Aug 11, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold W. Pease, Ph. D
A couple of weeks ago The Boy Scouts of America Executive Committee unanimously approved allowing gay adults to serve as leaders. The reason given, “the rapid changes in society and increasing legal challenges at the federal, state and local levels.” Gays have argued that the Boy Scouts of America “stood as a towering example of explicit, institutional homophobia.” The term homophobia implies unreasonable fear. But is it unreasonable to fear gay leaders who may have little boy inclinations? A bigger question; has societal acceptance of predatory sexual behavior on vulnerable little boys by adult male pedophiles amplified in recent years?
Just three years ago the Boy Scouts was criticized, even sued, for the amount of pedophile penetration into their organization despite the organization’s sincere efforts to keep it out. The organization’s file on defilers was to help insure that any record of indiscretion on a boy was kept with the intention of keeping the perpetrator out of the program. The scout law expects boys, and their leaders; to be morally straight that is why church organizations endorse the program. The Los Angeles Times was elated when lawsuits forced the scouting organization to open its files on the extent of degenerative behavior on the boys. What was revealed was deplorable!! Now, excluding “hungry men” from the organization is considered being non-inclusive, even intolerant.
The newspaper reported in October 2012, “The thousands of men expelled from the Boy Scouts of American on suspicion of molesting children came from all walks of life—teachers and plumbers, doctors and bus drivers, politicians and policemen. They ranged in age from teens to senior citizens and came from troops in every state.” Some 1,900 confidential files, between 1970 and 1991, revealed a “hunting” pattern, which for many included “grooming behavior.” Predators lavished “children with attention, favors and gifts” as for examples, allowing “the boys to drive cars, drink alcohol or look at pornography.” Eventually, with arousal, boundaries were tested with the more responsive boys, “during skinny dipping, group showers, sleepovers and one-on-one activities.”
One mother complained to scout headquarters describing a scout leader in her area. “He combs the boys’ hair and buys them cloths and dinner. He takes them to church, motorcycle riding, skiing, flying…. Now we know why he did these things.”
The Los Angeles Times spoke of another file containing the complaint of an assistant scoutmaster that his scoutmaster in a sleepover, complete with alcohol and pornographic films, proceeded with touching and undressing responding boys and “then proceeds to do other things if he is successful.”
The organization, dedicated to the best principles in a developing boy, has never approved of the activities noted above but is still blamed for the initial contact between pervert and boy which led to the unacceptable behavior. Since 1987 it has prohibited a man being with a boy alone and outings are to have two adults present. Church sponsoring units may have additional requirements to protect the boys. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the largest scout sponsoring entity) is especially cognizant of a boy’s safety. Parents are encouraged to be participants in any youth programs.
My point!! If an outstanding morally based youth program, with its reasonable safeguards, is unable to fully protect little boys from sexual predators, how is the new acceptance of gays as scout leaders going to do so? I know that not all gays are pedophiles, or even child inclined, but far too many are or could become. Won’t lifting the ban on their participation help create a “feast haven” and attract men with this inclination? How is the gay community likely to be more protective of the innocent boys than the organization that actively tried to exclude them? To the gay community, leave the children alone!!! Participating with consenting adults is now legal but feasting on little boys still gives one, prosecuted of doing so, many years in prison. Or, in another three years, will we find that molesting little boys has gained social acceptance as well? How will lifting the ban on gay scout leaders not attract pedophiles?
Jun 19, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The Patriot Act is now repackaged with a new name, The USA Freedom Act and unfortunately government’s unwarranted and indefinite storage of private records and communications continues. The new spy law, as was its predecessor, remains an attack on the 4th Amendment.
Unfortunately for big government advocates, collecting and storing data on its citizens is not cited or even alluded to in Article I, Section 8 where the powers of the federal government are itemized. Nor has such authority been added by way of an amendment to the Constitution.
Fortunately for us this behavior is specifically forbidden in the Fourth Amendment which 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 amendment was specifically designed to prevent government spying on its own. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated” is the strongest possible language conceivable.
Prior to the American Revolution the British government used what was called “a general search warrant” which allowed their agents to harass the people thought to be doing, or saying, something disapproved by the government. No such flexible interpretation was allowed in our government until recent times. In our day, computers are our papers. Simply confiscating their messages and storing them, perhaps indefinitely, should be no different than the police walking into your home and taking from you any letters you have received or are about to send and housing them in police headquarters in case they should need them in a later day. As a first principle your house and papers are off-limits to the government.
Moreover, unreasonable was not to be decided by the police. All searches are unreasonable without probable cause that you are doing something harmful to others. Probable cause must be decided independently from the police unless you are in the act of doing something unlawful and immediate police response is necessary. Elected judges exist for assessing probable cause. Should they get too cozy with the police there exist other checks to keep them restrained as, for example, their defeat in the next election. As initially interpreted there were to be few federal laws hence few unelected federal justices. This was to be a state, county, or city matter. Judges rousted out of a good sleep in the middle of the night were not likely to be too happy about having to assess frivolous charges.
There exists no constitutional authority for a blanket extraction of all our electronic data. Judges swear an oath to preserve the Constitution. They are not to perform with a private view outside that document. Notice also the specific restrictive phraseology with respect to this power; they are to particularly describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”—evidence that something unlawful already happened. There is no authority for a “fishing expedition.” NSA spying on its own citizens without a search warrant, formerly under the Patriot Act and extended now under the Freedom Act through proxy corporate entities charged with keeping our records for potential government inspection is clearly unconstitutional.
Moreover, the new USA Freedom Act violates the Fifth Amendment as well in that the accused is, in a very real sense, forced to be a witness against himself—perhaps the only witness. The Amendment reads in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, … nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” It is his papers, emails, and phone conversations that convict him. He has unconstitutionally been made the principle witness against himself.
“No federal government!” You must tear down your $2 billion NSA Bluffdale, Utah spy facility capable of storing a Yottabyte of our private information against our will. You must do likewise to your Oak Ridge plant that houses the fastest computer in the world designed to analyze our private data for your own purposes; and the latest revelation—to share that information with seven sister federal agencies. Spying on your own people directly as in the Patriot Act or now requiring corporations to do it for you under the Freedom Act, is a blatant violation of the Constitution. You may argue that you are only protecting us from bad people out there but who protects us from you? Fortunately the Constitution does if only enough will begin to use it in their voting practices and those we elect will honor their pledge to protect it, and us, from you.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Jun 9, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Anyone the least bit familiar with the Constitution and its early history knows that, despite lip-service to it, neither political party follows it, nor do any of the three branches of government actually limit themselves to their specific articles in it. All three operate outside the carefully crafted cages to which they were assigned. So how do we get the federal government back to servant rather than master? Well-meaning conservatives are wrong in their push for a new constitutional convention for the following reasons.
To begin with, why argue to get what you already have? It is a far weaker argument because it implies uncertainty on your part that you already have it. The federal government is already limited by the existing Constitution: Congress to a precise list in Article I, Section 8. The President is limited to a list housed in Article II, Sections II and III. The Supreme Court is limited to eleven types of cases most with but appellate (limited by Congress) jurisdiction and only two totally free of the restrictions of Congress called original jurisdiction. All other power was reserved to the states as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Again, to argue that we need additional amendments to get the federal government to abide by what was already understood as their limits of power is to argue to get what we already have.
An argument within the Constitution is much easier to make than asking that three fourths of the states accept something new and somewhat foreign to them. Three-fourths of the states is a big number and takes many years to acquire, and in a nation somewhat constitutionally illiterate is likely to fall short of the states needed. Meanwhile, the case for living within the Constitution can be made today because a majority of the people was taught some level of reverence for it. Showing them how the federal government has strayed from clearly cited restrictions in the document is a much easier case to make.
The argument that we have already unsuccessfully tried to keep the federal government within constitutional bounds is legitimate. But to suppose that a George W. Bush or a Barack Obama will stay within the bounds of new amendments when, with impunity, each has violated those amendments in existence is as naive as believing that more gun control laws will cause the criminals to turn in their guns.
A new Constitutional Convention potentially exposes everything that we already have placing everything at risk. Where is the basis for faith that the new “Founders” will not tamper with established basics? Three Twentieth Century amendments seriously damaged previously sacred foundation points of a republic: the 16th gave the federal government unlimited resources to spend in areas not listed as their function in Article I, Section 8 and the states lined up with alms bowls in hand for the grants. The 17th removed State influence and consent in lawmaking thus irreparably damaging the concept of federalism so critical to limiting the power of the federal government. The 18th outlawed the consumption of alcohol in the nation for ten years giving the government the right to tell its people what they can drink.
Some argue that we can limit the extent of change in a new convention. It is well to remember that the original delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not authorized to dump the Articles of Confederation, but did, exposing everything that then existed. Can proponents of a new convention guarantee that that could not happen again? No!
Why would we suppose that new founders would have an equal to, or superior, understanding of natural law upon which the Constitution was based? We assume that the states will be anxious to get their powers restored to them but where is the basis that they see such a need? Do not almost all elected federal government personnel first serve in state legislatures then abandon the state perspective when they reach Washington DC?
Finally, the enemies to limited federal government yearn for a constitutional convention as well. They want everything dictated from Washington DC—an all-powerful government. Such groups as Wolf-Pac, AFL-CIO, Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, and the forty-five political action organizations funded by George Soros (New American, April 7, 2014, p. 18) are just waiting for the opportunity to empower themselves and government more fully. Who can promise that they will sit idly by while we further limit their ability to manage us?
Holding to the Constitution with exactness is our only real secure way to take back our country. Our weapons are the limiting clauses of the Constitution and Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Political parties have failed us. Encouraging our people to become Constitutionalists first is a better approach. As tyranny grows so will support for our cause. Conservatives and liberals please don’t risk losing everything by an ill-conceived constitutional convention. The answer is to make the government abide by what they have by oath promised and, when needed, carefully craft new amendments one at a time, as for example a balanced budget amendment.
Jun 9, 2015 | Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease
A year ago the Boy Scouts of America elected Robert M. Gates, past CIA director and national defense secretary, as its national president. Perhaps there has never been a more high profile national president. His honors in the scouting program are just as impressive.
Unfortunately his message this month to the Scouts’ national annual meeting in Atlanta Georgia set the BSA on fire. The Associated Press reported, “that the organization’s longstanding ban on participation by openly gay adults is no longer sustainable, and called for change in order to avert potentially destructive legal battles.” This position is not a surprise to those who know Gates. Just last year he said, that he “personally would have favored ending the ban on gay adults, but he opposed any further debate after the Scouts’ policy making body upheld the ban.” Gates, as former national defense secretary, was the father of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy allowing gays into the military services.
Many years ago I served as a lay minister and received an unusual patron for counseling, a new move-in to whom I was to have ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a time. He told me a horrifying story, the details of which I cannot repeat here, but which involved his activities as a scoutmaster to three little boys at different times and in different troops over a period of time. He told me of his sexual desire for little boys and begged me to help him avoid any service opportunity that placed him in close proximity with young men. I did as he requested. Contacting authorities confirmed what he shared, although at least twenty-five years earlier, revealing that two of the scouts, now adults, were now themselves gay and having to deal with the same lust for other little boys activated by the activities of their former scoutmaster.
He also spoke of a boy of like age in his neighborhood presently that wandered by occasionally. His eyes lit up, as you or I would salivate over the smells of a sirloin steak barbequed on the grill. He called him “fresh meat.” I warned him of the consequences of any action on his part and advised that he immediately separate himself from the boy and seek the company of another adult, preferably his wife (he was bi-sexual) or a family member. He was also advised to seek professional help for his craving appetite. He promised to follow that advice and as far as I know did, but I was stunned by the power of this appetite. Over time I counseled other gays, each having his own age preferences and not all focused on twelve and thirteen year old little boys.
President Gate’s “enlightened” suggestions met mostly with raving reviews by the establishment press with words such as equality, fairness, openness, inclusive, and progressive. I saw nothing pointing out the dangers of allowing seasoned adult male predators to prey on our vulnerable innocent little boys. Opening the Boy Scout Program, with its numerous close quarter campouts, would be heaven to scout leader predators (we used to call them perverts) such as I described above. If sodomy is against the law in every state in the union, even criminalized, why would we allow, encourage, and protect it in the Boy Scout program?
Advocates for allowing gay scout leaders into the BSA, say that this change is necessary to keep the program from going extinct. Since 70% of scout units are sponsored and funded by local churches the argument is bogus. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sponsors half of these and they are sure to pull out of the organization because of this change alone. Extinction is more likely to follow if this change happens. Christian parents will not knowingly send their young boys over night to known homosexuals. Contributions will dry up. There is no reason for Christians to be bullied into submission by gay activists.
Yet another problem, not addressed by Gates, is how do the Christian churches square the scout law, clean, and the scout oath requiring a scout to be morally straight, with their view that homosexuality is not being clean or morally straight? Most Christian churches teach the Biblical position on homosexuality, which is the opposite of being morally straight, and also is heavily condemned by God.
Opponents of what has been written in this column are certain to rebut, “But not all gays are pedophiles.” That may be so, but too many of them are and even one who targets little boys is one too many.
Finally, the gay movement has not shown itself to be open to compromise. To conciliate them two years ago the BSA changed its policy to allow boys who thought themselves gay to have membership. But this was not enough. Seemingly, the gay agenda seeks to destroy the organization instead. Why do they not instead create their own organization called “Gay Campers of America” and have any program they like and leave the BSA alone?
Gates statement upon becoming national president made a year ago was uplifting, “I believe every child deserves an opportunity to experience what Scouting offers.” I do not believe that this should include the danger of being sexually molested.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
May 18, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The California State Legislature is contemplating joining other states in proposing an Article V Constitutional Convention to change the U.S. Constitution like unto that used by the Founding Father in 1787. Under the authorship of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, it patterns its proposal after sister states Alaska, Florida, Georgia, and New Hampshire each of whom falsely presume that they can limit a new constitutional convention to only the proposals submitted. This column is directed to state representatives in other states also under the same false assumption. Unfortunately well-meaning patriots throughout the land, in their desire to “take back their government,” are, in their ignorance of our history, risking the Constitution itself.
Article V reads, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.” Outside the Bill of Rights we have had 17 such changes. But what if Congress itself becomes corrupt and will not initiate change, as is the case now with the federal governments failure to be fiscally responsible? The Founding Fathers gave the people a second avenue through their states to force Congress to enact change. “Or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.” But Congress, not the states, calls the convention, “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Notice that, once called, the states have no power to limit change.
The California call for a constitutional convention limits its delegates to just two areas: “support for amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, and which limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” (This coming from a state legislature that shows the same fiscal irresponsibility and same tendency to grow its power at the expense of county and city jurisdiction, as does its federal counterpart.) Such a requirement has no force of law once the convention convenes, and if each state submits differing proposals dozens of changes are likely. The convention, already convened, will proceed as did its predecessor, the Constitutional Convention, despite their authorization to only revise the Articles of Confederation. They discarded the entire document and began anew. Fortunately the resulting Constitution is a much better document but unfortunately a precedent was established for starting anew, which WILL BE REPEATED with a new Constitutional Convention. There exists no way to prevent a run-a-way convention.
Yes, proponents of a new convention argue, that the new changes will be returned to the states for three-fourths ratification. This assumes that this requirement was not changed by the new convention. Remember, under the Article of Confederation a unanimous approval of all states was required. The Constitutional Convention changed this to just nine of the thirteen states. Since state delegations are likely to include members of Congress it might be concluded in the new convention that no good reason exists to send it back to the states for ratification. So much for California, or any other state, having any real ability to limit the outcome of a new convention. Moreover, in the last Constitutional Convention new changes were not sent back to the states individually, only the package as a whole. Support or rejection was the only two options allowed. This too will be repeated.
New Hampshire law is probably the most restrictive in making their delegates stay within parameters established by its state legislature, even criminalizing their action if they depart. A new convention, sensitive to the fate of those exceeding their instructions, could in the new document simply void any state punishment for delegates having done so.
There exists a much better way “to take back our government”—the way that already works—one amendment at a time beginning with the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment if desired. Returning to California’s two areas of needed constitutional change, actually we do not need an amendment to restore fiscal responsibility. Article I, Section 7 already does this if used. Nor do we need any new amendments “to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,” Article I, Section 8 and Amendment 10 already do this when followed.
Anyone familiar with the Constitution knows that it is a precious document that reflects the wisdom of the ages and can handle any problems now besetting this nation. In my Contemporary Events political science class students are required to solve problems of today by the Constitution, rather than by political party, and we are successful in every instance. What we lack is not the wordage and authority to bring a wayward government back in line but those who know the Constitution well enough to defend it and use it.
Obviously getting Congress to follow what already exists is the problem. Where is the evidence that they would read, understand, or use a new document, or if we are lucky to get only a few new amendments, any better than the Constitution that under oath Congress has already pledged to defend and obey? The traditional way to use Article V allows plenty of time for debate and there exist no danger of throwing out the baby (the U.S. Constitution) with the bath water.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
May 11, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Military Operation Jade Helm 15 is billed as the largest peacetime military exercise in sixty years, although no one can remember one larger, or one involving more civilians. Wartime yes, FDR incarcerated over 110 thousand Japanese Americans in World War II. Thousands of troops including America’s greatest: the Navy Seals, the Army Rangers, the Green Berets, US. Air Force Special Operations Command, the USMC Marine Special Operations Command, and the 82nd Airborne Division will practice “realistic” mock operations in nine states mostly in the Southwest. Although the facts remain skimpy, adding to the fear, we are told that it begins July 15 and ends 60 days later, September 15, and will simulate war missions mostly in remote areas.
The U.S. Army Special Operation Command letter detailing the operation claims to have acquired approval from local officials to conduct these military exercises. The operation comes complete with staging areas; airfields, drop and landing zones so it could be scary for some not used to a military presence. Texas, Utah and from Bakersfield south in California, are labeled hostile territory (this part of California is specifically identified as an Insurgent Pocket), New Mexico is identified as leaning hostile. The rest of California and all of Nevada, and Colorado are labeled permissive with Arizona leaning friendly. The map provided in the command letter has code word operations: six in Texas, three in Arizona, two in Utah, New Mexico and Florida. No detail is revealed with respect to these special operations except that Texas is obviously the area of heaviest concentration.
A low population density with access to towns is considered essential in the operation. Their unclassified document explains why: “Operating in and around communities where anything out of the ordinary will be spotted and reported” and “ the opportunity to work with civilians to gain their trust and understanding of the issues.” Obviously Operation Jade Helm 15 will involve numerous citizens and will be noticed. We are told to expect increased aircraft at night, suspicious activities, personnel carrying weapons and some of the military personnel wearing civilian attire and driving civilian vehicles, (Unclassified/Fouo, US Army Special Operations Command, Contact Thomas Mead, JADE HELM Operations Planner/MSEL, phone 910-391-1137).
Opponents, of which there are many, view the operation as preparing the troops for coming civil unrest, as in Ferguson, Missouri or Baltimore, Maryland, or even political unrest as happened with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993, or on the Bundy Ranch just last year when federal snipers had their rifles aimed at the Bundy’s and Bundy supporters, coming from as far away as Connecticut, who had their rifles aimed at the government snipers.
Reportedly Governor Abbott of Texas has ordered his state’s national guard to keep an eye on Operation Jade Helm 15 in his state, to which the guard responded that it would. Moreover, some veteran groups have launched what they term a “Counter Jade Helm Operation” wherein they intend to monitor and identify the movements of Jade Helm. Their motto: “Body Cams In Place! They Practice, We Practice.” The Internet will be used to disseminate the information.
Why shouldn’t Texas feel singled out, three years ago they spoke openly of succession? Why shouldn’t Utah wonder if this show of military strength has anything to do with the Sheriffs’ Rebellion in western states wherein she wrote the strongest letter to the executive branch informing them that Utah would be enforcing the Second Amendment as understood by the Founding Fathers, “even if it costs us our lives.”
The establishment press is very dismissive of all of this, labeling those who fear the government as anti-government or conspiracy nuts. The problem is, Operation Jade Helm is big, real, and not a conspiracy. Its size and scope frightens people. The military can practice what it wishes on its gigantic military bases and in much smaller groups and in a single state with half their participants in civilian clothing, the other not. It has provided no good reason why it needs nine states to do so.
If this massive show of military strength happened in the fifties when the vast majority of the population trusted what the government said to be true, it may have been acceptable. But we live in a time when most presidents have lied to the people and the trust factor by the people of their government is at an all time low. We live in a time when the government spies on its own citizens. When the NSA records every email generated by the people for permanent storage in Bluffdale, Utah, after telling us that this was preposterous—a conspiracy theory that turned out not to be theory, and when Barack Obama uses the IRS to punish his political enemies just like Richard Nixon did. Frankly, we live in a time when the government, either party, cannot be trusted. It has discredited itself.
So, should we fear Operation Jade Helm? Probably not in the sense that our civil liberties will be threatened, just yet. But there is a bigger reason for it and the government has not been forthcoming with it. Perhaps it is to get us used to such which one day may be used to round up political dissidents. You would have to be naïve not to have had this cross your mind at least once.
