Mar 26, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Take Action
By Dr Harold W. Pease
Recent presidents have so mutilated the clear language of the Constitution as to the authority to make war that congressional pushback, even from the weak Congress we now have, was inevitable. That pushback came in a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey inferred that the authority that he depended upon was not from Congress, as required in the U. S. Constitution, but from unelected UN or NATO authorities. Senator Jeff Sessions, Chairman of the Committee, then interviewed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and was given the same response. Disbelieving what he heard, Sessions repeatedly inquired in different ways only to be given the same answer. (See video below) Even the President’s voice did not appear to be as important as that of the UN or NATO.
Constitutional clarity is so strong with respect to Congress alone having sole power of war that it is hard to imagine that such statements are due to gross ignorance alone. This is one of the most critical moments in U. S. History with respect to liberty. If the Executive Branch of government can effectively remove the power to initiate war from Congress, giving it to itself, and then to some international coalition such as the U. N. or NATO, we essentially lose our sovereignty and our armies used as the policemen of the world. Would not the recipient of such power, the United Nations, not then become the dreaded world government? Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, preserving Americas right to fight whomever, would be effectively destroyed.
To protect the Constitution and to keep the Congress from having but a ceremonial jurisdiction with respect to war, as the General and Defense Secretary inferred, the House of Representatives is attempting to place the president on short notice that the next disregard of Congress would be grounds for impeachment. Concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 107 reads, “Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
This action has resulted, not only because General Dempsey and Defense Secretary Panetta have expressed a desire to take such power, but also because doing so has been the practice of the Obama Administration. Congress was not consulted when American planes bombed Libya, or when President Obama, alone, authorized Special Forces to inter Central America last fall, or his authorizing drone strikes in several middle-eastern countries killing designated individuals—all such have traditionally been considered acts of war. Certainly these would be treated as acts of war were they perpetrated on U.S. soil by another country.
This action is especially timely as war proponent John McCain is now advocating that we enforce a no fly zone over Syria—another act of war on yet another country. Moreover, we continue to provoke Iran in an attempt to get it to make a response worthy of our (or Israel’s) warplanes. Where do we get authority to bomb other countries at executive will? Certainly not from the people, or their Constitution.
Please encourage your three members of Congress to protect the Constitution. Are they on board with this warning to this president and all who follow him? Are they cosponsors of this resolution? No issue is clearer than this one as to whether they support the Constitution or do not. Congress alone should decide when and if our sons and daughters are placed in harm’s way. Anyone supporting this transfer of power from Congress should be removed from power by your vote this November or, if president and it happens again, impeached, regardless of political party, as soon as possible. After all it is about your liberty.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84&w=420&h=315]
Mar 1, 2012 | Economy, Globalism
By Dr. Harold Pease
Three of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates and the present occupant of the White House appear to be, or are favorable to, provoking Iran for a response worthy of a preemptive strike. Only Ron Paul, of our options for president, is decidedly against.
Forgive me for not believing that the world is flat, as did virtually everyone before Columbus and that Iraq had something to do with 9 /11, or that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction as President George W. Bush told us. Once again, I feel drawn into another Middle East black hole of lies, no end wars, death of our young men and women, loss of our treasure, and yet another Patriot Act which only limits the liberties of American citizens. History repeats itself, but why so soon?
It seems to hinge on whether Iran is that close to getting a deployable nuclear weapon and if it really matters if it does? In a compelling article by Charles Scaliger, “Is it Nuts to Let Iran Go Nuclear?” recently published in The New American, Scaliger argues that our interests in the Middle East “boil down to oil and Israel.”
Oil should not be a major concern to us as we have a plentiful supply on “Alaska’s North Slope and the east and west coasts of the United States.” Presently, and strangely, these resources are made off-limits to drilling by our own government resulting in prices at the pump soaring to $4.40 per gallon; so inept are we in utilizing our natural resources. The price of gasoline per gallon when Barack Obama took office was $1.87. Moreover, we have access to the “Athabasca tar sands of northern Alberta (the world’s second largest oil reserves)” but instead our president vetoes the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would relieve our price pain by bringing crude oil into the United States. Instead, we prefer the “added costs (political and military as well as economic) of continuing to ship in our oil from hostile countries on the other side of the world.” All this brings meaning to the old adage, “We looked and the enemy was us.”
The second reason for caring about the Middle East is Israel. But Israel has demonstrated for over 40 years that it is quite capable of defending herself. As a young boy, I remember well when six nations in 1967, each larger than Israel, attacked this tiny nation and she defeated them all in just six days. It was called the Six Day War. I was envious of her strength and valor as the U.S. at the time was mired down in Vietnam, fighting an enemy equal to the population of New York State and geographically the size of Missouri. We lost that war. They met similar odds against Israel with similar results in 1948 and in 1973. Scaliger reminds us that in 1981 the Israeli Air Force destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq and in 2007 a nuclear facility in Syria. If Iran attacked Israel, there is little doubt who would win. Israel does not need our onsite protection.
But what if Iran did get a nuclear weapon as feared? Scaliger reminds us that China had one in 1964 but did not have the delivery system to put it on American soil for thirty years. India took 25 years “to go from its first nuclear test to the actual production of nuclear weapons….” and it took their Pakistani neighbors 26 years. Why the long delay? “Developing nuclear weapons requires mastery of a number of intricate technologies, among them engineering centrifuge cascades….” Scaliger notes, “There is a very big difference between having a nuclear ‘device’ and having nuclear weapons.” Iran is “many years away from creating a deliverable nuclear weapon that could threaten Saudi Arabia or Israel and probably decades away from creating an ICBM or submarine-launched missile that could menace the American mainland.”
Don’t forget that all Middle Eastern countries know that a nuke on Israel means nukes on them from us, and we do not need to be present to deliver. Mutual Assure Destruction (MAD) kept the peace during the “Cold War,” it will in the Middle East for the same reason.
So why is there all the hype? I cannot answer fully but suggest that we look to who benefits from perpetual war—The Council on Foreign Relations in its bid for world dominance and the industries that make the weapons of war. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first to warn us of the military industrial complex; perhaps it is time to take his warning seriously.
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
Jan 24, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
The Republican Presidential Debate held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina finally brought to light a real divide, other than on Iran, between the candidates. The issue was The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama December 31, 2011, with Ron Paul and Rick Santorum viewing it as a threat to civil liberty and unconstitutional and Mitt Romney decidedly supporting it. Neither Rick Perry nor Newt Gingrich was asked to give their view. I could find nothing in print revealing a position for either on the extremely controversial law. This is very unfortunate as Sections 1031 and 1032 authorize the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial—even on U.S. soil. Since either could be the one exercising this power we should know where they stand.
Popularly referred to as the “indefinite detention act” the new law authorizes the military to arrest citizens suspected of being terrorists on the say-so of the president or the military alone. No real proof needed. It voids the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibiting the military any law enforcement authority on U.S. soil and voids much of the Bill of Rights as well. Americans now can be extradited to Guantanamo without benefit of trial, judge, or jury and held indefinitely—even tortured (see Section 1068). Activists on both the left and right vehemently oppose it, the one believing that it could eventually be twisted to apply to Occupy Wall Street participants and the other Tea Party participants. Each group has been referred to as terrorists by their enemies.
As mentioned the strongest support for The National Defense Authorization Act came from Mitt Romney. When asked if he would have signed the bill into law as had President Obama, Romney answered emphatically, “Yes, I would have.” He continued. “I do believe it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues, but you don’t have a right to join a group that has challenged America and has threatened killing Americans, has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.” That may be Governor, but only after they have been tried and convicted in accordance with the Bill of Rights with the assumption that they are innocent until proven guilty.
Romney recognized that such power exercised by one man could be abused “but I don’t think he (President Obama) will abuse this power, and if I were president I would not abuse this power,” he said. How naïve! This reminds me of the famous Richard Nixon statement with respect to his authorization to break into Watergate. “If the President does it, it is not a crime.” Therein lies the problem. President Obama may never abuse such power, nor may a “President” Romney, but somewhere down the line some president will have his enemies defined as terrorists and removed. The Constitution is written to protect us from that person. With opposition destroyed so would be liberty. No president should have such power. The Founding Fathers never allowed such trust in one person in the Constitution.
Such naivety is dangerous as is candidate Romney’s understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Both flaws should cast doubt on his ability to protect these documents and lead a free people. Moreover, on the subject of treason, which a civil trial would determine, the Constitution requires the “witness of two or more to an overt act;” clearly not the voice of just one man who could benefit personally by the action.
Fortunately to his credit, Rick Santorum chimed in. “A U.S. citizen who is detained as an enemy combatant should have the right to a lawyer and to appeal their case before a federal court.” Unfortunately, no other candidate was invited to respond to this important question, but it was obvious that Ron Paul was not going to be ignored on the subject. Although not asked, he was able to get into the debate that holding American citizens indefinitely is a breach of the U.S. judicial system. An Internet search revealed much public discourse from him, and only him, in opposition to this law.
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.
Jan 13, 2012 | Constitution, Globalism, Tea Party
Dr. Harold Pease
The Republican Presidential Primaries have obscured the President’s late December signing of the most damaging law to the Bill of Rights in my lifetime. Known as the National Defense Authorization Act the over 600 page, $662 billion law “would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, even those captured on U. S. soil, indefinitely” and without trial, on the say so of the military through the President alone. Moreover, even U.S. citizens could be removed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba against their will and deprived of their constitutional rights. In my commentary on this law in early December (see “New Bill Damages Bill of Rights and Could Target Americans for Military Detention,” LibertyUnderFire.org), I noted that the law gave no protection from a revolving definition of terrorism to anti-government, perhaps even Tea Partiers or Occupy Wall Street folks.
The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duty, heretofore rendered by civil authorities, is unconscionable in a free society. Our only hope was a promised Presidential veto which did not happen. Therefore, what follows are details on how the new law emasculates the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus found in Article I, Section 9 recognized that some day war might exist on our soil and that the accused had rights that might have to be momentarily delayed until recognized civilian authority could reasonably attend to them. It allowed this delay in only two circumstances “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Section 9 is a list of powers specifically denied Congress; nor were they given to the President in Article II. This strongly suggests no federal role outside these two parameters in the delay of justice—certainly no military role. The removal of any civilian role and the carting off of U.S. citizens to a foreign country without benefit of judge or jury obliterates this right.
Amendment 4 deals with searches and seizures and reads in part “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation…” Warrants give civil authority the power to arrest only when the reason for the search (probable cause) has been reviewed and authorized, normally by an elected judge, who has given an oath to uphold the Constitution. He stands between the plaintiff and the defendant as the protector of Constitutional law. There is no role for the military even with a President’s authorization. Tell this to the young soldiers just following orders. Freedom dies when this amendment dies.
Amendment 5 has several parts that are affected by the new law but space limits my coverage to just a couple. Infamous or serious crimes mandate a grand jury, twelve or more citizens to evaluate the evidence before proceeding, which will not exist in a military arrest and extradition to Guantanamo Bay process. Moreover, one cannot “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Due process is the civilian judicial system. The amendment does have a short-term exclusion “when in actual service in time of war or public danger” but the National Defense Authorization Act is a permanent exclusion rather than a temporary one and this brief exclusion should only hold when the enemy has brought war to our soil.
Amendment 6 deals with criminal court procedures where “the accused shall enjoy the right to … a public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.” The new law destroys the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. There will be no “impartial jury,” no “obtaining witnesses in his favor,” no “counsel in his defense,” and Cuba is hardly within “the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
Finally, the new law will obliterate Amendment 8 for those the President and his military define as terrorists. The protection against cruel and unusual punishment for them ends and torture is justified. Does anyone really think that the military will care about excessive fines or bail either?
Sadly both parties, despite their oath to preserve the Constitution, are responsible for this bill. There was bipartisan support for it. Unbelievably, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate from either party to speak out against it.
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.
Jan 4, 2012 | Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
The day before the Iowa primary the Des Moines Register reported that 41% of Iowans still remained undecided with respect to their choice for president which strongly indicates that no one has yet “touched” a majority of the Republican Party—far from it! Nor did Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum together, each with 25% of the vote, capture even a simple majority. Third place went to Ron Paul with 22%, who was short only 4,000 votes from taking first place. So, it appears the Republicans are not enthused by anyone. This aside, let us look at the race from another perspective, what I call the negative index. Who was the most negatively targeted presidential candidate, but still had good numbers, perhaps the “real” winner?
To the question, “Who is least likely to win the Republican Party nomination and defeat President Barack Obama? The answer was, and is, always Congressman Ron Paul. “Ron Paul is OK but he is not electable.” Who said so! Virtually every radio or television commentator or pundit from MSNBC to Fox News has so said. The chorus includes virtually every columnist and major newspaper in the country as well. Probably no presidential candidate in our history has had more organized opposition. Whether you like Ron Paul or not the fact remains that despite the intensity of this opposition, over one in five Iowans voted for him. Moreover, a vast majority of the funding from Super PACs was targeted against Paul and Newt Gingrich. Newt tumbled to fourth place and Paul to third but one wonders what might have happened if Romney or Santorum had received similar negative—even hostile—coverage.
As a presidential candidate four years ago Paul was treated dismissively, ignored or undermined. Such is still so, supporters maintain, but his ranks increased and showed themselves to be exceptionally loyal none-the-less and less tolerant of this treatment. Still victories, like coming in second to Michele Bachmann by less than a hundred votes in the Iowa Straw Vote several months ago, were ignored by the establishment press. More recently others noticed that he received only 90 seconds out of an hour and a half debate several weeks ago and began to ask why. Such slights were subtle but numerous. Prior to the Caucus it was indeed difficult to find any favorable commentary by any major news source outside Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Channel.
Recently when polls showed the possibility of a Ron Paul victory in Iowa fellow candidates and political pundits collectively intensified their negative treatment, all accused him of being out of step with Republican foreign policy. One commentator went so far as to say that if Paul won the Iowa Caucus, the Caucus should not be treated as seriously in the future. Newt Gingrich took time to call Ron Paul “a dangerous man” in a speech attempting to explain his poor showing of only 13% in the Caucus, nine percentage points under that of Paul.
Why the almost universal opposition? Perhaps in part it comes from the Council on Foreign Relations, the most influential special interest group in the United States. It’s magazine Foreign Affairs, advertised as “the most influential periodical in print,” is considered direction for its over 2100 members and thousands more readers. What suggestions are published in this publication become U.S. foreign policy. The April 2011 edition housed an article “The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism” an article essentially defining The Tea Party movement as dangerous and a threat to world governance. In that article it acknowledged having to deal with the movement but concluded that, at the time it had two arms, one represented by Sara Palin, the other by Ron Paul. Of the two they felt that the “Palinites” could be molded properly in foreign policy, which they dominate regardless of which party comes to power, but under the “Paulites” they would have no voice thus he had to be resisted at all costs. In other words, they could not control Ron Paul. With a majority of the key media players being CFR members and falling in line, opposition to Presidential Candidate Paul is more understandable.
Whether one loves or hates Paul, probably no presidential candidate in our history has had more long term organized opposition than he and with such he still was able to garner 22% of the Iowa vote with no one receiving more than 3 percentage points higher than he. Given the negative index it is amazing that he is still a viable candidate (probably anyone else would have been crushed into nonexistence) and perhaps with such opposition factored in, the actual winner of the Iowa Caucus.
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.
Nov 12, 2011 | Economy, Globalism, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Some protesters say the Occupy Wall Street mother city should move to Oakland, California as the New York branch has not shown the “stomach” needed for the more violent form of confrontation necessary for “real” change and the weather is better for maintaining the movement through the winter months. Others say that a move to Washington D. C. is critical as the Congress is the only real agent of change, and Occupy should assemble, like everybody else, in front of the capital, as did the Tea Party with their million July 4th 2010. “President Obama, Can you hear us now?” repeated three times with added emphasis each time.
But those who study special interest groups know that Occupy Wall Street needs to stay right where it is, as within blocks of Zuccotti Park, where they are assembled, is the most powerful special interest group in the United States. Unbeknown to the protesters, they are located near the nerve center of U.S. foreign policy. Important visitors to the U.S. usually make at least two scheduled visits while in the United States, one to 58 East 68th Street, New York City, the other to the White House. Yes, this one organization (which I will not identify just yet) provides at least a third of all cabinet members and the Secretary of State of every administration since the 1930s. It has, and always will, until known more fully to the American people for its vast influence over both major political parties, provided all ambassadors to Russia, China and the United Nations as well. Its members fill most of the seats on the Federal Reserve Board, from whom most of our fiscal policy is determined.
My Occupy friends, you have the power to bring attention and exposure to this semi- secret governance. You already want an audit of the Federal Reserve, and these members come from the organization just down the street. This organization in question cares nothing about you or your causes, and they are more responsible for your anger than any other single organization. Can you at least schedule a march to the address cited above and have discussion about this influence in your meetings? In your attempt to occupy colleges and cities throughout the land, would you please check out the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), not just from its sources, which you would expect to be favorable, but from the very numerous other sources fully documenting the power they hold over our media and government?
Start with conclusions three and four of the three-year, 1954 Reece Congressional Committee Report issued by the House of Representatives that identified the CFR as the special interest group of large foundations, specifically the Carnage Endowment, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rhodes Scholarship Trust (p. 169 and p. 176). “The power of the individual large foundation,” they wrote, was “enormous.” “It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them elements of thought control. It can exert immense influence on educational institutions, upon the educational processes, and upon educators. It is capable of invisible coercion through the power of its purse. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts and courses of action through the process of granting and withholding foundation awards upon a selective basis, and by designing and promulgating projects which propel researchers in selected directions.”
After noting the power of just one large foundation such as those cited above, the House report continued, “This power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in the social sciences and education… It has ramifications in almost every phase of research and education, in communications and even in government” (p. 16).
They noted that the productions, of what has become Wall Street’s special interest group, the Council on Foreign Relations, “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).
So my young friends, consider the possibility that you might just be a ploy to help these folks further some globalistic objective—perhaps the collapse of the economy in preparation for some world currency more easily managed by them. Extreme? Perhaps! But you are good at thinking out of the box so don’t move your headquarter and do make a visit just down the street to the real source of your concerns.
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.
