Jun 11, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Immigration, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Citing the thorough documentation provided by The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Tea Party Patriots has officially expressed strong reservation with respect to what they now dub the Gang of Eight Amnesty Immigration Bill. They warn that S.744 “dramatically increases legal immigration, while doing virtually nothing to improve border security or immigration enforcement.” It essentially legalizes that which used to be illegal and goes far to legitimizing open borders. If the establishment press shared with Americans what we share below it would have no chance of passage. Unfortunately they do not.
Dissecting the over 800-page bill section-by-section, four concerns are readily apparent. First, the bill “does not secure the border or strengthen national security.” Instead, it “rewards law-breaking and encourages more illegal immigration.” Twelve provisions documenting the above are noted, complete with section and page numbers. Among them are: the granting of legal status by the Department of Homeland Security “before any measure to secure the border has been taken.” It does not “require a biometric exit system “ to “track aliens who enter and leave the U.S., per current law.” It does not “require any additional border fencing or completion of current border fence requirements.” It does not require illegals “to pay back taxes before getting legal status…it only requires … applicants to pay back taxes ‘assessed’ at the time of application.” The new bill “does not require illegal aliens to learn English before receiving amnesty or even a green card.” It does not “prevent future illegal immigration, ensure fiscal sustainability of the influx of immigrants to the United States,” nor does it “end abuse of prosecutorial discretion or administrative amnesty by the Obama administration.
It does, however, increase access for illegal immigrants to the scarce jobs of U.S. workers. Moreover, it does allow “states to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens—not the aliens who received amnesty, but all illegal aliens who arrive in the future.”
Second, the bill “does not improve immigration enforcement or public safety. Instead, it undermines immigration enforcement and is riddled with waivers and loopholes:” DHS is allowed to wave—three or more times—“multiple misdemeanor convictions when granting amnesty.” These include: “gang-related crimes and gang membership; three or more drunk driving offenses; domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and violation of protective orders; committing crimes of moral turpitude; violating federal or state drug laws; trafficking in passports; providing fraudulent immigration services; trafficking immigration documents, including document fraud; prostitution; misrepresenting a material fact to procure visas or other immigration benefits; violating student visas; falsely claiming citizenship; and illegally re-entering the U.S. after deportation (which is a felony).”
The proposed new law “delays implementation of E-Verify to prevent illegals from being employed and voids state and local E-Verify laws. Amazingly it even creates “criminal penalties and a $10,000 fine for any federal official who discloses information found in RPI applications in violation of the law.” And it does not “require the deportation of a single illegal alien” whose “application is denied—for any reason.” The bill authorizes “illegal aliens to bring class action lawsuits against the government” and “allows the Department of Homeland Security to appoint counsel to illegal aliens fighting deportation at taxpayer expense.”
The third major concern is that the “Gang of Eight” Amnesty Immigration Bill, according to the report, “does not prioritize the American worker at a time when 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Instead, S.744 hurts the American worker:” It does this by tripling immigration within a decade. In addition it “increases the number of guest workers by 50 percent over the decade after enactment.” It enlarges the admission of additional unskilled workers each year to 200,000 and triples the number of skilled workers who may enter. “S.744 creates a new bureaucracy, the Office of Legal Access Programs, to provide illegal aliens with ‘legal orientation programs’ that help fight deportation. The bill requires DHS to make these programs available to the aliens within 5 days of being taken into custody. Section 3503 also authorizes the Office of Legal Access Programs to provide services, including legal services, to aliens in deportation hearings.” All this, of course, dramatically increases “competition for Americans entering or working in those fields.”
Finally, fourth, S.744 “does not prevent American taxpayers from subsidizing illegal immigration. In fact, it makes the current problem worse:” When permanent resident status is given “the alien need only demonstrate income or resources equal to 125 percent of the federal poverty level” to get assistance so our welfare system will be flooded. The bill also “creates a ‘slush fund’ for nonprofits that help implement the amnesty. Section 2537 authorizes DHS to award newly created ‘Initial Entry, Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistance’ (IEACA) grants to nonprofit organizations that help illegal aliens navigate the amnesty process. The bill appropriates $100 million for IEACA grants for the first five years and ‘such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years’.”
Who was it that said, “We have met the enemy and he is us?” The Tea Party Patriots have good reason to oppose this bill. It impacts all three of its core values: limited constitutional government, the free market, and fiscal responsibility. No piece of legislation could erase our southern border more effectively. A foreign power could not do more damage to our homeland security than our own U.S. Senate does in this one bill which now goes to a, hopefully, more responsible House of Representatives.
Apr 11, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Healthcare, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
Are your city or county government leaders ICLEI members, or is your city an ICLEI city? If so, you, or they, may not fully realize that the United Nations has a big influence over your local government decisions. You need to void this influence as quickly as possible.
I too was slow to see the influence of the United Nations on city, county, or state governments but the documentation supporting that influence is now overwhelming. I was conversant with their use of environmental prongs to standardize regulations and govern allocations of resources on the nations of the earth through the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and through their United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), but we were okay because we had not signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol Treaty. There were so many other fronts in trying to preserve our Constitution and Republic this seemed less unimportant.
While I battled the loss of freedom elsewhere, the United Nations formed in 1990 the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI, to ideologically infiltrate local governments into “winning enactment of global-warming legislation at the state and local levels.” A tentacle of a giant UN octopus has reached into our local governments. Now becoming recognized for what it is, it appears almost everywhere. It claims over 1200 local government members in 70 different countries. Of that number 130 are members of our county and city governments in California alone. California’s ICLEI cities include Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento, which sheds light on how California could be so easily enticed into AB 32, formally known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This legislation, sometimes referred to as “cap and trade,” is driving businesses from the state and flooding those who stay with regulatory nightmares.
ICLEI’s purpose, according to their web page, is to “Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies… Mobilize local governments to help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements such as the Rio conventions…. Forge multi-stakeholder partnerships such as Resilient Cities, a global framework on urban resilience and climate adaptation where local governments, international agencies, development banks, ministries, institutes and others, collaborate.” The master plan is Chapter 28 of Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 “proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coast-lands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and ‘protecting’ the atmosphere.”
But Agenda 21 is far more than just extreme environmental regulation—that is just the beginning. The New American magazine gave the best description of what it includes. “It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption—in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21” (“Your Hometown and the United Nations,” February 21, 2011, p. 14). In short, it will affect every person on earth and that affect is not likely to be positive for individuals or their local governments. Like a vacuum cleaner it siphons power from local and state jurisdiction to the United Nations.
The list of environmental groups, foundations, and government agencies supporting Agenda 21 is mind-boggling. Local opposition is underfunded and overwhelmed.
“Sustainable development” (not defined) is the wording used to describe their end result. This is the most appealing part of Agenda 21 for visionaries of a perfectly, totally managed, world governing environment. Unfortunately, it is way too open-ended allowing the ruling class (the planners, of course) to modify the rules as necessary. Gone would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but Utopians do not think that far in advance. Fortunately, locally elected leaders generally do, but they need to rid themselves of this UN influence, like a cancer, to remain locally controlled and free. Once again, are your city or county leaders ICLEI members? Why not ask 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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 30, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Every evening as I watch the news I hear the Democrats blasted for their irresponsible, wasteful spending leading this nation to its highest national debt with over $6 trillion accredited to President Barack Obama alone. Just this week Secretary of State John Kerry gave the Palestinians some $500 million not to attack Israel. Last month Egypt reportedly received 16 F-16 fighter jets together with some 400 tanks; their likely target Israel, our supposed friend. Every year we give them $1.7 billion in foreign aid. All this while we close down White House tours allegedly because we do not have the money to keep them open. We presently spend (waste) about $20 billion dollars annually on “buying” friends, called foreign aid. The spending goes on and on with Democrats, according to the news, responsible for most of it.
So, if true, why attack the Republican Party? They are not in charge Democrats are! That was so for Obama’s first two years in power, but decidedly not so since 2010. When Republicans retook the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi handed the gavel of leadership to John Boehner, Republicans assumed the major responsibility of this Congressional body—taxing and spending. The Constitution reads, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1). Neither the Senate nor the White House can constitutionally initiate taxes. All the Republican controlled House has to do to stop irresponsible spending is to not originate the bill to cover the expenses. The annual House Budget could leave out items formerly approved. Deficit spending could end simply by their refusal to pass new deficit spending bills.
It is true that the President has not had a budget, although required by law, in over four years and he is already almost two months late in proposing one this year as well. Until such time as one is processed constitutionally the House budget should be the official federal budget. It is also true that no tax law can originate to cover his expenses without first the consent of the House of Representatives. Hence only the House Budget really matters. If a president spends money not first approved by this body he is, in effect, raising revenue, a power that he does not possess and both parties should share in his condemnation. Sole power of impeachment also originates from the House, and a president perpetually attempting to exclude the House of its sole power to raise revenue might be reminded of the second power. Also, given that a president’s salary is also a budget item, the House might explore the possibility of not raising revenue for this purpose should this body feel threatened by a president’s usurpation of the House power. This procedure was openly used by state legislatures on zealous royal governors to help bring them into line during Colonial American History.
Why do the House of Representatives alone have this power? The power of the purse (both taxing and spending) is one of the most important powers of the Constitution. The Founders resolved that it should be left with the representatives of the people, thus making it impossible for the people to be over-taxed without their consent for more than two years as all members of this body come up for reelection on the same date—every two years. To my knowledge no other people in history have had control over their taxes. It is a priceless freedom.
Addressing this subject James Madison observed, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The U.S. Constitution mandates that “the House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.” This power alone he added, “can overcome all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse… (The Federalist, No. 58).”
So Republicans, if you do not like the above reckless spending charge that I have attributed to you, assume your Constitutional House of Representatives duty to protect the people from such and do so immediately. You are in charge in this matter, not they. Your failure to act weakens this part of the Constitution. Mankind waited almost 6,000 years to have freedom from excessive taxation. You do not have the right to lose it for posterity.
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.
Mar 23, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes
Dr. Harold Pease
As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 224 years old. It may surprise readers to learn that for most of these years, 124 to be exact, we had no established federal income tax and handled our national debt quite well. Today most pay at least a fourth of their income to the federal government. Prior to 1913 you kept for yourself what is now taken from you. And what would you now spend it on were it not taken? Not on the basics such as food, housing, and utilities for they are covered in what you are allowed to take home. You would spend the extra fourth of your salary on thousands of items that are made by others as well as services you might like. This not only would enrich your life but it would provide millions of jobs for others making those items or providing those services as well. Many middle class folks could purchase a new car every year with what they are forced to give to the federal government.
Would you spend it more wisely than the federal government? Certainly! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society, and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistributing it to those who do not. Even some non-tax payers get income tax refunds—so corrupt is the system. Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these areas will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies provide largely government jobs, which are almost entirely consumption jobs (jobs that consume the production of society but produce nothing consumable). Such jobs cannot produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk, or even a can of hair spray. They bring another guy to the table to eat, but not another to produce something to eat.
What largely brought about the give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 100-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet that they could turn on at will. They could purchase anything—even people. Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to maximize their authority the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Out side these four powers the federal government had no power to tax or spend.
General welfare then meant everyone equally and at the same time as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time they did so the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. I ask my students what would happen if they took one lolly-pop to kindergarten and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Or, I give one student the answers to the next exam and the others find out. What would they say? Try taking away long provided benefits from a privileged group, as for example food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.
So why does the government now need a fourth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding, that is why. The answer to less tax is less government. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt as might be supposed. Seldom do they qualify for the federally subsidized programs anyway. The fourth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them thus creating a haven of jobs of which those who wished to work could and would have no excuse not to. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford with some states offering more and others less as the Tenth Amendment mandates.
So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. Ironically we got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend, on ourselves, every cent of what the federal government now takes, which inadvertently stimulated the economy. I am certain that there is someone out there that could find a supposition in the above to fault, but no one should be able to argue that our approaching $16.7 trillion national debt is fair, has really worked for any of us, and is a better plan. I personally like the idea of being able to purchase a new car every year.
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.
Feb 20, 2013 | Constitution, Economy
Dr. Harold Pease
It is the normal course of things to read in both houses of Congress every February, somewhere near his birthday of February 22, President George Washington’s Farewell Address. Until the last two decades it has always been seen as a guidepost for the future, and reverenced as such. It was given, in fact, for this very purpose just prior to his leaving the presidency. In it he warned posterity of possible pitfalls that could undermine or destroy this great experiment in liberty. His warnings may be more timely 217 years later as we near his birthday February 22. Although read, we have not adhered to it for at least the last four presidents.
In strong terms Washington asked that we avoid debt. He said: “As a very important source of strength and security cherish public credit… use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasion of expense… [Use the] time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
Today our national debt sits at over $16.5 trillion—the highest in our history—increased by about four billion a day. To put this in perspective if we laid dollar bills on top of each other a trillion dollars would take us upward 68,000 miles into the sky—a third of the way to the moon. Three trillion would take us all the way. Sixteen and a half trillion dollars stacked on top of one another would take us to the moon and back twice, then to the moon and half the way back. Obviously today neither party has taken Washington’s advice. Presently the debt per taxpayer is $146,193. We are spending our way into oblivion (See USDebtClock.org).
Washington pleaded with the nation to keep religion and morality strong. He said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” The Founding Fathers never supported the notion of separation of religion and government—only the separation of an organization of religion from government. What would Washington say of the immorality that prevails today?
Our first president also had advice with respect to how we should deal with foreign nations. He advised that our commercial policy “should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences…diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing.” This is a far cry from the bullying tactics we’ve too often employed the last 100 years. Today we have troops in 32 nations in over 1200 military bases.
But the warning about foreign aid was especially good. He basically told us that gift giving in foreign affairs is a good way to be universally hated. He said it placed us “in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.” Today there is hardly a nation in the world that does not have its hand out and when, after once giving, the amount is reduce or terminated we are hated all the more for it. Even potential enemies line up for favors. The Muslim Brotherhood state of Egypt received 1.8 billion dollars last year in foreign aid and is to receive, in addition, sixteen F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abrams tanks this year. Israel is their only likely target.
He warned against the origin of “combinations and associations” whose intent was to suppress the desires of the majority in favor of the minority. He called them artificial power factions. We call them special interest groups. What would he say upon learning that a third of the cabinet of every president since Herbert Hoover belonged to the semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations as does either the President or Vice President of every administration including Barack Obama’s?
Such factions, he said, “May answer popular ends and become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government….” The antidote for this, Washington explained, was “to resist with care the spirit of innovation” upon basic constitutional principles or premises no matter how flowery, appealing or “specious the pretext.”
Washington worried about posterity not holding their elected officials strictly to the limits imposed by the Constitution. He knew many would seek to undermine that document by twisting it to gain power they could not acquire without the distortion. Sound familiar? He said: “But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Today much of what the federal government does is not even mentioned in the Constitution and therefore, as interpreted for most of 200 years, unconstitutional.
But freedom fighters are not likely to be popular, he said: “Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.” One need not look far for the “tools and dupes,” they seem to be everywhere and in both major political parties.
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
Feb 14, 2013 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
In President Barack Obama’s 5th State of the Union address he did not offer a single cut, but did ask Congress to do many things, most of which are very expensive. They include: raising the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour, finding a way to provided full-time employment for all who wish it, cutting red tap on new oil and gas permits, and working with Congress on “research and technology” in the energy area. He wants to “cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses.” He wants high-speed rail, high-tech schools and self-healing power grids. His “Fix-It-First program” puts people back to work on 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country.” We also need modern ports, modern pipelines, and modern schools. Most of these programs require vast funding from the taxpayer.
His program would allow homeowners to refinance at today’s rates. He would help finance manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, and housing. Make the preschool program “available to every child in America.” He invites a federal governmental roll in “boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.” The government should “reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math.” Colleges, he said, “must do their part to keep costs down, and it is our job to make sure they do.” These imply vast subsidies and vastly more regulations. He would offer companies incentives to hire those who were difficult to hire. He spoke of “rebuilding vacant homes in run-down neighborhoods” and of partnering “with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America,” presumably to rebuild them with tax-payer money. And he wanted more Internet control. To pay for these budget-busting programs he offered only closing tax loopholes and again taxing the rich.
Most pundits will note how expensive the above would be, especially when we are $16.5 trillion in debt (approximately $6 trillion from Barack Obama alone) and adding to this $4 billion each day. Someone has to ask the question, “Are we intentionally attempting to bankrupt this country?” Or, they might write about the vast expansion of federal control over our lives, that will never be returned, and the resultant loss of liberty.
Because few read the Constitution anymore, they may not notice that not a single one of these expensive power-grabbing and bankruptcy-leading measures meet the list requirement in Article I, Section 8. Nor have any of the power increases been presented to the states for the required 3/4th ratification to become federal powers, as required by Article V. All power areas not listed, nor added by way of amendment, belong to the states as per Amendment 10, otherwise, in time, we will not need state government, as all power will emanate from our “all-knowing” and “all-powerful” federal government.
But even more frightening is the expansion of presidential power and the ineptitude of Congress with respect to defending itself because of its worshipful allegiance to party rather than to the Constitution they swore to uphold. Obama announced the launch of three more “manufacturing hubs” to guarantee, “the next revolution in manufacturing is Made in America.” And requested Congress to create an additional 15 such hubs. What these are, and more precisely what they do, was not given. Nor was it given that while he created the first three, why he now needed Congress to create another 15. And, if Congress won’t will he then do so himself?
On climate change he “urged” movement from Congress then threatened them if it did not happen. “But if Congress won’t act soon… I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future.” He then identified three areas where his, presumably executive orders, would follow: “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
His threats are real. Unhappy that Congress had not already moved on gun control last month, as he wished, he created and signed 23 executive orders enlarging his power in this area. The Constitution gives the federal government no authority in this area and the words used in the 2nd Amendment are “shall not be infringed.” Congress alone has all law making powers outside the veto. The President has zero power to make law. Last summer he nullified existing law on immigration by executive order which violation of the Constitution is even more serious.
Internet control was also hinted at in the State of the Union Address. He said, “I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy.” Three vastly enlarged areas of government control that have never been presented to the Congress or the States. How do executive orders differ from monarchical decrees?
As with Congress the president’s powers are also listed, Article II, Sections 2-3, and not a single one of the powers that he is bestowing upon himself exists in the Constitution. All powers not listed, or added by way of amendment, belong to the states and the people as per Amendment 10.
Obama is a great orator but is he good enough to talk us into bankruptcy and out of liberty? For many yes! In Star Wars III the people clapped when they lost their liberty. Are we doing the same?
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.
