightfully so, would accuse the other party of ineptitude.
But has she read the Constitution? Has she written anything on it? Is she committed to the view of its Founders? Is The Federalist Papers the least bit important to her? These are all non-partisan questions. After all, being only 50 years of age, she is one of two generations that has received very little on The Constitution in school outside the 8th grade. Law school emphasizes case study, not the view of the Founding Fathers. So where is the evidence that she is qualified to defend it?
Where is the evidence that a “Justice” Kagan will confine Congress to the Enumerated Clause and the president to the list of areas cited in Article II? When President Obama goes into the back room and writes law through executive orders or creates new officers called czars (each without an ounce of Constitutional authority) will she say that is unconstitutional and condemn the practice, or will she defend him? Will she protect Federalism and the 10th Amendment, each absolutely critical to the continuation of freedom? Again non-partisan questions. We know that she will not be protecting your right to defend yourself with a handgun, and that should be a disqualifier by itself.
We have too many justices who, though they have by oath sworn to defend the Constitution, are content either by ignorance or intent to emasculate it because the Senate wrongly assumed in previous confirmation hearings that they knew and reverenced the Constitution.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said it best. “Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution—try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up.” On making it up he added: “No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.”(Wall Street Journal Opinion, Oct. 20, 2008)
Today the Court is evenly divided between those who make it up as they go and those who follow what the Founders wrote. The only real question needed is, which side would a Justice Kagan support?
Kagan’s comments that she favors “interpreting the Constitution as a ‘living,’ malleable document” in fact makes her an opponent of original intent, thus out of harmony with the Founders. This fact alone should disqualify her from a seat on the High Court or any court.
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.
