Dec 17, 2011 | Healthcare
By Katie and Dr. Harold Pease
The country is now 15 trillion dollars in debt. Many erroneously believe that the only way to solve this problem is to increase taxes rather than to cut spending. Judging by the extreme laws passed the last few years, more recently the Christmas Tree Tax unsuccessfully advocated by the President this winter, a tax on Christmas could come true. Let’s follow the Ghost of Christmas Future and see what such a bill might look like.
Congress recently discovered how unfair Christmas really is, as some get more presents than others. To correct this injustice, a 1,500-page law called the Christmas Equalization Tax is working its way through judiciary committees in both the House and Senate and will be on the floor of both houses very soon.
Under the new law, to begin next year, shoppers buying gifts for loved ones are required to fill out Form 13,207, The Affidavit of Gift Recipients, indicating said recipients by name, social security number, and birth date, and completing a five-page information sheet for each named recipient. Retailers then fill out Form 13,208, The Affidavit of Christmas Gifts, and forward the information to the IRS for national list tabulation.
The total allotment per Christmas per person is 20 gifts. Totals exceeding this number in intervals of 10 will be assessed a gradual value added tax up to 70% of the value of the gifts in excess. Overall value is also taxed up to 100% for any total exceeding $400. This information is submitted on The Affidavit of Excess Christmas Value (Form 13,209). If you have problems following the formulas, so do the lawyers who made them up. However it does help create many jobs for those in that industry, and ensure employment for them for decades to come in their efforts to help us keep the rules straight or in resulting litigation.
The amount collected will be given to the New Organization to Fight Underprivileged Nations (NOFUN). This organization supports those suffering from Christmas Deprivation Syndrome, a debilitating mental disorder recently discovered by psychologists to inhibit the development of ambition and drive, drastically reducing self-esteem, self-actualization, and quality of life.
Recipients must fill out a simple 10-page form entitled The Underprivileged Christmas Affidavit (Form 13,210), which allows participants to identify favorite gifts. Unlike the shoppers, benefit recipients would not be limited to 20 gifts. No doubt they have been “gift deprived” long enough and compensation must be made. This is the only way to guarantee fairness and equality for all people across the entire lifespan.
Currently, those applying for benefits from NOFUN do so by contacting their local Human Services Agency. Lawmakers are uncertain whether the program will remain with HSA or be turned over to ACORN, or some other reputable organization already in existence. The more likely option is to create a whole new department to oversee the program. The necessary “monitoring,” which certainly would create much needed employment to help stimulate the economy, would require at least 15,000 new federal employees.
The excess tax is thought to be sufficient for funding the under-gifted, but critics are skeptical about its ability to fund the 15,000 federal agents as well. Some say that unsympathetic shoppers will lower the number of gifts they buy to 20 per person, thus avoiding the excess tax altogether, and leaving the taxpayer to fund the $37 billion for both the “under-gifted” and the federal employees.
Proponents say this “disinformation” comes from in-compassionate right-wing extremists, who are simply in the pockets of evil money-mongering capitalists who oppose the individual gift limits. Proponents assure that the cost will be covered by the seventh stimulus package, the 3,500 paged bill now on the desk of your Congressmen and women.
Additional legislation on the table is to tax excessive tree height, Christmas decorations, and turkey size. Levels of happiness could also be taxed as soon as technology is able to measure it. Some even have suggested making the holiday illegal imposing stiff fines on violators instead to raise money. Lawmakers hope to expand the legislation to Hanukkah next year for the same reasons. So many injustices to alleviate, so little time.
Merry Christmas, my liberty loving friends.
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. Katie is his daughter-in-law. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Dec 9, 2011 | Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Civil libertarians and constitutional buffs are angrier with the Federal Government now than at any time since the Bush Patriot Act was pushed onto the American people ten years ago. Buried deep within the over 600 page, $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act is language that “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 Americans could be removed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba against their will and deprived of their constitutional rights.
The fury has to do with U.S. citizenship. Originally Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, who sponsored the bill, did not exempt U.S. citizens—a serious omission which dumps sizable portions of Amendments 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill of Rights. Senators Rand Paul, Dianne Feinstein and others demanding a citizen exclusion proposed amendments to do so, all of which were rejected. Senator Feinstein noted that her goal “was to ensure the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected
terrorists.” The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, following the Civil War, forbade the U.S. military from performing law enforcement functions on American soil. The American Civil Liberties Union was also blunt. “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.” When asked if it were possible for an American to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, John McCain, a co-author of the bill, said yes. Senator Lindsey Long was more blunt. “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”
Finally, Dianne Feinstein successfully got Senate colleagues to accept a weakened version of the same thing, “nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.” Even while getting this clarification Senator Levin was still arguing, “that the June 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely.” So, since it was so difficult to get an exclusion for Americans, and the co-authors of the bill, Senators Levin and McCain, say that it does include U.S. citizens as well. Why would a weak exclusion give civil libertarians any comfort? It doesn’t.
Some things are very clear. The terms “terrorists” and “affiliates” are not adequately defined, the President is given way too much power, and it violates the U.S. Constitution upon which everyone voting has sworn to uphold. It is hard to trust the government’s precise definition of terrorist when Vice President Joe Biden, a few weeks ago, referred to Tea Partiers as terrorists and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a few months prior to this referred to them as mobsters (a term also implying a threat to society). What guarantee do we have that the “new” enemy does not simply rotate to anyone defined as “anti-government,” citizen or not?
The measure places too much power and trust in the office of the President which has not proved particularly trustworthy in the past with respect to the Constitution and civil liberty. Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the stroke of a pen, detained thousands of Japanese Americans in “relocation camps” in World War II on the basis of race and potential terrorism alone. Jose Padilla, allegedly an affiliate of al Qaeda, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago for having plans to detonate a “dirty bomb,” was tortured and confined, without benefit of a lawyer for three years, by then President George W. Bush; all this within the borders of the United States. No actual evidence of a “dirty bomb” was ever produced, nor was Padilla ever charged with a crime. Two other Americans, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, had similar torture experiences as did Padilla but with less time in solitary confinement, again without charges. (See details in the December 5 issue of The New American). Ultimately, with no evidence to support their confinement, they were set free.
And if Americans are sent to Guantanamo Bay under this law, how much confidence can we have that if found innocent they would be set free, especially given President Barack Obama’s recent assertion, cited in the above reference, that were military commissions to find them innocent they still “would never be set free from prison.” This is so wrong! Why should we have confidence in any president to not use this power as seemeth him good?
The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duties here to for rendered by civil authorities is unconscionable in a free society. Ninety-three senators voted for this bill. Only seven understood the Constitution well enough to vote no. Should President Obama sign this bill into law, I will follow with an column on how it emasculates Amendments 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill of Rights. Until then pass this column along to others. It is your liberty 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.
Dec 4, 2011 | Economy, Healthcare, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Be grateful for your right to criticize the government, whether as a Tea Party Patriot or as Occupy Wall Street. This can be lost. It helps to remember that we can vote to make things much worse if we continue to travel further into socialism. Take Austria in 1938 for example, as related by eyewitness Kitty Werthmann, whose account is herein summarized. They too voted for socialism to end dire economic conditions and died as a nation for so doing.
With unemployment and interest rates at 25%, the country was in deep depression and “people were going from house to house begging for food.” Kitty remembers her mother cooking a big kettle of soup and baking bread to feed her staving neighbors, about “30 daily.” The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party, two conflicting varieties of socialism, were fighting each other. The Germans, under Adolf Hitler, promised an environment of no crime, full employment, a high standard of living, and happiness. Austrians “became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.” The Austrian government could not deliver these conditions, so 98% of the population, believing the lies, “voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.” When this happened, the people danced for joy in the streets for three days.
Almost immediately law and order returned and “everyone was employed” in government created jobs, but what followed under fascist socialism was pure hell. In return for believing the empty promises, education was nationalized and freedom of religion in public education ended. Crosses in the predominantly Catholic schools were “replaced with Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag” and prayer, replaced with singing praises of Germany. “Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance.” If their children were not present, parents were threatened first with “a stiff letter of warning,” then with a $300.00 fine, and then with jail. The day consisted of two hours of political indoctrination followed by sports and fun. The children loved it but “lived without religion.” Having no moral compass, illegitimacy flourished. “Unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.”
Men and women had equal rights under Hitler. They found out what that meant when workloads were equal, making no distinction on the basis of sex. When the war came in 1939, the draft was compulsory for both sexes and women served on the front lines as well. Many became “emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.” Kitty Werthmann continues, “When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.”
Under Hitler’s socialism everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing. Healthcare was socialized as well, free to everyone. “Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.” Of course, to pay for this benefit for the less productive, “the tax rate had to be raised to 80% of our income.”
When the war started, a food bank was established. “All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.” Socialism now controlled life and death by controlling who ate.
Small businesses were intentionally over-regulated out of business leaving the government owned large businesses the only ones existing. “We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished.” Moreover, “farmers were told what to produce, and how to produce it.”
Worse yet, finding it so easy to kill six million Jews, Hitler next moved on the mentally retarded as not having value and liquidated them as well. To prevent the population from revolting, guns had long since been registered, then outlawed, and freedom of speech ended as well. “Anyone who said something against the government was taken away.”
How close are we to having implemented some of the above socialism by false promises, as did they, too close? No wonder Tea Party Patriots have said no further. It’s not a matter of gridlock for them, but liberty. So far both groups can criticize the government, but the slippery slope for the end of such is at our backside.
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 26, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Rick Perry views social security as a Ponzi scheme, a state issue, and even unconstitutional. Mitt Romney argues for its’ constitutionality because it has been around for so long. Who is right? Two views prevail, original intent and past practice.
Original intent, what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, largely based upon natural law, history, and their experience with governmental abuses of the past, was the only intended interpretation by the Founding Fathers. This was the way the Constitution was interpreted until the Progressive Era in the 20th Century, primarily the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. Thereafter past practice gained dominance. But when a Supreme Court ruling is rendered outside original intent (a rogue decision), other laws may stem from this departure and the departure in time becomes the new base for additional departures such that, again over time, what is constitutional is opposite of what was constitutional. Have I lost you?
For example, prior to this moment there is no constitutional authority to force a person to purchase anything as a condition of citizenship. But if the Supreme Court rules National Healthcare constitutional it would be a rogue decision making constitutional the government’s insistence that you purchase health insurance and upon this precedence other things as well. In time, perhaps healthy foods will be required or only green-fueled automobiles. Who knows where the precedent could lead us. This is called past practice and potentially could destroy original intent and freedom.
Social Security started in 1935 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal program that basically extracted payroll taxes from those employed and matching donations from their employers. Theoretically these funds were to be held by the federal government and returned as old age insurance. The theory was based on the notion that the people would not secure their future without being forced to do so by government mandate.
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution identifies the four areas where the legislative branch can make law as being: 1) to tax, 2) to pay the debts, 3) to provide for the general welfare and 4) to provide for the common defense. The rest of this long sentence with 18 paragraphs was qualifiers on these four areas. The power to tax had but one qualifier, the different types of taxes had to be uniform. There were no qualifiers on “to pay the debts.” General welfare and common defense each had eight qualifiers so as to prevent the federal government from using these broad phrases to justify anything it wished. So, if social security is not on the list, or even remotely related to any of the qualifiers that are, how can the government get away with mandating the extraction of someone’s pay and force the same from his employer? It did so by calling it a tax (a rogue decision).
Original intent says that the power to tax is limited to the legitimate purposes of government as listed. Simply put, government does not have the power to tax for powers that it does not have. This was the most extreme overreach of governmental power to that date in U.S. History. But this was ignored by the Supreme Court that was at the time threatened by President Roosevelt’s Court Packing Bill that would have brought the Court under the control of the Executive Branch because the Court had already ruled as unconstitutional much of his New Deal program.
In Helvering v. Davis, social security was upheld as a tax because, “The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way (301 U.S. 619, 1937).” This presented a thorny problem not yet resolved 75 plus years later. The money taken under the guise of taxes was not set aside for the giver for a future date but just added to the general fund and spent. When these people do retire they will have to depend upon the resources of future generations to cover what was promised.
A second case, Steward Machine Company v. Davis, resolved the same day by a one vote majority, argued that it “is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare (301 U.S., 548, 1937).” In other words, we will not limit ourselves to existing qualifiers on general welfare as intended by the Founders (a second rogue decision). The constitutional procedure for adding something to the list was by way of Article V but this too was ignored for perceived expediency.
So, who is right? Rick Perry uses the correct interpretation of the Constitution, original intent, and Mitt Romney uses past practice, which over time can destroy the Constitution as I have shown. The problem could be resolved by having social security added to the Constitution by way of an amendment, as it should have been in 1935, but this time have it earmarked for the recipient so that it would actually be there for him.
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 16, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare, Immigration, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold W. Pease
Concerned that the GOP presidential debates were not focusing upon issues close to the Tea Party Movement, more especially the candidates’ views on the U. S. Constitution, from which we have drifted in recent decades, and the Federal Reserve, a non-governmental private organization which determines the value of every dollar in our pocket, the movement teamed up with CNN for yet another debate, this one in Orlando, Florida on September 12. CNN commentator, Wolf Bitzer, narrated taking questions from the audience, the Internet, and from Tea Party groups assembled in parts scattered throughout the nation. All questions and questionnaires appeared to be pre-selected by CNN except for those of Mr. Bitzer, which were at least a third of those asked.
If these two areas were to be more thoroughly covered Tea Party members had to be sorely disappointed. With respect to the Federal Reserve created by Congress in 1913 allowing the Central Bankers to regulate the economy in order to prevent recessions and depressions in the future, the only question asked was with respect to auditing the Federal Reserve. All seemed at least luke-warm to doing so with Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann having the strongest positions toward doing so. These two alone were for returning the power to Congress as designated by the Constitution, and where it was before giving in to the bankers. Rick Santorum wanted the bankers to remain in control but spoke of returning to “an earlier version” of how it was run. Rick Perry was the most dubious on the subject calling it “treason” if “you are allowing the Federal Reserve to be used for political purposes…” but he was not for eliminating it. Mitt Romney made the strongest case for leaving it with the bankers, as “Congress cannot possibly do it.” It is very unlikely that we will get back to the Constitution on this issue from anyone other than Bachmann or Paul.
There were no specific questions on getting back to the Constitution itself. Bachmann used the word constitution twice as much as did anyone else with Paul second and Perry third. Most made no mention of such a need. Perry, however, had clarity on the 10th Amendment and spoke of it as state’s rights yet, as governor, he had no problem forcing, by executive order, the inoculation of young girls 12 years and older with a vaccine against cervical cancer without any attempt to go through the state legislature for approval. He now admits that it was wrong to do so without legislative authorization. Bachmann denied even state government the right to force such action with or without legislative approval.
All seemed opposed to Obamacare but only Bachmann on clear constitutional grounds. “No state has the constitutional right to force a person, as a condition of citizenship, to buy a product or service against their will. It’s unconstitutional whether it’s the state government (referring to Romneycare in Massachusetts) or whether the federal government. The only way to eradicate Obamacare is to pull it out by the root and branch, to fully repeal it…! Because 2012 is it!!!” She added amid great applause, “This is the election that is going to decide if we have socialized medicine or not!!” Romney and Newt Gingrich would end the “threat” by executive order exempting every state, which itself is a constitutionally questionable solution as executive orders are not to be legislative in nature. Bachmann reminded them that the president after them could again, by executive order, restore the unpopular legislation. Romney’s only reference to something being unconstitutional was with respect to Obamacare but he quickly followed that he “favored a health savings account,” which ironically, on the federal level is just as unconstitutional.
On illegal immigration none of them were convincing that they would end it. Perry, with the most practical real life experience with the issue, seemed willing to “put boots on the ground” as president because Constitutionally it was the federal governments first responsibility to protect its people but he as governor encouraged illegal immigration with tax-payer money to illegals for college expenses. Jon Huntsman gave driving permits to illegals in Utah. Romney and Bachmann opposed any money going to “those who broke the law” but neither stated constitutional reasons. Paul was not given opportunity to respond on this question nor was Herman Cain.
On the basis of the Tea Party Presidential Debate, which was to emphasize constitutional themes in dealing with the realities of our time, Bachmann and Paul were the clear winners with Perry a distant, but dubious third; Bachmann even promising to return the Constitution to the White House as her last comment. I could detect no reason to believe that the other five candidates for president would be any better than George W. Bush in getting us back to this document or even seriously reigning in the Federal Reserve. It is your liberty. Pass this along.
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.
Jul 23, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. It’s called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
Think of this relationship as an ideal marriage, where neither partner is subservient to the other. The duties in a relationship are gradually assigned to one partner or the other. Neither feels beneath the other, rather they are a team.
Though this was the ideal, the Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington articulated this when he warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure that this fire does not spread too far and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire under control. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which outlines all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. In essence the States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” at the turn of the century because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? We would have had “brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed Federal Government refrained from their natural inclination to take more power, health care reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area. Instead they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all. Of course, this would have necessitated an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring ratification by “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60% of the people did not want this bill, the Constitution would have protected us from the federal government’s self empowerment.
To protect federalism the Founders did two things. First, Senators were to be selected by state legislatures so the U. S. Senate would be protective of state concerns. All law required the approval of the House of Representatives, the peoples’ representatives, and the Senate, the states’ representatives. That is why we have two branches of government to make law—two perspectives. The Seventeenth Amendment, insisting that the people also elect U. S. Senators, destroyed this protection. States thereafter were left unprotected.
Second, the structure of the U. S. Constitution limited and defined federal power leaving all power not specifically defined with the states as per the 10th Amendment. When Congress fails to defend this amendment and federalism as intended, it falls upon governors and their attorney generals to take the more confrontational approach as has Arizona over illegal immigration, or the 26 states presently suing the federal government over mandated national healthcare, or Idaho who took an even stronger stance on the same subject. “It ain’t happening here!” “See you in court.”
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
