Sep 15, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Congress asked God for help today. In a typical workweek, Monday through Friday, prayer is said every morning in the U. S. Senate and in the U. S. House of Representatives. Each House invites and pays a Christian minister to pray each day for a week they are in session. Ministers apply for this privilege and they come from every sector of the country. This has been so since the 1st Congress in 1789 some 221 years ago and will continue as long as we are a Christian nation. Such affirms our nation’s faith in God as Sovereign Lord of this nation. This honors the historic separation of Church and State as outlined in the 1st Amendment, but not the separation of God and State, which they strongly opposed.
The tradition of prayer in government assemblages is long standing. The first recorded national prayer was given by Reverend Jacob Duche,’ Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the First Continental Congress Sept. 7, 1774, even before the creation of the Articles of Confederation, our first constitution and government. Notice the intensity of their appeal to God to help them obtain their freedom from British rule.
“O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
“Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.”
Even during the Constitutional Convention, prayer was referenced as a solution to the tension in the room on June 28,1787, when the patriarch of that assemblage, Benjamin Franklin, stood and said, addressing the Chair:
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel . . . I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.”
Both House and Senate prayers are recorded daily in the Congressional Record. Some prayers give council and particulars, most are fairly generic and short. All ask for the assistance of Heaven. Consider the following recent prayer given by Reverend Charles Gallagher on Aug. 10, 2010, which is typical.
“Heavenly Father, we thank you for this new day. You are the author of life. You have designed the universe and you hold it together in your hands. You govern all things. You are the ruler of the world, the supreme lawmaker.
Guide this assembly as it participates in your governing power. As it creates laws for the human order, may it always respect the laws your divine order has imposed. Let us remember that the rights of the person come not from the deliberations of men, but from the hand of God.
May this assembly always protect the life and respect the dignity of all human beings, especially those who are too weak and too small to protect themselves. We ask this through Christ our Lord, Amen.”
So Congress asked God for help today. Good! May we never forget to do so. It is the essence of our strength.
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.
Sep 3, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
In light of the double murder in a prominent California city where two 16-year-old thugs with baseball bat and knife bludgeoned an elderly couple to death after first robbing them in the hopes of acquiring more money for their frequent marijuana habits, I wonder if this tragedy may have been avoided had the victims used a gun to protect themselves. Many crime victims are also victims to our society’s undying trust that if we are law-abiding others around us will be also, and those who are not will be dealt with swiftly by law enforcement. Such is naive, impossible, and a great American myth.
The above is played out frequently in every major city in America. Those who have and use a gun on an intruder survive and are, in fact, praised by law enforcement. Bad guys perish, leave with a wound, are frightened away and rarely return, or are held until police finally arrive. Last year a ninety-seven year old potential victim held her intruder at bay for several minutes until police could arrive.
Even with faith in the police it remains impossible for them to be on a crime scene until notified of one and even then it will take several minutes for them to actually arrive. In the meantime you are dead. This is why most crazy gunman in shopping centers or McDonald are initially taken out by off duty police officers or concealed weapons permit holders instead of on-duty police officers. Schools are different. No one has a gun so the killing continues until law enforcement arrives.
This is why you must preserve your right of self-defense and why the recent Supreme Court decision, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is so important to you. Some cities like New York, Washington D.C. and Chicago are more naive than others and have actually prohibited their residents from having handguns in their homes for self-defense, thus making their citizens hostage to the thugs and murders around them. That ended June 28,2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that “the Right to keep and Bear Arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, extends to every city and state in America (“Victory in Chicago,” America’s 1st Freedom, Sept. 2010, pp. 32-36).”
Several philosophical assumptions prevailed in this decision. Self-defense has always been seen as a basic human right of preservation –more especially in England and America–“long before our country existed.” Due Process, which emanated from the 14th Amendment, gives preference to that which is fundamental and deeply rooted in history and tradition which self-defense clearly is. Moreover, the “right to keep and bear arms was also clearly recognized when the 14th Amendment was adopted” and one of the purposes of adoption was to “protect the freedmen after the Civil War. Descendents of ex-slaves should be overwhelmingly in support of their right to defend themselves. Finally, the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable in all the states whereas before it was a prohibition of the Federal Government denying such basic rights, now it was a prohibition to the states from doing so as well.
Dissenting Justices were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Sonia Sotomayor, recently appointed to the Court, arguing that The Second Amendment was not a fundamental right. Some justices unconstitutionally attempted to bring to bear international law in their deliberation to which Justice Scalia brilliantly answered, “I care not a whit what passes as ‘civilized’ in England or New Zealand; let their citizens seek their own path toward freedom. In America, we have the Constitution.” I agree.
Perhaps dissenting justices would be more sympathetic to the right of self-defense if they had a burglar downstairs in their homes.
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.
Aug 25, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush seemed eager to attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan. After all, Afghanistan was the home of al Qaeda, the organization credited with the travesty. Something smelled bad. Every night we seemed closer to attacking Iraq, and the media was clearly an accomplice. Both parties became “sheeple” in support. Even Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party presidential candidates, voted for it.
Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was Osama bin Laden. Not one was from Iraq. Later we learned that 80% of the prisoners held at Guantanamo were Saudis (“Our Enemies the Saudis,” U.S. News and World Report, June 3, 2002, p. 49). So why were we not attacking Saudi Arabia instead? Nor did any evidence exist linking Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Actually bin Laden was a religious fanatic and Saddam non religious and afraid that the clerics would gain power in Iraq as they had in Iran.
Both Bushes hated Saddam Hussein, and Bush Jr. had a personal vendetta against the horrible dictator for the unsuccessful assassination attempt on his father at the Kuwaiti Airport. The dictator in question used chemical warfare against his own people, the Kurds (Congressional Record 9-13, 1988, p. E2914). But if we went to war against every human rights violating dictator, we would be at war with half the world. Prior to Bush Sr.’s confrontation with Saddam, the US provided him with equipment that later fortified his bunkers (“Building Baghdad’s Arsenal” The New American, Nov. 17, 2003, p 6.)
Still, as my friend and colleague Dr. John D. Eigenauer starkly put it, “Iraq did not declare war against the United States: Iraq’s military at no time took up offensive positions against the United States or its citizens. The government of Iraq did not attempt to sabotage American interests abroad, damage American industry, harm US nationals, or hinder US growth.” He continued, “The United States attacked a nation a fraction the size of itself, with only a fraction of the population of the US, with only a small fraction of the Gross National Product of the US, and a tiny fraction of the military strength of the United States…. Iraq had no hope of defending itself in any serious sense, no chance of inflicting meaningful casualties, and no opportunity to negotiate a truce or advocate compromise.” He concluded, “The government of the United States of America—my government—conducted an unprovoked war of aggression against an essentially defenseless nation.”
But almost as troubling as attacking without proven provocation was the deception surrounding the reason. We were “hell bent” on entering this war no matter what. First we argued that Iraq was linked with al Qaeda and therefore an accomplice to 9/11. When that argument lost credibility we argued that we needed to make the UN relevant—put teeth into her—as Iraq had defied her. Then we moved to the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” argument. Finding none after insisting such existed, our leaders argued that as soon as developed they would be used against us; all the time Saddam Hussein was villainized by our government and media amazingly, far more than was Osama bin Laden, the real enemy. We were told that a preemptive strike was necessary to protect us from the inevitable Iraqi attack, ironically the philosophical argument used by the Japanese for their attack on Pearl Harbor beginning World War II. The final argument was that we were fighting for democracy in Iraq. Who could oppose our extending to them what we had?
Left out of the argument was the fact that Iraq was the second largest oil producing country in the world after Saudi Arabia, and that the oil company Halliburton, with strong links to the Vice President, benefited greatly with some plush oil contracts.
To the 4,415 who gave their lives in Iraq, I commend you for your service so honorably provided. To those who intentionally provoked a war for personal gain or power and deceived the American people in so doing, this moment in history is not a proud one. As combat operations end August 31 and our troops return to the shores they should be protecting, I will be delighted.
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.
Aug 25, 2010 | Constitution, Immigration, Take Action
By Dr. Harold Pease
If anyone wonders how the new Arizona illegal immigration law, coming on board July 29, will affect Arizona, they need only to look at Prince William County, Virginia. They have had virtually the same law in effect for three years. Commissioner Cory Stewart who spearheaded that law said, “We had some of the same problems Arizona did. We had so many illegal immigrants coming into the county causing trouble, causing crime, and exploding the number of English as a Second Language students in our school system. We passed a pretty strict measure in 2007 and it has had great results.”
Under their law, Stewart said police must check the immigration status of persons “for a small crime, shoplifting, DUI, being drunk in public-any of those crimes.” They are then taken to a magistrate who normally “holds them in jail pending trial, because they are illegal immigrants and obviously there is a high risk of flight. They serve their sentences and we hand them over to federal authorities for deportation.”
The benefits of the new law were immediate and clear. The county experienced a 38% reduction in violent crimes, in the number of uninsured illegals giving birth in hospitals, and in English as a Second Language enrollment. All of this resulted in a drastic taxpayer cut, and popularity of the law soon soared to 80%. The law has saved lives with the drop in violent crimes. Illegals tended to move on to other Virginia counties, thus increasing their problems. As a result, and in spite of the fact that they initially ridiculed the new law, Fairfax county, and Montgomery County, MD soon implemented the same law as Prince William county.
When asked how many lawsuits were filed against the police or county by citizens claiming discrimination after the law went into effect, the answer was none. “There has not been one substantiated claim of racial profiling,” Stewart argued.
Of some note is the lack of national attention when a county was enforcing federal law, largely neglected by the Feds. It has also not been of particular interest to the Media. But when Arizona wanted to put an end to the violence spilling over the border (Phoenix is now the kidnapping capitol of North America) all hell turned on them. Now the Federal Government, who is supposed to protect the states, is suing its own state because the state is doing the job the government is constitutionally required to do.
In response to this suit, thousands of small contributors are sending money to support Arizona. Most contributors are retirees who cannot believe in their country’s unwillingness to defend it’s citizens. This money is coming from every state in the Union, and thus far amounts to over a half a million dollars- pocket change to the lobbying groups defending the President’s suit. The Feds are seen as the national bully and are not likely to merit well in the PR game as they pick on a state that is finally willing to stand up to them- even with a favorable (virtually managed) establishment press.
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.
Aug 25, 2010 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
It seems ludicrous that a government would create laws and restrictions on it’s military that would virtually leave them fighting with one hand tied behind their back. And yet that is exactly what our government has done in the past, and continues to do now.
According to U.S News and World Report, June 30, 1975 citing the just released, formally top secret, “Rules of Engagement for the Vietnam War” (Congressional Record June 6, 1975, pp. S9897-S9904) our men had to fight under horrendous conditions not imposed from the enemy but from our own State Department. What follows are some of those rules. On-ground assaults in urban areas “known to shelter enemy forces generally had to be preceded by loud-speaker warnings and leaflet drops.” Our troops could return fire “only when the enemy was positively identified and in close contact. Sniper and mortar fire were not counted as ‘contact’ unless ‘such fire interferes with the scheme of maneuver or is inflicting casualties or damage to equipment.’ ” Only flat-trajectory weapons (rifles, machine guns, grenades and recoilless rifles) could be used in civilian-populated areas, which largely exposed our men, and “then only if there was a specific, identifiable target.” Obviously on the ground, U. S superiority in firepower was deliberately not exploited.
Nor was it in the air. Pilots were not allowed to fire where they thought the enemy was hidden- even when fired upon- until they were “sure the strike would be positively oriented against the source.” And in many areas there was the nightmare of getting approval at higher levels even if you spotted the enemy or you were taking ground fire. The chain of command often went through the “province chief, district chief, sector commander and a battalion or higher command” which by the time this was completed, the enemy had disappeared. Enemy airfields were off limits if a “plane with a third nation’s markings was present.” Dams, locks, dikes and targets within 11 1/2 miles of the enemy’s major cities were “banned without prior approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Good luck on that one.
These rules actually aided the enemy, and it is because of them that this 14-year-long-war lasted so long and was lost. (We base our date from our sending advisors’ under President John F. Kennedy to the Vietnam Treaty ending the war under President Gerald Ford.)
On another mission his unit suffered casualties from an exploding device that had been placed in their path minutes before. He said, “There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties and two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home.” A rule of engagement prohibits our troops from entering and searching a home without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present. Access to the house was denied, and the perpetrator escaped.
Placating the enemy by not using our full resources and imposing rules on us that actually aided the enemy in Vietnam led to our defeat. We were told then that we had to focus upon winning the hearts and minds of the people. It did not work then; why would we suppose that it would work now? Historians claim, “Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it.” Apparently we are. Tell that to the dead in both wars.
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.
Aug 25, 2010 | Constitution, Take Action, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
For those of us who have been awakened to the onslaught of government control in our lives, a feeling of helplessness often pervades. We simply do not know what to do after recognizing the danger. Here I present six critical steps that you can take in the process of regaining freedom.
The first step is becoming aware that freedom is in jeopardy. Many of us are already there. The second is to become articulate in our founding documents, especially the U.S. Constitution. Give emphasis to Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment. The arguments they used for freedom are every bit as applicable today as they were then, for they are based upon natural law that does not change. Familiarity is easily acquired as almost no one reads these documents today.
Third, attach yourself to trusted organizations and websites ideologically in harmony with the Founders. Websites I suggest are NationalCenterforConstitutionalStudies.com, askHeritage.org, WallBuilders.com, TenthAmendmentCenter.com, and our own,LibertyUnderFire.org. Most media easily show their ignorance of the Constitution. Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs were the only national shows with any Constitutional emphasis (CNN recently cancelled the latter show). The National Rifle Association is the major defender of the Second Amendment, which indirectly also protects all amendments.
Share their messages with others but send only well reasoned non-offensive material. Avoid derogative references to individuals or parties. To save our republic we will need both major parties. Remember some people may not be philosophically were you are. They will join you as they lose more liberty.
Fourth, participation in the Tea Party Patriot movement is now critical. Anyone serious about his or her liberty should be an active participant. The organization at the national level gives focus to the more dangerous freedom stealing bills and zeros in on the most vulnerable members of Congress prior to a vote on that particular issue. Their Action Alerts allow you to focus your concern with thousands of others.
Fifth, find candidates who support the Constitution. You can only do this if you understand the document yourself. Supporting the Constitution is far more than just using the word frequently. We must cease electing Constitutional illiterates.
Donating time might include other things as well. I have a friend who is attempting to establish liberty trees in every town, another who is attempting to get every city to adopt the slogan “In God we Trust”, and still another who is organizing the pastors to forget their theological differences and come together to protect the Constitution as the early patriots did.
I have friends, even relatives, who have said, “If you are going to tell me one more time to write my congressman, forget it. I’m not interested.” Upon inquiry I find that they have not even done that. Step one is not enough. You must do all seven. We need every soldier on the front lines and in the trenches. So far your “guns” are your time, talent, and money. By becoming involved now they can remain just these. We must have those who will do all seven steps and stay the course. It won’t be easy but if you need motivation for doing so look into the faces of your children and grandchildren. Your loss of liberty is also their loss. Let us not have their slavery on our hands.
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.
