Oct 2, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
I used to believe that if you read and viewed news sources widely enough, which I do, you would have all the information to be properly informed. I depended upon this assumption. I defended and trusted this assumption. I teach Current Events every semester and find so much under-reported. Most of the “real news” is seemingly not headlined. One such is the attempt this summer by the United Nations to further restrict the availability of firearms.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has been a dream of internationalist and globalists for several years. In their 2006 meeting some 153 countries favored the Treaty, 24, including the United States, did not. Traditionally, until now, the United States has been the leading “hold out” primarily, it is feared, because it could effectively damage the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—your right to defend yourself with a firearm.
Ironically proponents falsely use Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution to destroy the part of the Constitution referenced above. If they could outlaw international firearms trade throughout the world it would have to be embraced in the United States as well. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” By restricting movement of conventional firearms by treaty the U.N Treaty provision would be the supreme law of the land they conspired.
The Founders would never have meant for another government to have the power to alter or dismantle any provision of the Constitution that all elected officials are required to swear by oath to preserve. Even more is this so with respect to the Bill of Rights, wherein the federal government is especially restricted from infringement, which acceptance was a condition required by many states for ratification of the Constitution itself. Then the power of the individual state was viewed as superior to federal power that a statement of supremacy of the Constitution had to be made. That is all.
Our previous objection to this treaty was moved from the back burner, and all doors flew wide open for it, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the green light from President Barack Obama, both long-time anti-gun proponents, announced, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventions weapons” (America’s 1st Freedom, “Gun Owners Win Battle at U.N.,” p. 46-48). Hence all countries gathered in New York City July 2-27, 2012, to do just that.
The Treaty noted the inherent right of all nations to self-defense but refused to allow the individual that same right. The Treaty seemed focused on conventional firearms, even “non-explosive” weapons, whatever those were, perhaps bows and arrows? Transfers of arms and ammunition required mountains of paper work with proponents wanting information on “end users”—information designedly impossible to know at sale.
Perhaps it is time to remind ourselves that there would not be a United States of America, a land of the free and the home of the brave, without an armed populace that was willing to force a separation with Great Britain because of perceived tyranny. Surely we have not forgotten those Americans who hid their firearms from the British in Lexington and Concord, or the farmers who rushed to the front in the Battle of Saratoga. An armed populace best ensures freedom from tyranny; that is why the Second Amendment exists.
Sadly, the establishment press was negligent in informing Americans of this potential serious restriction on firearms availability endorsed and encouraged by the present administration. Fortunately, 130 members of the House of Representatives threatened the President with their intention not to fund the new treaty were it enacted. Fifty-one U.S. Senators, in letters to both Obama and Clinton, wrote of their opposition to the Treaty and hundreds of thousands of NRA supporters signed a petition that declared “independence from any United Nations treaty that would strip (them) of (their) constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Because of them the United States, once again, did not sign the Treaty. These are our real hero’s in our fight to preserve our Bill of Rights but again, very little coverage from the popular presses who sometimes give us only part of the news. A story like this should have been headlined everywhere and often.
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 2, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
President Barack Obama will assume control of U.S. communications should he feel that national security and/or emergency preparedness issues are present as per his executive order of July 6, 2012. There was no consultation with Congress whose constitutional right is to make all law (Art. I, Sec. I). Although not defined, control of all communication presumably meant everything including the Internet as per Section 5 of the Order, although not specifically named. All such was placed under the authority of the White House. (See WhiteHouse.gov July 6, 2012).
Congress had wrestled with the “need” for Internet and cyberspace control for several years even attempting to control the Internet in 2009, but the bills they had originated met with such enormous opposition by the people that the subject was, moved to the back burner. The people clearly did not want government having, what they termed, a “kill switch” on the Internet even during time of national security. Enter the President and his executive order entitled, “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions.” The Order sounds innocent enough, everybody wants “national security” and “emergency preparedness” but neither phrase is defined. Left undefined it remains the discretion of the office of president alone, whether republican or democrat, to decide what it means. After all, what isn’t “national security?”
Taking law-making power from Congress to influence private communication industries is constitutionally questionable as is the Executive Order itself. It began with the usual statement of authority. “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.” Presidential authority would be found in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, or in an amendment to the Constitution enacted thereafter. In this case there is none.
At this point a president should cite the recently passed law of Congress that legitimizes and authorizes the order. The copy from The White House, Office of the Press Secretary identifies none. Some suggest that this executive order is an extension of the Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12472 of 1984, which cites the Communications Act of 1934, as amended …, the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended…, the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended …, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974…, Section 5 of Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1977…, and Section 203 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978….” Whether from a past Reagan executive order or not, if justification is not from Congress and recent, and instead is simply pieces of ancient laws glued together, a president risks being accused of making new law, a function of Congress alone. Only the first five citations come from Congress and these were all over 34 years old. No recent Congress has approved a thing. Again, there was no authority cited in the Order. The argument that presidents before Obama made up law as well does not make the practice constitutional.
Of course, the “Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions.” But it has always had such. When has it not? Congress, not the president, should discern the need for, and limit to, the power to “takeover” the secular private communications industry and even they cannot do so without an amendment to the Constitution authorizing such. It is not their property.
No rational was given as to why a free people would need extensive governmental control over communications. Such was not needed in World War I, nor when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in World War II, nor was it even suggested during the Cold War, when some citizens were building bomb shelters in their basements. We are told that we spend more money on our military than all the other countries of the world combined. Control of all communication is not one of the President’s listed constitutional powers. Where is the threat that justifies this overreach?
This self-empowering order left control of all communications to the discretion of the President alone (whether an Obama or a Romney as executive orders just move to the next president) as to when such conditions warranted his implementation of it. Nor were circumstances noted when such would end allowing the return of control or confiscated property and free communication permitted once again. Nor was there any noted role for our elected Congress. It is being neutered by executive orders. There was no debate and apparently no resistance. Nor was there any role noted for local civil authority—the first responders.
In light of the National Defense Authorization Act that allows the military to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and ship them to, and detained indefinitely in, Guantanamo Bay Prison without right of a judge, trial, or Bill of Rights protection, signed into law by the president last New Years Eve, this is especially serious. Add his National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order of March 16, 2012, which allows the Executive Branch of government to confiscate all food, water, fuel and etc. if they define a situation, or location, as a national emergency—again by the office of president alone. Tell us why we should now trust the office of president (again whether an Obama or a Romney), with control of all communication as well?
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.
Govt. re-prioritizing U.S. communications
EXECUTIVE ORDER DESCRIBED ABOVE
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 06, 2012
Executive Order — Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience. The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications policies, programs, and capabilities.
Sec. 2. Executive Office Responsibilities.
Sec. 2.1. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System) (PPD-1).
Sec. 2.2. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) shall: (a) issue an annual memorandum to the NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (established in section 3 of this order) highlighting national priorities for Executive Committee analyses, studies, research, and development regarding NS/EP communications;
(b) advise the President on the prioritization of radio spectrum and wired communications that support NS/EP functions; and
(c) have access to all appropriate information related to the test, exercise, evaluation, and readiness of the capabilities of all existing and planned NS/EP communications systems, networks, and facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP requirements.
Sec. 2.3. The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall make recommendations to the President, informed by the interagency policy process established in PPD-1, with respect to the exercise of authorities assigned to the President under section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 606). The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall also jointly monitor the exercise of these authorities, in the event of any delegation, through the process established in PPD-1 or as the President otherwise may direct.
Sec. 3. The NS/EP Communications Executive Committee.
Sec. 3.1. There is established an NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (Executive Committee) to serve as a forum to address NS/EP communications matters.
Sec. 3.2. The Executive Committee shall be composed of Assistant Secretary-level or equivalent representatives designated by the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the General Services Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission, as well as such additional agencies as the Executive Committee may designate. The designees of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Executive Committee.
Sec. 3.3. The responsibilities of the Executive Committee shall be to: (a) advise and make policy recommendations to the President, through the PPD-1 process, on enhancing the survivability, resilience, and future architecture of NS/EP communications, including what should constitute NS/EP communications requirements;
(b) develop a long-term strategic vision for NS/EP communications and propose funding requirements and plans to the President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through the PPD-1 process, for NS/EP communications initiatives that benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;
(c) coordinate the planning for, and provision of, NS/EP communications for the Federal Government under all hazards;
(d) promote the incorporation of the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications under all circumstances;
(e) recommend to the President, through the PPD-1 process, the regimes to test, exercise, and evaluate the capabilities of existing and planned communications systems, networks, or facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP communications requirements, including any recommended remedial actions;
(f) provide quarterly updates to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP, through the Co-Chairs, on the status of Executive Committee activities and develop an annual NS/EP communications strategic agenda utilizing the PPD-1 process;
(g) enable industry input with respect to the responsibilities established in this section; and
(h) develop, approve, and maintain a charter for the Executive Committee.
Sec. 4. Executive Committee Joint Program Office.
Sec. 4.1. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an Executive Committee Joint Program Office (JPO) to provide full-time, expert, and administrative support for the Executive Committee’s performance of its responsibilities under section 3.3 of this order. Staff of the JPO shall include detailees, as needed and appropriate, from agencies represented on the Executive Committee. The Department of Homeland Security shall provide resources to support the JPO. The JPO shall be responsive to the guidance of the Executive Committee.
Sec. 4.2. The responsibilities of the JPO shall include: coordination of programs that support NS/EP missions, priorities, goals, and policy; and, when directed by the Executive Committee, the convening of governmental and nongovernmental groups (consistent with the Federal Advisory Committees Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.)), coordination of activities, and development of policies for senior official review and approval.
Sec. 5. Specific Department and Agency Responsibilities.
Sec. 5.1. The Secretary of Defense shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications that are directly responsive to the national security needs of the President, Vice President, and senior national leadership, including: communications with or among the President, Vice President, White House staff, heads of state and government, and Nuclear Command and Control leadership; Continuity of Government communications; and communications among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to support Enduring Constitutional Government;
(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.1(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;
(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications; and
(d) provide, operate, and maintain communication services and facilities adequate to execute responsibilities consistent with Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981, as amended.
Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration;
(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.2(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;
(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications;
(d) receive, integrate, and disseminate NS/EP communications information to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as appropriate, to establish situational awareness, priority setting recommendations, and a common operating picture for NS/EP communications information;
(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;
(f) maintain a joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration, and reconstitution of NS/EP communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis, or emergency;
(g) serve as the Federal lead for the prioritized restoration of communications infrastructure and coordinate the prioritization and restoration of communications, including resolution of any conflicts in or among priorities, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense when activities referenced in section 5.1(a) of this order are impacted, consistent with the National Response Framework. If conflicts in or among priorities cannot be resolved between the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, they shall be referred for resolution in accordance with section 2.1 of this order; and
(h) within 60 days of the date of this order, in consultation with the Executive Committee where appropriate, develop and submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a detailed plan that describes the Department of Homeland
Security’s organization and management structure for its NS/EP communications functions, including the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service, Wireless Priority Service, Telecommunications Service Priority program, Next Generation Network Priority program, the Executive Committee JPO, and relevant supporting entities.
Sec. 5.3. The Secretary of Commerce shall: (a) provide advice and guidance to the Executive Committee on the use of technical standards and metrics to support execution of NS/EP communications;
(b) identify for the Executive Committee requirements for additional technical standards and metrics to enhance NS/EP communications;
(c) engage with relevant standards development organizations to develop appropriate technical standards and metrics to enhance NS/EP communications;
(d) develop plans and procedures concerning radio spectrum allocations, assignments, and priorities for use by agencies and executive offices;
(e) develop, maintain, and publish policies, plans, and procedures for the management and use of radio frequency assignments, including the authority to amend, modify, or revoke such assignments, in those parts of the electromagnetic spectrum assigned to the Federal Government; and
(f) administer a system of radio spectrum priorities for those spectrum-dependent telecommunications resources belonging to and operated by the Federal Government and certify or approve such radio spectrum priorities, including the resolution of conflicts in or among such radio spectrum priorities during a crisis or emergency.
Sec. 5.4. The Administrator of General Services shall provide and maintain a common Federal acquisition approach that allows for the efficient centralized purchasing of equipment and services that meet NS/EP communications requirements. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the procurement authorities granted by law to an agency or the head thereof.
Sec. 5.5. With respect to the Intelligence Community, the DNI, after consultation with the heads of affected agencies, may issue such policy directives and guidance as the DNI deems necessary to implement this order. Procedures or other guidance issued by the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community shall be in accordance with such policy directives or guidelines issued by the DNI.
Sec. 5.6. The Federal Communications Commission performs such functions as are required by law, including: (a) with respect to all entities licensed or regulated by the Federal Communications Commission: the extension, discontinuance, or reduction of common carrier facilities or services; the control of common carrier rates, charges, practices, and classifications; the construction, authorization, activation, deactivation, or closing of radio stations, services, and facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies to Federal Communications Commission licensees; the investigation of violations of pertinent law; and the assessment of communications service provider emergency needs and resources; and
(b) supporting the continuous operation and restoration of critical communications systems and services by assisting the Secretary of Homeland Security with infrastructure damage assessment and restoration, and by providing the Secretary of Homeland Security with information collected by the Federal Communications Commission on communications infrastructure, service outages, and restoration, as appropriate.
Sec. 6. General Agency Responsibilities. All agencies, to the extent consistent with law, shall: (a) determine the scope of their NS/EP communications requirements, and provide information regarding such requirements to the Executive Committee;
(b) prepare policies, plans, and procedures concerning communications facilities, services, or equipment under their management or operational control to maximize their capability to respond to the NS/EP needs of the Federal Government;
(c) propose initiatives, where possible, that may benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;
(d) administer programs that support broad NS/EP communications goals and policies;
(e) submit reports annually, or as otherwise requested, to the Executive Committee, regarding agency NS/EP communications activities;
(f) devise internal acquisition strategies in support of the centralized acquisition approach provided by the General Services Administration pursuant to section 5.4 of this order; and
(g) provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with timely reporting on NS/EP communications status to inform the common operating picture required under 6 U.S.C. 321(d).
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For the purposes of this order, the word “agency” shall have the meaning set forth in section 6.1(b) of Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009.
(b) Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended, is hereby revoked.
(c) Executive Order 12382 of September 13, 1982, as amended, is further amended by striking the following language from section 2(e): “in his capacity as Executive Agent for the National Communications System”.
(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(e) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
Aug 23, 2012 | Globalism
Dr. Harold Pease
I was a young man when I received my Ph. D, but I well remember the rigor and the attention to documentation that went along with it. I was trained to believe nothing that was not well documented. In fact, the training (perhaps conditioning) included avoiding anything that seemed unreasonable or conspiratorial. As a result I was not always as open minded as I should have been. The Warren Commission Report on the John F. Kennedy assassination was the only document that I shared with my students on the subject. I am still prone to be this way; after all, there are “kooks” out there and I do not have the time or resources to investigate every alternative explanation.
In graduate school days I had heard of the Bilderbergers with the accompanying accusations that they were a group of the world’s high finance and political power players that were plotting a world government. No one else took these charges seriously so neither did I. After all I was a scholar, whatever that was!
Year after year, since the first Bilderberg meeting in the Netherlands in 1954, they attracted the elite of Western Europe and the United States; the names included many of the most trusted and prominent on either continent. People who normally attracted lots of press coverage, sometimes meeting in the United States right under our nose, and the establishment press consistently ignored them. Certainly no one would actually be plotting the merger of world nations into one, which would, if successful, necessitate the end of our republic as we know it I reasoned, but no coverage at all!!
Moreover, the reports from a variety of lesser-known presses and authors, were consistent with one another for over fifty years complete with photos of participants arriving, armed guards to prevent uninvited attendees, discarded printed materials from their secret meetings, and even guest lists. It was the same every year complete with the arrest of “kooks” taking pictures of guests arriving at these posh and secluded get away places. Foreign presses usually had better coverage. Something very important was going down and the great networks and news magazines were always somewhere else, as though these events never happened.
I now include the Bilderbergers as an international special interest group when I cover special interest groups in political science. The documentation warrants it. When I overcame my programing and my “kook phobia,” at least on the idea that since we have been steadily moving in the direction of globalization (the current vogue word for world government), it is very likely that there are proponents of it intentionally leading us toward it. They see world government as the only solution to giving us peace and prosperity. I well remember the failed promises of communism, whose conspiratorial proponents gave us the same “pipe dream.”
If you are experiencing “kook phobia,” everything I have written about the Bilderbergers, and much more, is found on Wikipedia the Internet Encyclopedia, complete with 47 references. Both the left and the right are showing some awareness of the power of this semi-secret organization. My favorite, on the left, is that of former Cuban president Fidel Castro, of all people, who “describes ‘sinister cliques and the Bilderberg lobbyists’ manipulating the public ‘to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self’.” Well-done Fidel! Another source is the official Bilderberg Website. They too, admit “there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns [previously identified as foreign affairs and international economy] can be accommodated.” Solutions are always more governance at the international level or bluntly, world government.
This years conference was held May 31-June 3 in the posh Westfield’s Marriott Washington Dulles Hotel in Chantilly, Virginia some thirty miles outside Washington D.C. This time the Washington Post had a small article and the Washington Times had two notations of the activity, one front page, otherwise the establishment press again ignored it.
Notable attendees of the 100 coming from the U. S. included the usual faces of Henry Kissinger and Bill Gates. Democrats had favorite son Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and lead proponent of the Law of the Sea Treaty advocating giving the UN 70% of the surface of the earth, a long-time favored Bilderberg goal. They also had White House National Security Advisor Thomas E. Donilon. Republicans had in attendance past presidential hopeful and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Governor Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. of Indiana, and Vin Weber, a two-time Bilderberg presenter and presently advisor to Mitt Romney.
There are still “kooks” out there and I still do not have time or resources to investigate every alternative explanation for why globalism is growing so fast but this “kook” explanation has earned its right to be brought to the table and considered seriously. Let us begin with editors and column readers.
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.
Jun 11, 2012 | Globalism, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Like a bad penny that one cannot get rid of, the idea of giving the world’s oceans, some 70% of the globe, to the United Nations is once again before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The “full court press,” led by Committee Chairman John Kerry, heard testimony favoring the idea from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. Additional hearings are scheduled this month with a favorable vote scheduled, they hope, before July. President Barack Obama would like a full Senate vote before November to avoid the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty from becoming an election issue but is willing to wait, if need be, until December. Then, while his party retains control of the Senate even if the Republicans win the election, quietly force it through before January, as he did the National Defense Authorization Act.
This is not a party issue. Presidents and secretaries of state from both Republican and Democratic Parties have favored this idea. Virtually all administration leaders from either party, and the advocates noted above, are Council on Foreign Relations members, an organization decidedly globalist in philosophy, and thought to be the mother of this idea.
The treaty evolved out of a series of United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea between 1973 and 1982, with the third such convention, known as UNCLOS III, being the most important. It is designed to create government dictating every aspect of the world’s oceans. What began as an effort “to codify certain navigational rights had … morphed into a ‘constitution for the oceans.’ ”
So what does the Law of the Sea Treaty, commonly, and hereafter, referred to as LOST, do? All ocean bordering nations are allowed a total jurisdiction outreach of 12 nautical miles from their shoreline, called Territorial Waters, plus another 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone with sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. All ocean water thereafter was International Water, controlled and managed by organizations created by the treaty but under the oversight of the United Nations. Under this new treaty the United Nations would own and control 70% of the earth’s surface.
Presently nations share fishing rights, treasure hunting or other extraction activities on a first come first serve basis and pay taxes on such gains to their respective countries—every country owns the sea. Under LOST, when ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the U.S. Senate, any wealth extracted from the oceans would be taxed by the United Nations alone. LOST creates the Seabed Authority with power not only to tax and distribute the monies gathered but to manage ocean research, impose production quotas, and create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments; in short, a world government over seven-tenths of the globe. The United States would be subject to an international government of bureaucrats, none elected, and few would be sensitive to traditions of our republic. Moreover, LOST favors what is known as the New International Economic Order, which all socialists and globalists want—the redistribution of wealth to poorer nations.
Of interest is the fact that the only president to oppose LOST since its inception, also had the least affiliation to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. President Ronald Reagan very publicly, refused to sign primarily because of the treaties threat to U.S. sovereignty. “He also dismissed the State Department staff that helped negotiate it. And in case anyone didn’t get the message, he sent special envoy Donald Rumsfeld on a globe-trotting mission to explain his opposition and urged other nations to follow suit.” Moreover, in a 1978-radio address entitled “Ocean Mining,” he said, “no national interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.” His new negotiator, Ambassador James Malone, later explained why Reagan’s vehement opposition to LOST, “The treaty’s provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order—a form of global collectivism… that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world’s wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion” (Still lost on the Law of the Sea Treaty, Brandenton Herald, Edwin Meese III, June 5, 2012).
So far the Senate, as before has not ratified LOST, but can they withstand the “full court press” to do so now? Twenty-seven Senators have indicated that they will not support ratification. Many more are needed to decisively stop this action. Do you know where your senators are on this issue? All globalists must be removed from power or this “bad penny” will return again and again until the United Nations owns and controls the oceans. U.S. Sovereignty is at stake.
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.
May 11, 2012 | Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
Time magazine’s April 23, 2012, edition featured a cover story called “The World’s Most Exclusive Club: The Secret Society of Presidents” by authors Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy. The cover shows a shot of President Barack Obama walking with his hands affectionately on the backs of former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Inside is a photograph of the most recent five presidents from Jimmy Carter to the present, all laughing and enjoying each other’s company as if they had always been fast friends.
The piece was mostly a series of “profiles in cooperation” as incident after incident was cited from Herbert Hoover to the present (excepting Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan about whom nothing was disclosed) on how past presidents had been able to forget their differences and assist new presidents because they alone knew what the current presidents were going through. It was as though there had never been any differences once they left office. The sincerity of their coming together appeared genuine.
The article refers to it as “the President’s Club” complete with a clubhouse, exclusively for only past presidents, conveniently located at 716 Jackson Place, just across the street from the White House on Lafayette Square. Richard Nixon converted the century old house into a clubhouse “mainly to keep LBJ [President Lyndon Baines Johnson] happy when he was in town,” the authors noted. “For reservations, you need to call the White House, and only four men are eligible to check in.” This way the current president always knows when his counterparts are in town and can arrange consultation if wanted. All costs for maintenance, housing, food and etc. are picked up by the taxpayer.
This long-standing comradery may surprise readers but this is not the only “most exclusive club” that each participates in. All presidents from Herbert Hoover on have either been members of, or had a close relationship with, the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. When a president is not a member himself, his vice president is. Virtually all of our secretaries of state, United Nations ambassadors, and ambassadors to Russia and China have been members of this Wall Street special interest group since the Hoover administration in the late 1920’s. Moreover, CFR members largely fill all presidential cabinets.
This is why there is so little difference in foreign policy between democrats and republican presidents. They get their advisors from the same Wall Street special interest group. They all support extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 900 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. Likewise, they all support bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers own private Federal Reserve Bank.
Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, probably admitted more than she was supposed to in her address at the recent dedication of a branch CFR in Washington D. C. when she said that her source of direction was the CFR sub-center down the street. “I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Notable political scientist Lester Milbraith observed in his work Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, p. 247, that “the influence of the CFR throughout government is so pervasive that it is difficult to distinguish the CFR from government programs.” Prominent political scientist Thomas R. Dye in his textbook Who’s Running America? The Bush Restoration, p. 188, wrote “The history of CFR policy accomplishments is dazzling” then traced in detail their dominating role in foreign policy accomplishment from the 1920’s through the George Bush Administration from their own boasts of success in Council on Foreign Relations Annual Reports.
What is wrong with this “secret society?” In 1954, The Reece Congressional Committee noted that its productions, “are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalism concept.” How powerful was it by the time Congress first discovered its influence? It had come, they wrote, “to be in essence an agency of the United States government, no doubt carrying its internationalist bias with it” (Pp. 176-177).
Politics appears to be divided between two warring ideologies but because of these two secret societies of comradery, one providing a type of brotherhood, the other the same-shared source of direction and pool of advisors, it is hard to believe that at the top we are really divided at all. Presidents have far more commonality and bipartisanship than has been portrayed.
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.
Apr 13, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
The Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of powers has been heavily altered the last fifty years. The Constitution allowed only the Legislative Branch to make federal law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). A law’s review by 536 individuals (435 members of the House, 100 Senators and 1 President) served as a filter for bad law as only one bill in thirty survived the rigid scrutiny of both branches and bore the signature of the President.
In light of the President’s recent Executive Order, National Defense Resources Preparedness, signed March 16, 2012, which should be the focus of considerable media attention, we need to examine the constitutionality of the executive order process that increasingly allows the executive branch to replace Congress as the principal law-making branch. But first a reminder of what this Executive Order does.
By a mere stroke of the pen President Barack Obama renewed and expanded the Bill Clinton, June 3,1994, National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness, Executive Order 12919, that authorized the executive department’s take-over, in case of a national emergency, of all civil transportation including the “movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation … within the United States.” Other things specifically listed to be under his sole control were: all forms of energy, all farm equipment, all food resources, all food resources facilities, all health resources, and all water resources (Section VIII). National emergency was never adequately defined therefore, presumably, left to the discretion of the President alone as to when such conditions warranted his implementation or removal of the emergency.
Section 102 of the Obama decree broadened the Clinton E.O. to apply “in peacetime and in national emergency” which means that parts of the edict are in effect with his signature alone without any emergency identified. We no longer need to wait for an emergency. Moreover, according to Section 103(b), compliance can be forced upon all needed “subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel.” Imagine private contractors being required to serve against their will. Conspicuously omitted was any role for Congress in this “martial law type” edict.
Today, though the E.O. process, the President makes half as many laws (decrees if you prefer) as does the Legislative Branch—about three a week. Some few laws of Congress need a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. This he did by Executive Order, which was constitutional. An executive order, if it simply implements a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is fine. But, when he instead takes multiple pieces of many laws passed by ancient congresses, he effectively creates new law without any review and unconstitutionally usurps the powers of Congress. This has happened through much of the 20th Century.
Even more blatantly unconstitutional is the practice of presidents, beginning with Richard Nixon, of not even attempting to justify their Executive Orders with ancient pieces of authorization, instead, just decreeing something to be law. These are known as presidential decrees and differ little from monarchical, or dictatorial decrees.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order opens, as all do, with a statement of authority that one must scrutinize to determine if the President is making new law or carrying out a specific, recent, congressional request. “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S. C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3. United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:” is designed to sound official. If the reader cannot specifically go to the source of authority and read it, then the general statement is but window dressing. Phrases “as President by the Constitution” or, “as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces” establish no specific authority. The Constitution gives no authority for such an edict. One, recently cited, law by Congress specifically requesting the President to do something is definitely needed to make this executive order valid and the best the President was able to do was go back sixty-two years and make up stuff to go with the 1950 law as Bill Clinton did in 1994.
Except for the few executive orders which require a statement of implementation by the president, all other types of executive orders are unconstitutional and must stop. If they do not, the inevitable will happen—Congress will nullify itself and dictatorial decrees will be the standard.
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.
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Constitution, Executive Order 12919, Executive Orders not always constitutional, Executive Orders should not make law, Legislative brance alone to make law, Martial Law Executive Order, National Defense Resources Preparedness
