Jan 10, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, PH. D
Anyone with but a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution understands that it is designed to limit the growth of the federal government and it begins with the most essential ingredient—separation of powers. Congress makes all the law on the federal level, the President executes the law, as Congress made it—not as he arbitrarily wants it to be, and the Supreme Court adjudicates the law that is contested. Quite simple!! Uncontested by both political parties until now!! This has been the constitutional way since George Washington and should remain so until a new amendment to the Constitution alters the Constitution. Until than it is “sacredly obligatory upon all,” as George Washington once said.
Enter Barack Obama’s numerous (Fox News says 23, National Review says 14) executive changes to ObamaCare, which have greatly altered the 2700-page law, and if left unchallenged, will give future presidents an open door to change whatever they wish in any law they wish. Actually the only constitutional authority of a president is to veto a law sending it back to Congress to override his veto if they have the votes. Altered laws, “on the fly” so to speak, are new laws and as such effectively undermine, even obliterate, the function of the legislative branch. The Constitution prevents the president from serving as all three branches as this president is doing. Such is the recipe for an imperial president, the end of limited government, and the end of a republic.
Seeking to stop this executive tyranny and to discourage the President from violating his own law, 11 state attorney generals wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that the President, by assuming law-making powers, was not following the Constitution. The letter was initiated by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, and was signed by state attorney generals of the following sister states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia. Because Congress had faltered in protecting her soul legislative jurisdiction, they felt compelled to step forward to protect the Constitution.
The seven-page letter read in part: “We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action.” Moreover, “We are deeply concerned that this Administration is consistently rewriting new rules and effectively inventing statutory provisions to operationalize a flawed law.” The Attorney Generals’ letter continued, “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.”
Of the 14-23 Obama executive rule changes made since ObamaCare inception the four most notable were: the delay of the individual mandate, OPM waiver for congressional staffers (this exempts members of Congress and their staffs from the law that they created for you and I, the Small Business Exchange Delay, and the Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plan Waiver. The most recent change came after more than five million received cancellation notices from their insurers because ObamaCare made it too difficult for them to continue coverage, this despite the known falsehood used to promote the forced healthcare plan made by Obama, “If you like your doctor you can keep him” and, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.” In this change Obama, unilaterally announced that those who had lost their insurance could have it back for a year.
President Obama’s rule changes violated two parts of the Constitution, the separation of powers between the three branches of government housed in Articles I, II, and III, and his responsibility to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” as noted in Article II, Section 3. These are serious, even impeachable, violations and should be challenged.
Noticeably absent this time in protecting the Constitution with respect to the 200-plus year process of making law is the Democratic Party. To my many friends therein, don’t you realize that by letting your party distort this process to get a gain that you face a Republican president unilaterally doing the same thing to you down the road using the same arguments that you now use to protect him? Can’t you see that the rule of law was to protect all of us and that the Constitution must remain pure or one day neither party will have it? The Constitution must be above party. This is why all elected officials swear an oath to protect and preserve it.
Jan 5, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Healthcare, Immigration, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Tea Party
By Harold Pease PH. D
The year has shown monumental efforts by some to get back to the Constitution. An ever-growing portion of the largely distracted public is finally awakening to the fact that they are losing freedom and that both parties are responsible. Let us review those monumental moments of 2013 each of which have been covered extensively by us in previous columns.
We began the year with what was called “successionitis”—a desire of some of the people to leave the Union—not seen in the United States since the Civil War. Fifteen states posted over 25,000 signatures with Texas posting 116,000 by itself. The President closed down his site to further counting. With his refusal to allow further counting and the establishment media’s refusal to continue coverage, the issue was squelched. Discontent with the federal government not following the Constitution and the resultant loss of freedom (especially cited were NDAA and TSA) were said to be the reasons for the backlash by those participating.
This was followed by the 2013 Sheriffs’ Rebellion wherein by mid-February, 336 elected county sheriffs had signed pledges that they will not enforce any unconstitutional gun control laws or executive orders—seventeen of them in California. Nine states refused to comply. The Utah Sheriff’s Association made the strongest statement aimed directly at the President. “We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.” Wyoming’s new “Firearm Protection Act,” threatened federal officials with up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines if convicted of attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on the gun rights of Wyoming citizens. Kentucky has enacted something similar and reportedly, Missouri and Texas have similar legislation pending.
Also in February thousands gathered from California to New York and from Florida to Alaska, on February 23, to remind the federal government that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They were saying, in effect, “Back off Mr. President with your executive orders and Congress with your proposed new laws, you are on sacred Constitutional soil.” The establishment press was weak, almost non-existent, in its coverage. The 124 cities participating largely had to enter their own pictures of their event on the Internet to get coverage—so weak was press response. Seventeen such rallies were held in California alone, a state already sensitive to the loss of gun right freedoms and threatened with more of the same by a largely hostile democratically controlled State Legislature.
On March 6, 2013, one man stood on the Senate floor arguing for 13 hours, even against his own party, to prevent the President’s use of drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil. Without Tea Party support Rand Paul would have been alone. The phrase, Stand With Rand” became popular overnight. Senator Paul wanted assurance from the President that he would never do this to us as he had Americans in other lands. The assurance finally came the next day from Eric Holder but it was far from convincing.
Summer brought the “Gang of Eight” and immigration reform that had every appearance of just another amnesty. S. 744 did nothing to improve border security or immigration enforcement and the House, resisting the pressure to be railroaded, has chosen not to act upon the Senate’s favorable vote until 2014. The Tea Party Patriot movement played an important role in revealing it’s numerous defects.
The year brought an outbreak of media coverage of the National Security Administration’s, NSA, spying on over 100 million Americans, recording their telephone conversations, emails, and other electronic messages for the last seven years. Attention turned to, “Whatever happened to congressional or judicial oversight?” Included in the revelations was the 35 years of FISA court’s special surveillance requests on 34,000 citizens, with virtually no denials. This has caused many to look to the Constitution for protection from their own government. They asked, “Is government spying on its own citizens constitutional?” Edward Snowden said no and intentionally shared with the world that which our government was doing to us and everybody else. He helped give us focus on our government’s serious violations of Amendments I, IV, V and even VI. To millions he was a hero.
In the Fall of the year, Barack Obama, by himself, in total defiance of the Constitution Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11, almost took us into war by his intention to, send a “missile across the bow of a Syrian ship.” He was supported in his doing so by Secretary of State, John Kerry and Republican power Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. At least 60% of Americans did not support another no-win war and the President backed down.
In November Senator Ted Cruz stood for 21 hours and 19 minutes, once again mostly by himself with but Tea Party support. Our national debt at 17 trillion dollars, the highest in our history, with Obama responsible for seven trillion of that number in the last five years, was central to his stand. The Republicans had not shut down the government as the media said. Instead they fully funded the government with the exception of Obamacare. More and more people are realizing that the U.S. is going to experience a fiscal collapse unless we return to fiscal responsibility—a core principle of the Tea Party movement. Senator Cruz opposed the debt-ceiling rise as another always follows.
More than half of the states showed their resistance to Obamacare by opting out of exchanges. Resistance to it mounted exponentially when the government website did not work as promised and when the people realized that the President knowingly sold his forced care plan under the false premise that they could keep their doctor and their existing healthcare plan. Most Americans now oppose it.
Seemingly those who damage the Constitution always win. But this year, 2013, had many victories. Let us remember with gratitude those who did stand for freedom and remove from power those who did not. Happy New Year my liberty loving friends!!
Dec 30, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, PH D.
Congress just passed the gigantic $625 billion dollar sweeping National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 with a vote in the House 350 to 69 and in the Senate 84 to 15. Establishment media coverage seemed to center on what did not make it into the act such as, a crackdown on sexual assault in the military and provisions making it easier to close Guantanamo, rather than upon what did. Most maintained the image that the annual act merely funded the military for another year, as has been the case formerly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Left in place was the extremely controversial 2012 provision authorizing the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, and detain without trial, and held indefinitely, American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.” Simply stated it defied Habeas Corpus (your constitutional right not to disappear at the hand of government), the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (preventing the military from having a law enforcement function in the United States), and essentially gutted large portions of the Bill of Rights especially amendments 4, 5, and 6 with secondary damage to 1, 2 and possibly 8. It is the single most dangerous law passed by Congress in U.S. History.
Only socialists and Tea Party advocates seemed to understand that a non-specific definition of terrorism, such as that noted above, can easily be turned into a revolving definition of terrorism and used to wipe out either an opposing party or philosophy. Imagine being arrested, kidnapped, and secretly shipped to Guantanamo Bay for defending the Constitution. Such is possible under the 2012 version left unchanged. Republican President Richard Nixon used the IRS to persecute his political enemies in the 1970’s, as has Democratic President Barack Obama in the last five years. Neither political party is exempt from fault on this version. Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain pushed it through the Senate and Democrat President Barack Obama, promised to veto it, then signed it. Sadly only 2012 presidential candidates Ron Paul and Rick Santorum opposed it.
Unfortunately the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 is still unconstitutional, still unacceptable, and even more dangerous than its predecessor. Newly added is Section 1071(a) which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center’” authorized to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.” Section 1071 (g) is more explicit defining a captured record as “a document, audio file, video file, or other material.” This effectively expands the surveillance of the Bush 43 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) defining, as never ending, the War on Terrorism and his resultant Patriot Act, requiring citizens to report certain activities of other citizens. Factor in the government’s several expensive NSA facilities especially those of Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Bluffdale, Utah, the latter of which is designed to accommodate a yottabyte of information. Factor in also the known collection by NSA of every email, telephone conversation, social media post, and text, of every U.S. citizen for the last eight years and it is easy to see why the federal government now wants a Conflict Records Research Center.
Only the following U.S. Senators understood the danger to the Constitution and freedom by voting against: Barrasso (WY), Coburn (OK), Corker (TN), Crapo (ID), Cruz (TX), Enzi (WY), Flake (AZ), Lee (UT), Merkley (OR), Paul (KY), Risch (ID), Sanders (VT), Sessions (AL), Shelby (AL), Wyden (OR). Senators not listed do not understand the Constitution and its checks and balances enough to merit your vote regardless of which political party they represent.
Perhaps Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz said it best when he told his constituents: “Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial.” We agree and that is why the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 is still dangerous, still unconstitutional and still unacceptable in a free country!!
Dec 20, 2013 | Liberty Articles
Imagine…if you will
A President who orders the collection
of virtually every fact about American citizens,
yet…has all of his own records sealed by Court Order
before running for President.
Michael Reed
Dec 9, 2013 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
Until thirty years ago we were taught that we were a republic and not a democracy. Today we treat them as the same—a serious mistake. Two Amendments, the 16th and 17th, both ratified in 1913, laid the groundwork for the destruction of limited government, which is the foundation of a Republic, the Constitution, and liberty. A review of our one hundred year history reveals the continued damage to your liberty as a result.
What largely brought about the give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 100-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet that they could turn on at will. They could purchase anything—even people. Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to grow the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Outside these four powers the federal government had no power to tax or spend.
General welfare then meant everyone equally and at the same time as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.
So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years before 1913? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend, on ourselves, every cent of what the federal government now takes.
The “financial water faucet” created by the 16th Amendment effectively enticed states, counties, and city governments to “cash in” their areas of “birthright jurisdiction” for money consequently the forfeited power (most of it totally outside the Article I Section 8 list), flowed to Washington DC. So why does the government now need a fourth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding—that is why! The answer to less tax is less government and always will be. A side benefit is more freedom.
The freedom lost by the 17th Amendment, ratified on May 31, 1913, is harder to explain and mandates the readers’ understanding of what a Republic is. In such there is no federal government over the states. Think of it as a marriage where one party performs domestic duties (the states) and the other foreign policy duties (the federal government). Neither is boss over the other. Neither manages the other. As in any good marriage they are equal but sovereign over their areas of jurisdiction.
The major protector of state sovereignty was the state legislatures who picked two of their own body to protect state interest from federal intrusion and sent them to the U.S. Senate. The media undermine this concept by their term “states rights,” always portrayed negatively, but the ability to combine to hold the federal government to the listed powers of the Constitution is absolutely critical to remaining a republic and remaining free. It is the only body powerful enough to do so. This is why we have two law making branches of government, one the U.S. Senate to protect the interest of the states.
All this protection from government’s natural inclination to grow, dominating and controlling everything that it touches, was unwisely removed by the 17th Amendment and states today are not shielded from federal intrusion. U.S. Senators are elected precisely as are House of Representative members by popular vote. In fact, they may not even know of, care about, or be loyal to state issues.
These two 1913 Amendments largely destroyed our status as a Republic and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. We can look back and see the trail of damage of both. The 17th removed our shield from federal intrusion and the 16th enticed politicians to feed at the trough of “free” federal money for their own personal elevation consequently siphoning authority to the federal government. The result, the federal government has its dominating presence in every aspect of your life and in everything that moves. Only the ill informed can call this freedom.
Nov 22, 2013 | Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
I add my voice to the hundreds of others demanding that the government finally release the thousands of documents yet in government, mostly CIA, vaults dealing with one of America’s most horrific tragedies, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963. A fifty-year wait is long enough!!
The controversy stems from the unpublished portion of the Warren Commission’s records, which were initially sealed for 75 years (one life time) or until 2039, reportedly to protect “innocent persons who could otherwise be damaged because of their relationship with participants in the case.” The Freedom of Information Act of 1966 was to make specific information available but how does one know what to ask for unless one knows first that it exists? Extracting information from the government one piece at a time has been too slow. Holding back information amplified the perception that the government must have something to hide.
Dissatisfaction with the Warren Commission’s findings came early and it suffered from a touch of illegitimacy, as the person who benefited most from “The White House Down” was the one who became president and created the investigating commission. Congress, not Lyndon B. Johnson, should have created the investigating organization. None the less, investigative panels followed over the years with mixed results: The Ramsey Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission, Church Committee, and finally the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1976. The HSCA concluded that “President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy” but it agreed on little else. Moreover, it is doubtful that they had all the documents pertaining thereto. The FBI and CIA tended to respond only to specific requests for information. They, like the Warren Commission, did their investigation mostly in secret. Unbelievably they too sealed their evidence for 50 years under Congressional rules.
Still, unlike other assassinations of the 60’s decade, controversy followed this one with marked consistency. In 1992 Congress passed legislation creating the Assassination Records Review Board to collect all the existing documentation relating to the Kennedy and other assassinations. To their credit millions of pages of formerly secret records were declassified and everything else was to be released in 2019. They also conducted numerous interviews now available to researchers. Some were especially disturbing. “Navy photo developer Sandra Kay Spencer told the ARRB in sworn testimony that the autopsy photos in the Archives were not those she processed on the weekend after the assassination. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed photos purported to be those he took of JFK’s brain during a supplementary exam. Other medical interviews contained similarly astounding allegations” (ARRB Medical Testimony, Mary Ferrell Foundation).
Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland Hospital, and an eyewitness to everything that happened to Kennedy in the trauma room had never been interviewed by any governing agency. In his ABC 20/20 interview in 1992 (in my possession) he convincingly shares with Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs the following. The shots to the head and neck were entry wounds thus came from the front, not from the back as the Warren Commission had concluded. The back of Kennedy’s head was blown out and the neck wound was the size of ones little finger just large enough for the trachea. Photographs of the autopsy from Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, after the body had been flown home, showed a neck wound three inches wide, presumably attempting to show an exit wound which would support shots coming from behind and the lone gunman theory. This is important as Crenshaw claims to be the last person to see Kennedy before removal from the room. Someone tampered with the wound.
A few days later the young Dr. Crenshaw was in Parkland Hospital in Dallas again when Lee Harvey Oswald was brought in. While working on him he was tapped on the shoulder to answer a phone call from the White House. It was President Lyndon B. Johnson requesting a deathbed confession from Oswald. The show 20/20 obtained White House schedule and concluded that it could have happened as Crenshaw claimed. None of this was in the Warren Commission’s report. Dr. Phillip E. Williams, also in the room, confirmed the Johnson call (The Doctor’s World, by Lawrence K. Altman, M.D, NY Times, May 26, 1992).
Why wait? By withholding or resisting the release of any documentation rightfully fuels conspiracy theorist. In this sense the federal government is the origin of such theories. For most it probably does not mater who conspired to kill Kennedy whether the CIA, communists, (Oswald claimed to be a Marxist), organized crime, President Johnson, who was destined to be dropped from the ticket in the next election, or even a lone gunman, as it happened so long ago. What we want is all the documentation made available and we want it now!
