May 20, 2013 | Globalism, Immigration
Br Dr. Harold Pease
Almost two decades ago I wrote a paper that outlined the process by which the European Union transcended from the European Coal and Steel Community to the European Economic Community to the European Community to the European Union. Never were the people told that the intended outcome—unification—was to slowly take away their sovereignty. The paper began with a call from General Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, for “The United States of Europe” (“An Early Champion of Unity,” U.S. News and World Report, Oct 15, 1990, p. 65). I documented how the Marshall Plan money was handed out, not so much to prevent communism from making progress in Europe, as we had been told, but to consolidate Europe first economically than politically into a single country.
I did not publish the paper, although based upon numerous sources, it seemed out of reach for most Americans at the time. Imagine telling people that a group of wealthy Wall Street elites, through the use of tax-payer money, had something to do with the consolidation of Europe into a single country and planned the same for North America with the unification, first economically than political, of Canada, Mexico and the United States into a single country known as the North American Union, with a single currency called the “Amero” Dollar. Who would believe it until now? I was young in my career and decidedly not anxious to step too far out of political correctness.
I am now established in my career and have the respect of colleagues’ so such is more easily believed. I have also seen that foreign policy never changes from democratic to republican presidents with respect to foreign aid, military adventurism, perpetual war, the continued enlargement of the power of the United Nations, and never ending illegal immigration on our southern border.
I told my students 25 years ago that there would never be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration because the Council on Foreign Relations, from which all Secretaries of State, U.N. Ambassadors, Russian and Chinese Ambassadors, and a third of all Presidential Cabinets are drawn, is a strong advocate of globalism. They are easily the most powerful special interest group in the United States and they are clearly for open borders and trans-national agreements.
Extending amnesty in the Immigration Act of 1965 did not work because we did not seal the border. It just encouraged more to come. When offered again by President Ronald Reagan in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, with the promise that we would never need it again, I issued my warning that despite the promise to finally end illegal immigration we would repeat this a few decades down the road. And now here we are. I make the same promise thirty years from now. Those that have undue influence upon both the democratic and republican parties—the globalists—have no intention of actually sealing the border.
China built the Great Wall to keep barbarians out of their country centuries ago without bulldozers, giant trucks, cranes or any other heavy lifting and earth moving technologies that we have today. The truth is that we do not want to do so.
The truth is that The Council on Foreign Relations wants a generation or two of illegal immigration to help Mexico gain some measure of economic parity with Canada and the United States before assimilation can be a reality. Illegals tend to send money home and often retire in Mexico. The CFR 2005 publication, “Building a North American Community,” outlined “the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America.” They seek “cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America.” The featured article in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs, the Council’s principle publication, has author Jerome Corsi identifying NAFTA, The North America Free Trade Agreement, as being “the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”
This best explains the semi-secret meeting of George W. Bush in the somewhat obscure location of Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vincente Fox to formulate the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” popularly referred to as SPP. Two years later in Montebello, Quebec, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper again came together with U.S. President George W. Bush. In that meeting Fox News reporter Bret Baier asked each, “Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union?” None denied it (Permanent Amnesty, Temporary Border, The New American, April 22, 2013, p.15). The very controversial Bush planned Super Highway running through the mid-west, allowing unrestricted use by both neighbors, seems to be currently on the back burner, but President Barack Obama does support open borders and trans-national agreements both of which undermine national sovereignty and strengthen regional governance.
Will the so-called “Gang of 8,” and their 800-page immigration reform bill that seems to parallel “Building a North American Community” stop illegal immigration after we have extended amnesty once again? No, because there is a force greater than they, The Council on Foreign Relations of which John McCain, one of the “Gang of 8,” is a member as is Vice President Joe Biden, and past and present Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The CFR plan is to make illegal legal. Should Americans go with their plan? No! Not unless there is enforceable resolve from both political parties to end all federal benefits enticing illegals to come to the United States in the first place and a “real wall” absolutely and totally backing this.
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 29, 2012 | Constitution, Healthcare, Immigration, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
What if the Supreme Court became an arbitrator trying to please both sides rather than “letting the cards fall where they may,” ruling alone on constitutionality as designed? In the end neither side is really happy and the Court’s function is blurred or discredited. What if preserving its own image became more important to justices than defending the Constitution? Or worse, what if the Court forced a round peg into a square hole, so to speak, to force a decision not intended, or argued for by either side therefore creating new law—a function of Congress alone? What if all of the above were in one decision such as with the recent Supreme Court decision on National Healthcare? How can the states or people keep the Supreme Court in line with the U. S. Constitution? The answer is in the Constitution as understood by the Founders.
Our constitution first divided power between the states and the federal government with the powers given to the federal government listed, defined, and limited and those of the states left undefined and not listed, as per Amendment 10. This is known as federalism and is sometimes thought of as a marriage—shared and equal—neither the state nor federal government the master nor slave of the other.
The portion of power left to the federal government is then divided between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The down side of federalism (our marriage) is that the umpire is one of the three branches of government at the federal level and as such is likely to rule in favor of a strengthened federal government were it to arbitrate between the states and the federal government. It is equivalent to two adversarial teams playing basketball and the referee is a member of the federal team. The balancing component to this, potentially lopsided division of power, is the doctrine of nullification.
Is it constitutional to say no to the federal government when a state believes a Supreme Court decision to be unconstitutional? One having a limited knowledge of the Constitution would say no and cite Article VI, the supremacy clause, as the end of the matter. On matters listed in the Constitution he would be right, but this time the Supreme Court has ruled on something where it lacks authority to rule, clearly a state issue, and as such, if left unchallenged, certainly damages, perhaps even nullifies, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which leaves to the states all areas not delegated to the federal government. This understanding pre-existed any law on health by a couple of centuries.
To curb the umpire (Supreme Court), should he clearly favor one side, the Founders supported the doctrine of nullification. Rather than sue the federal government for having exceeded its constitutional power, the 26 states so doing should instead have followed the Idaho example and in essence said “not in our state.” The effort to grow the federal government beyond the listed bounds would have been unenforceable if enough states did so.
Such has two historical precedents. Thomas Jefferson in 1798 attempted to nullify The Alien and Sedition Acts created by his Federalist Party predecessors. These raised residency requirements for citizenship from 5 years to 14. Moreover, the law allowed the president to deport “dangerous” foreigners during times of peace and imprison them during times of hostilities. Anyone defaming or impeding government officials, including the president, was subject to heavy fines and/or imprisonment. Jeffersonians objected on the basis of the unreasonable empowerment of the president and the attack on the First Amendment, particularly freedoms of speech and press. They too said, “no will do.” Because nullification was better understood as part of the “balance formula” of the Constitution and because the offending law was designed to last only until 1801, (Federalists did not want it used against them should they lose the next election), nullification stayed in place.
Next to use the Nullification Doctrine was South Carolina with respect to the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” believed by them, and neighboring states, to be unconstitutional. Opponents to it declared it to be “null and void” within their border and threatened to take South Carolina out of the Union if Washington attempted to collect custom duties by force. President Andrew Jackson prepared to invade the state. A compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually lowered the tariff to acceptable levels and the issue faded away.
One might argue that the Civil War ended the Nullification Doctrine but the real root cause of the Civil War was the practice of slavery, (I am aware that the immediate cause was keeping the union together), which practice made a mockery of the whole liberty concept. The slave issue pre-dated the Declaration of Independence and I would need another column to show why the war did not exempt the nullification argument.
Critical to the success of the Nullification Doctrine is the number of states committed to it. Obviously one state or a few, unable to prevail at least a majority to follow, would be easily overpowered by an overwhelming federal government power. But if the 26 states, who sued the federal government on the mandate issue, now said we will not comply, the federal government would be forced to find a face-saving exit on the issue and back down. That is the final constitutional check on overreaching federal power—the one least talked about and understood. If, at this time, the states do not care enough to preserve their power they deserve not to have it, or 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 weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 22, 2012 | Constitution, Immigration, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
What follows are six major changes to traditional constitutional procedure that have happened the past six months, none of which through the change process required in Article V of the Constitution, but each will adversely affect the distribution of power in this country and how we define liberty in the future. This time period could very well be the most radical six-month period of constitutional change in U.S. history. Should we be concerned with, or worse, frightened by, our own government?
We begin on New Years Eve with the President signing into law the 600-plus pages National Defense Authorization Act which, among other things, authorizes the military to seize and transport U.S. citizens from U.S. soil to Guantanamo Bay on the presumption that they are terrorists. The threat of potential indefinite incarceration without recourse to lawyer, judge and trial is unconscionable in a free society. The new law ends the writ of habeas corpus found in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution and Posse Comitatus protection (protection from ones own armed forces). It also lays waste to much of the Bill of Rights, notably Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8. Its intimidation potential will impact free speech, press, and assembly as well. Local law enforcement is essentially bi-passed.
Then in February, The National Operations Center (NOC), a part of The Department of Homeland Security, released its “Media Monitoring Initiative” giving itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media, primarily Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. So far they appear less concerned with the information on the average Joe or Jane, although all is kept just in case, as they deal with unmanaged journalists and bloggers. These are defined as those who use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed,” such as myself. Targeted are those who post articles, comments, or other information to popular web outlets. It is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
In March we saw and heard Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, each, in testimony given to the Senate Armed Services Committee, inferred that the authority that they depended upon for military purposes came not from Congress, as required in the U. S. Constitution, but from unelected UN or NATO authorities. Disbelieving what he heard, Senator Jeff Sessions repeatedly inquired in different ways only to be given the same answer.
Also, on March 16, President Barack Obama issued his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order authorizing the Executive department to take-over, in case of a national emergency, 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. Nor was it explained why the president needed near dictatorial power in a national emergency and had not in crisis heretofore or when this dictatorial power would end. The Order makes The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council the policy-making forum—not Congress.
In June, frustrated by his inability to get through Congress a law on immigration he favored, and tired of making law the constitutional way, President Barack Obama, openly defied Congress and the Constitution on June 16, 2012, by ordering a like measure to that previously defeated, implemented anyway. In a news conference he outlined the general parameters of his “Dream Act” but specifics came from a six-page Memorandum from John Morton, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (See FEA Number 306-112-0026), to enforcement personnel, which essentially advised ignoring existing immigration law. Although our empathy goes out to the children of illegals raised in the United States, is it now permissible for future presidents to make law and defy the authority of Congress?
Finally, despite the clear wordage of the Constitution that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” the Supreme Court essentially wrote new law by its ruling, in June, on National Health Care. Even Justice Anthony M. Kennedy referred to it as “vast Judicial overreaching” or “Judicial legislation.” So is it now okay if the Court attempts “to force on the nation a new act?”
So, with respect to these six major changes in traditional constitutional procedure occurring the last six months, should we be concerned with, or frightened of, our own government? How can we not be? Think of all the power taken by, or hand delivered to, the office of President. What event awaits us when such will be used? Unless Congress is willing to reverse the above six items, it may very well be making itself, and the Constitution, irrelevant. You can help by refusing to support any candidate who is not aware of, and is actively against, any of the six constitutional procedure changes noted above.
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 25, 2012 | Constitution, Immigration
Dr. Harold Pease
Normally I do not write on talk show topics, wherein there exists extensive coverage (how be it little depth), I prefer introducing topics missed or under covered by the establishment news, but too few seem to care about the Constitutional fallout from the President’s most unconstitutional executive order/directive ever. Have we no Constitutionalists left in either party?
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the Constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, yet another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations, when contested, of that law—a division of power held “sacred” until the last few decades. The Constitution reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”(Article I, Sec. I).
The Executive Branch has no authority to make law—any law!!!! Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently passed law of Congress, where that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Presidential Directives, a type of Executive Order, differs only in defining how that law, passed by Congress, will be implemented. Neither type is to alter, or defy, law formerly passed by Congress.
For years some in Congress have been working on what is called the Dream Act that would extend amnesty and place illegal immigrants on a course toward full citizenship. Lacking popularity, twice it has failed to get the majority vote of both Houses of Congress required by the Constitution thus leaving existing immigration law unchanged; once, between 2008-2010, when the President’s party controlled everything except the Judicial branch. A president can only suggest a need for new law in his State of the Union Address, and either sign or veto a law passed by Congress, which then, if vetoed, must be overridden by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses to become law. That is it. This is the law of the land and the Constitutional procedure violated by President Barack Obama June 16, 2012, when, failing to get a favorable vote from Congress, openly defied Congress and the Constitution by ordering a like measure to that defeated, implemented anyway.
In a news conference he outlined the general parameters of his plan but specifics came from a six-page Memorandum from John Morton, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (See FEA Number 306-112-0026), to enforcement personnel, which essentially advises ignoring existing immigration law. If left to stand this becomes existing law without the consent of the people through their representatives voiding the role of Congress. Ironically, if a Republican president did the same thing, the Democratic Party would make the same constitutional argument and rightfully demand immediate retraction of the President’s new law under threat of his impeachment.
This is the most open case of contempt for Congress and the Constitution and the President knew it. In March 28, 2011, he said, with respect to the idea of nullifying Congress on the deportation issue. “The notion that I can just suspend deportations just through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”
So why would he now “flip-flop” and knowingly violate the Constitution? Obama sees an inept Congress that has not placed any restraint on his previous unconstitutional executive orders. He brilliantly also sees a way to “buy” the Hispanic vote. If the Republicans resist he has a powerful campaign issue.
His argument for the violation, “It is the right thing to do.” has nothing to do with the fact that he is usurping the powers given only to Congress, and in the most contemptuous way possible, and establishing a precedent for the continued nullification of Congress. Moreover, he is also in violation of his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”(Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). His failure to do so is “a high crime,” an impeachable offense, which action should be introduced with bipartisan support with 100 signatures in the Senate and 435 in the House. This issue is that clear.
So why should Democrats be concerned and reign in their president? Because if they do not they, in effect, give permission to the next Republican president to defy Congress on something they had previously established as law, like national healthcare for instance, and by a simple Directive he too could not enforce that law. Democrats must see that their failure to insist on a retraction of the Directive forever weakens the sole power of Congress to make all law and places us on the road of government by decree or edict of one man. You must choose the Constitution over party. How does a president’s defiance of Congress differ from what a king or dictator does? It doesn’t. The Constitution is their to protect all parties and all citizens from arbitrary and caprices rule. Please let it work.
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 18, 2012 | Immigration, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
An atomic bomb like story dropped April 27, when Channel 13 Eyewitness News, an NBC affiliate in Indiana opened with “Millions of illegal immigrants are getting a bigger tax refund than you. Eyewitness News shows a massive tax loophole that provides billions of dollars in tax credits to undocumented workers and, in many cases, people who have never stepped foot in the United States. And you are paying for it!” Bob Segall, narrator of the news segment 13 Investigates, begins with the disclosure of a longtime tax consultant, who produced thousands of tax returns easily documenting his claims, from illegal immigrants.
Everyone employed in the U.S. is required to pay taxes. Because illegal immigrants do not possess a social security number the IRS gives them an individual taxpayer identification number, or ITIN. The tax loophole deals with the Additional Child Tax Credit “meant to help U.S. working families who have children living at home” by giving them a credit of up to $1000 per child. The problem is that illegal immigrants have learned that they too can claim this and are doing so for kids in Mexico who have never lived here—lots of them. The whistle blower showed the television station refunds of $10,300 for nieces and nephews of one filer, yet another $11,000 for his nieces and nephews. “I can bring out stacks and stacks,” the tax consultant said.
Eyewitness News selected one of the cases and found multiple adult illegals even using the same filing address. “One of the workers, who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana, admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who don’t even live there. Those four workers claimed 20 children live inside the one residence and, as a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling $29,608.” The reporters found only one child actually living in the mobile home. When they asked were the others were they were told that they live in Mexico. In fact, they had never lived here. An interview of other illegals revealed that both, filing under false address and listing children who had never been in the U.S., was not uncommon.
The reporters next interviewed Russell George, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration and learned that “the IRS has known about the problem for years,” that he himself has repeatedly warned them and still they have done nothing about it. Last year the Inspector General “released a new report showing the problem now costs American tax-payers more than $4.2 billion.” He added, “Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we believe, are not entitled to it.” How big is the problem? The Inspector General continued, “undocumented workers filed 3.02 million tax returns in 2010. Seventy-two percent of those returns (2.18 million) claimed the additional child tax credit.” And then he added another bombshell. “In 2010, the IRS owed undocumented workers more in claimed additional child tax credits than it collected from those workers in taxes.” You might want to read that last sentence again.
The reporters were rebuffed at every attempt to interview the IRS. “Despite repeated phone calls, e-mails and a visit to IRS headquarters in Washington, the agency said none of its 100,000 employees had time to meet.” Finally, in an email the IRS did admit that this practice was known to them for over a decade but that they were only following the law “as it is written.”
This explanation did not satisfy the tax consultant either, who said that he repeatedly informed the IRS of other discretions practiced as well, such as the filing of “phony documents and false income to claim tax credits.” They did not care about that either. “These were fraudulent, 100% fraudulent tax returns, but I got no response; absolutely none. We never heard a thing.”
Obviously the IRS does not care and is an accomplice in fraud to the tune of $4.2 billion a year. The next question is does Congress care enough to investigate, and reign in its unruly 1913 creation, or is it corrupt as well? Why not ask your congressman if he will take the lead in this investigation.
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 28, 2012 | Immigration
Dr. Harold Pease
Most know that the Dream Act came to us in two phases, the first many years ago, and the second initiated into law just last January. The initial process was to allow illegals to enter U. S. colleges, after high school graduation, even if they had only been in the country a few months, without paying fees required of foreign students or even out of state students. The argument made by out of state students was that illegals had more assistance than they. The argument made by foreign students, who seek to be educated in the United States, is why does one country get free assistance and not another. It is certainly a double standard.
A powerful argument against equal funding of everyone is that it is not equal. The huge education expenses necessary are subsidized by the long-term taxpayer and should benefit his children first. This is why we have extra fees for out of state or foreign students—to make the process fair to our own. New immigrants, whether legal or not, could not contribute enough on a short-term basis to make this fair. Certainly Mexico would not even try to subsidize Americans sneaking into their country.
The second phase of the Dream Act became law in California January I, 2012. It authorized illegals to compete for state grants, fee waivers and university scholarships—about 40 million dollars in public funds—with those of legal residents.
Meet Jennifer (name changed as she fears repercussion from our government for her views), a Canadian student in the college where I work. She shared her story of the multi-levels of hoops that she has had to endure to go to college in the U. S. and still without any subsidized assistance as is readily available to illegals. “Before my mother and I could move here from Canada my mother had to have a secure job awaiting her, along with a visa sponsored by that job. She also had to take several exams and become licensed as a nurse here in California.” She was already a nurse in Canada. This process took about a year. Visas had to be renewed annually at a cost of $50.00 each. After five years of visa renewal we “were eligible to apply for permanent residency at a cost of about $10,000.”
She continued, “During this process you have to go through a lot of paper work and appointments at the local immigration office. We had all of our fingerprints taken, background checks, along with all of our immunizations that we have had throughout our lifetime. We were also tested for various diseases such as TB, HIV, etc. and even had to take a urine test. After all of that was cleared, after a waiting period, we received our social security card and a work authorization card. My mother was already allowed to work in the U. S. with her visa, but since I was her dependent, I was not. So I was not able to work, or obtain my drivers license until I had my social and work authorization documentation.”
After four years of this they still await their green card approval and were told, “it could take up to five more years, if not longer, due to the back log. I was told that only now are they reviewing applications for permanent residency from 2005. So who knows, maybe in a few years we will have our approval. After this, we can apply for citizenship which, in itself, will be another long process.”
She spoke of her difficulty getting into college, even as a 2006 California high school graduate, because she was a legal immigrant. She was told that she could not attend college without a green card (which she could not provide because she was in the application process) or a student visa (which one does not have to renew annually once you apply for the green card)—bureaucratic run-around at its best. Finally, after four years of failed attempts to get into college, she learned of AB 540 which enabled her to attend by paying out of state tuition, although, “I still do not qualify for any assistance such as fasfa, etc. [Federal Student Aid] due to the fact that I am awaiting my green card.” Even so, although otherwise qualified, she still cannot get into the universities nursing program without the green card. “There are no exceptions.”
Contrast her story with those who sneak across our southern border illegally, run from law enforcement, and easily find work in the U.S., without all the testing and preconditions, because employers and government look the other way and reward their children with incentives and now scholarships not available to those who are honest and open in their entry. Her response, “The Dream Act upsets me greatly, I could have been finished with school.”
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.
