Apr 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The most important question with respect to the Bundy Ranch Standoff remains unanswered. Why does the federal government own Nevada? It does not own New York or Virginia or Massachusetts. Cliven Bundy says that the state of Nevada owns the contested land. The Bureau of Land Management clearly considers the property the federal governments; hence the 200 snipers posted on the property and the tasing of the Bundys for resisting when the feds confiscated their cattle. Who is right?
But the problem isn’t Nevada’s alone where government owns 87.7 % of the land leaving private ownership of the state at but 12.3 %. The percentage of land owned by government exceeds fifty percent in Alaska (98.5), Idaho (63.8), Oregon (52.6), and Utah (63.6). Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10). Government owns almost half of California (47.5). Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.
States wanting their confiscated land returned, so as to be on equal footing as with 19 sister states who actually own their land, call their long-term bid to do so the Sage Brush Rebellion. Equality between states was established by giving them equal representation in the U.S. Senate, thus the assumption of the Founders was that property would follow. Without it they are not on equal footing and instead may be more servile to the federal government than states that own themselves. This could negatively affect our system of government known as federalism as states collectively serve as a check on federal overreach. This check is impaired when the federal government owns part or most of their land.
But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the states cited above although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.
Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management. Still, his stand is not practical given our long-term departure from the document and to get back to the Constitution some may do jail time, as have others like Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom has never been cheap.
Having someone willing to stand, Sage Brush Rebellion states now should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. Taking back this infinitesimal amount of the whole that is claimed by the federal government will set the stage for more acquisitions later. The governor would become an instant hero in the western states. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs. Why is a citizen (in this case Cliven Bundy) having to make the case for a state? The governor would give strength to two objectives—returning fraudulently acquired land to the states and getting back to the Constitution.
Apr 15, 2014 | Constitution, Globalism
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The Washington Post reported in late March 2014, “a sharp increase in U.S. Special forces deployed to Uganda.” President Barack Obama “sent U.S. military aircraft there for the first time in the ongoing effort to hunt down warlord Joseph Kony across a broad swath of central Africa. At least four CV-22 Osprey aircraft will arrive in Uganda by midweek, along with refueling aircraft and about 150 Special Operations airmen to fly and maintain the planes.” Such is by no means new.
Three and a half years ago, I wrote of President Barack Obama’s clandestine operation in central Africa called Operation Lightning Thunder, involving 100 U.S. military “advisers,” sent by the President to help capture the allusive child abuser Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army. Congress was informed of the engagement by letter October 14, 2011, but reportedly troops were already on site two days before, so the letter was decidedly not asking for permission to use armed forces in a foreign country, as is required by the Constitution.
Of course, nothing more was said of Kony who was never found, making it now appear that he was but an excuse for our penetration of the continent with forces from Afghanistan as we wound down our involvement there. An expanded military presence in Africa started with George W. Bush his last two years in office, as “about a dozen air bases have been established in Africa since 2007” (“US expands secret intelligence operations is Africa” Washington Post, June 13, 2007). Although Kony is still cited as the reason for our military incursion in Uganda now, there remains no actual evidence that he is even alive.
The Washington Post reported in June 2012, “The U.S. military is expanding its secret intelligence operations across Africa, establishing a network of small air bases to spy on terrorists hideouts from the fringes of the Sahara to jungle terrain along the equator, according to documents and people involved in the project.” Presently they use small private planes equipped “with hidden sensors that can record full motion video, track infrared heat patterns, and vacuum up radio and cellphone signals, the planes refuel on isolated airstrips … extending their effective flight range by thousands of miles.” The operations have intensified in recent months under Obama, the Post revealed, and include commando units who “train foreign security forces and perform aid missions, but they also include teams dedicated to tracking and killing suspected terrorists.”
Four months later in an article, “White House widening covert war in North Africa,” the Associated Press reported that an expanded U. S. role is anticipated and that Delta Force units eventually “will form the backbone of a military task force responsible for combating al-Qaida and other terrorist groups across the region with an arsenal that includes drones.” Col. Tim Nye, Special Operations Command spokesman “would not discuss the missions and or locations of its counterterrorist forces’ except to say that special operations troops are in 75 countries daily conducting missions” (October 2, 2012, by Kimberly Dozier). Conducting daily missions in 75 countries!?!
Global Research was even more explicit. In an article “America’s Shadow Wars in Africa” it went into greater detail (Nick Turse, July 13, 2012). Although Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, with “more than 2,000 U.S. personnel stationed there” is the “Pentagon’s showpiece African base,” there are many “nodes” of U.S. military presence elsewhere: three in Kenya, two in Uganda, two in Central African Republic, one in South Sudan, and one in Ethiopia. They specifically named the places. “Outposts of all sorts are sprouting continent-wide, connected by a sprawling shadow logistics network. Most American bases in Africa are still small and austere, but growing ever larger and more permanent in appearance,” they wrote. Add to this the extensive counter-terrorism training provided by the United States in Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, Lesotho, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Tunisia.
With respect to the size of U.S. forces on the continent at any one given time, they added, “On an average basis, there are approximately 5,000 U.S. Military and DoD [Department of Defense] personnel working across the continent.” With respect to just why we need a military presence in every country in Africa, AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham said, “The absolute imperative for the United States military [is] to protect America, Americans, and American interests … [to] protect us from threats that may emerge from the African continent.”
Something does not pass the smell test. U. S. Special Forces have been hunting Joseph Kony in a foreign country for 3 ½ years with the most sophisticated technology on the planet, without success, and we need to send more? Is it possible that while our eyes are focused on Kony as the excuse for intervention, American imperialism in Africa is the real news?
Mar 30, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
On March 11, 2014, President Barack Obama, designated the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands a national monument, setting aside 1,665 acres of a pristine Northern California coastline for future generations, thereby keeping a promise made in his 2014 Cabinet meeting and Inaugural Address. “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward….” Some have dubbed this his nullification of Congress speech.
But where in the Constitution is authority for him to take land from a state and claim it for a national monument or park? A look at Article II, wherein his powers are listed, identifies no such power. He has but eleven powers: 1) “Commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States” including the militia when called into actual service of the United States; 2) supervise departments (cabinet), each presumably established by the Congress (George Washington had but four); 3) grant reprieves and pardons; 4) make treaties with the help of the Senate; 5) with Senate help appoint positions established by law such as ambassadors, ministers and judges; 6) fill vacancies “during recess of the Senate;” 7) make recommendations to Congress on the state of the union; 8) convene both houses on special occasions and handle disputes with respect to convening; 9) receive ambassadors and other public ministers; 10) make certain that “laws be faithfully executed;” and, 11) “commission all the officers of the United States.”
Simply stated the president has two supervisory powers over existing organizations and two shared powers with the Senate, otherwise he pardons, recommends, appoints and entertains. That is it! Notice the absence of the words executive order, or anything like unto it. He has no law-making or land acquisition powers.
Constitutionally land acquisition is left only to Congress as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that leaves the federal government propertyless with but two exceptions, 1) ten miles square for a capital, and 2) for common defense. Clause 17 is the last of eight qualifiers defining common defense and allows the federal government additional land acquisition provided three stipulations are met. Those are: such land had to be purchased by the federal government (not just confiscated), receive the consent of the state legislature where located, and had to be for military purposes. President Theodore Roosevelt, who first violated this part of the Constitution by creating Yosemite National Park, should have been impeached for four reasons. The power to acquire land did not belong to the executive branch, the federal government did not purchase it, the California State Legislature did not give consent, and it was not for military purposes. Likewise President Barack Obama had no authority to acquire land, did not purchase the pristine California coastline, did not obtain the consent of the California Legislature and it was not acquired for military purposes. That presidents have followed Roosevelt’s clearly unconstitutional practice does not make it constitutional.
This is not an argument that governments should not set aside our most pristine portions for the enjoyment of those not yet born, but only that they do so constitutionally. One departure from the Constitution invites yet another until the document is not “sacredly obligatory on all” as warned George Washington in his famous Farewell Address. At any time a state, county, or city may create a park or monument or, we could have properly amended the Constitution through Article V to enlarge the land acquisition powers of the federal government but, my point, we did not. The Constitution is designed to harness the federal government from doing whatever it pleases, in this case, confiscation of property.
Presidents, in law-making through executive orders, have empowered themselves to the point of “kingship” with their worshipful, unchallenging, party followers (whether Democrat or Republican) quite willing to look the other way as this office grows beyond its ability to be efficient. At any time a president could remind the people of his real constitutional powers but he will not as that would drastically reduce his power that is beginning to look limitless. We must return to the constitutional powers of the President as outlined in Article II, only adding to them by way of amendment as described in Article V—no exceptions! In the case of land acquisition there is no place for his pen.
Mar 16, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The December 19, 2014, death of a SWAT team member, using the ever more popular practice among law enforcement of No-Knock Warrants, brings to the front the need for a reassessment of this warrant. Such enables the police to enter ones home fast, presumably to confiscate illegal substances before they are destroyed. With upwards of 60,000 of these happening each year from only 3,000 in 1981, perhaps it is time we squared this practice with the Constitution, especially in light of its serious escalation.
Hank McGee, who shot and killed a SWAT team officer because he thought those breaking through his front door were robbing thugs, was acquitted by the Burleson County Texas grand jury. He acted in self-defense. Although he was lucky and not killed in the exchange of gunfire, this is not the case with others having the same thing happen to them. In 2006, Eighty-year-old Kathryn Johnson, with similar fears, unloaded several rounds wounding three officers before they killed her. She too was not running a drug house as had been alleged. Nor was Tracy Ingle of Little Rock, Arkansas, two years later, when he tried to defend himself with an unloaded gun from what he thought to be entering thugs. Later after four bullets had been discharged into his body and several others into the wall, the gunfire ended. Surrounding police referred to him as Michael. “My name’s not Mike,” he answered before passing out from his wounds. They had the wrong house and man (SWAT Team Member Killed Using No-Knock Warrant, The New American, March 3, 2014). Ismael Mena, a Mexican immigrant, also the wrong man and wrong address, unlike Ingle who lived, was killed in a no-knock raid. Jose Guerena, presuming home invasion, was shot 22 times. The safety on his gun was still on when found dead. He hadn’t fired a shot.
Certainly these are not normal cases but when intruders break in your door a reasonable person would not first assume that they are friendly. He would grab his gun. This is why initial murder charges against Hank McGee were dropped in the Texas County. In light of a recent Los Angeles robbery ring of 15 led by two former police officers “which used fake no-knock raids as a ruse to catch victims off guard,” today, even if the police announce themselves as the police, uncertainty may justifiably still exist (Wikipedia). With the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act authorizing the military to kidnap and remove to Guantanamo Bay, without trial and for indefinite detention, anyone the President, or his military, suspect as being terrorists (not defined), the government should expect citizens to fire back. When uncertainty exists with respect to who the good guys and bad guys are coming through his door—often in the middle of the night unannounced and uninvited—how could it not be self-defense?
It is hard to believe that the Framers of the Constitution had in mind either the police or the military busting through our doors unannounced with guns blazing, as was the case in the examples just cited. This was essentially what the British were doing prior to the Revolutionary War with their general search warrants. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights prohibited such from ever being reinstituted. It reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The home is the most sacred of all places, the place where we sleep for approximately eight hours a day and are the most vulnerable. Where children often reside. It is very difficult to believe that No-Knock Warrants cause the people to be more secure in their persons or houses. And although a judge, and not the police or military, decide what is reasonable, it is hard to imagine this kind of entry as ever being reasonable unless the suspect is in the act of committing a life or death crime. The dead on both sides make that case.
So what if the drugs are flushed down the toilet by those not law abiding because the police knocked first? When weighed against the police losing their reputation as being first a friend and protector of the people, it pales in comparison. In a free society one should not have cause to fear the police or military.
Mar 10, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Tea Party
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Pundits do not agree on the specific origin of the Tea Party Movement but they do agree that it began in the last week of February 2009 and became a powerful sensation over-night with no specific identifiable founder. There were hundreds of founders including myself. It was as though everyone was frightened by the direction of government at the same time—certainly a grassroots movement. Encyclopedia coverage of its origin and early history is foreign to those of us who were there on the front lines. They tie the movement to extreme breakoffs of other movements going back to the sixties seemingly in some bizarre attempt to cast doubt on its legitimacy, but the Tea Party Movement was as American as apple pie. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the televised press, excepting FOX News, has never been friendly toward this movement.
Actually the movement began in opposition to George W. Bush’s $700 billion stimulus bailout package at the end of his term, which received bi-partisan support from President-Elect Barack Obama and the Democrats. Both parties were on the same page and taking us in the wrong direction—bigger government and debt insanity. Tea Party groups began to spring up everywhere in February 2009, each with their own leaders. Three city leaders in the east, learning of the simultaneous rise of sister cites, contacted each other to compare notes. They liked the name Tea Party because they wished, by that name, to emulate our founding philosophy. Even so, they were uncertain what their core values should be so they invited Internet submissions from the thousands who felt similarly. Still, there was no known single leader. My daily submissions encouraged getting back to the Constitution. The three most frequently submitted core values, and the one’s selected, were: limited constitutional government, free market and fiscal responsibility—precisely the collective views of our Founders and believed to be the values supported by most Americans today.
In time prominent names would emerge notably Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and the now strongest group, the Tea Party Patriots, led by Jenny Beth Martin would come to dominate the movement’s presence on the national level. Still, many groups chose to remain independent and influence only local governments.
In my community the leader of the movement was Julie Demos, a second grade teacher, who had no prior political experience making her the perfect leader. This was the gathering of the people who no longer wished to use political party, but the Founders core values, in promoting good government. Between three and five thousand folks gathered at the Liberty Bell in April 15, 2009, many spoke, including myself. Over 600 cities throughout the nation had similar gatherings. The movement was not party based. We wished to attract those who desired to get back to these neglected core values. Our own Congressman Kevin McCarthy and House Speaker John Boehner, were denied the podium for that reason. They attended and viewed the proceedings as spectators as did everyone else. This was not a Republican Party rally! Fifteen thousand heard myself and others speak on getting back to the Constitution at the Tulare Ag Center on July 4, 2010, in support of over a million who gathered in Washington DC. Two other times such numbers gathered in the capitol before years end making these gatherings the most assembled since the days of Martin Luther King Jr.
Although not intending to align with either political party, negative press coverage, primarily from the left hostile to its core values, emerged from the outset. The Tea Party, so undermined by a hostile press, never had a chance in the Democratic Party. Establishment Republicans accepted it in the 2010 election because it gave them the House of Representatives but treated it as a wayward child. Trust between them never really developed the following years. The Tea Party views establishment Republicans as but giving lip service to America’s core values. Today the Tea Party appears to be more popular than ever despite the demonizing from both political parties and the establishment press, excepting Fox News.
Happy fifth birthday Tea Party, some of us value movements that actually fight for liberty. We believe that we literally fight for the same principles as our Founding Fathers and invite everyone that loves the Constitution and liberty to stand with us. We believe that our time is just as critical as was theirs. See you at the next Tea Party event.
Mar 3, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Tea Party
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Let me be one of the first to put it in print. The nation’s biggest threat is not Al Qaida! It is not Edward Snowden or NSA spying on every citizen in the nation! It is not the IRS targeting of Tea Party and religion groups for extra scrutiny, or even a president replacing Congress as the leading lawmaking branch of government. It is the impending financial collapse if we do not curb our addiction to debt and do it quickly. It grows by an estimated $3 billion a day and is now $17,355,598,800 trillion as I write this column. By the time many of you read it, one week from today, it will have increased by $21 billion.
Two laws passed this year have made this observation more blatantly obvious. The Republican Party’s total collapse on the debt ceiling increase and the recently passed $1 trillion dollar Farm Bill financing corporate and class welfare.
First the debt ceiling surrender wherein the Republican Party leadership, in opposition to there own party, totally capitulated without asking any concessions from the White House and Democrats in return for the borrowing authority. Please note that a debt ceiling raise eventually means higher taxes or debt. Twenty-eight Republicans joined the Democratic Party majority for a yes vote thus passing the raise in the House of Representatives 221-201. Conservatives and constitutionalists felt betrayed. House Speaker John Boehner in his “Boehner Rule,” had promised that increase in the debt ceiling must reflect spending cuts also.
Amazingly the top three Republican Party leaders: Boehner (Speaker), Eric Canter (Majority Leader), and Kevin McCarthy (Majority Whip) voted to raise the debt ceiling to March 15, 2015, as did all but two Democrats, virtually abandoning their 206 remaining Republican colleagues voting no to the debt raise. So much for fiscal restraint and holding to often repeated principles. These three voted against their own party. To his credit Paul D. Ryan, former Vice Presidential candidate, voted against. The Democratically controlled Senate easily passed the debt raise legislation along party lines 55-43.
Why is this a sign of an impending fiscal collapse? The debt ceiling has been raised 76 times since March 1962, including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W Bush, and seven times under Barack Obama. This is our 14th debt raise in 13 years. We raise it every year to accommodate our need for a “fix.” My point! Congress sadly never says no! Does anyone really believe that our debt-addicted government will ever stop the addiction on its own?
Second, the recently passed five-year Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, popularly called the Farm Bill, costing nearly one trillion dollars, over ten years—a 50% increase over the last one—certainly leaves no room for faith that they will curb their appetite for debt. The 959-page document included the following items considered pork by critics: “$2 million for sheep production and marketing, $10 million for Christmas tree promotion, $170 million for catfish oversight, $119 million for peanut crop insurance, $100 million for organic food research, $150 million to promote farmers markets, $3.3 billion for a cotton income protection plan, $12 million for a “wool research and promotion” program, and $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. Ironically the 949-page bill spends about $1 billion dollars per page ($956 Billion Farm Bill Loaded with Pork, Your World Cavuto). The Department of Agriculture will also be establishing new federal standards for “the identity of honey.”
The final vote in the Senate was 68-32, with 44 Democrats, 22 Republicans and both independents supporting the measure. The Farm Bill passed in the House of Representatives 234 to 195. Voting yes were 24 Democrats and 171 Republicans. Again, House of Representative leaders Boehner (Speaker), Eric Canter (Majority Leader), and Kevin McCarthy (Majority Whip) voted for the pork filled bill and the 50% increase over the last Farm Bill.
So my friends, how does this pork bestowal to a favored few stop the three billion dollar a day bleed to the national debt, now exceeding $17 trillion? It doesn’t even pretend to try and that is my point, nor does raising the debt ceiling without accompanying cuts. When the bleeding was resisted by at least one political party there was hope. We absolutely must replace our existing House and Senate with those fiscally responsible or there will be a financial collapse. If you are not personally involved in doing so you must begin now. The Tea Party is the only party that gives more than lip service to fiscal responsibility. You may wish be become a part of it.
