Oct 12, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
One of the revelations that surfaced from the Umpqua Community College Massacre, the worst in Oregon history, was that the deranged gunman, (I join others in refusing to name the killer giving him desired publicity) carried enough rounds of ammunition to kill dozens more. What stopped him? He decided to kill himself when confronted with a shootout with police eight minutes into the slaughter. It takes a gun to stop a gun. Why not allow teachers and others with student responsibilities, the right to protect those under their care if they wish to?
Just one gun somewhere near the premise could have been enough, one victim told her father in the hospital. The shooter had eight minutes of unrestrained killing time before police arrived after 911 notification and before he took his life ending the massacre. If but one armed concealed weapons permit holder had been in the classrooms, or close by, he/she could have saved several minutes of indiscriminant slaughter, in this case nine lives and an equal sum of injuries. No it would not have saved 67-year old Assistant Professor Lawrence Levine, as he was the first murdered and had zero warning, but most certainly others.
This is not to suggest that every teacher must participate, only those who wish to. Hundreds of regular permit holding citizens in my county already carry concealed weapons everywhere except in gun free zones (others call “free kill zones”). Such is the same in most counties throughout the nation. Law enforcement normally see permit holders as an asset, the ultimate backup should they need extra help, and also because cops know they can’t be everywhere at the same time, as some Umpqua college students learned the hard way. Why not let them do so on school grounds as well, allowing them to be an asset of protection wherever they are? They are on the scene, care for their students, are a trusted profession in society, and, most importantly, are themselves threatened. It would cost the college nothing. Chances are every college has several concealed weapons permit holders among its faculty and staff already. Again, why not let those who wish to protect their students do so?
Permit holders are among our finest citizens. Obtaining a concealed weapons permit requires a thorough investigation, a near perfect record from law enforcement, a stated need to carry, and some training. Normally they are older more mature folks and, in the case of teachers, society already trusts their young people to them several hours a day. They are already on the scene where a policeman could not possibly be. What a deterrent to a would-be killer if he knew schools are not so vulnerable.
Gun free zones clearly do not work as most massacres in the United States happen in them. Anticipating no resistance, rather than deter, they entice killers giving them access to large groups of unprotected, good, and innocent victims—often children. Presently the only hope that a teacher, wishing to protect his/her students has is to hide them—not realistic.
In my classroom of many years, as in most, there is but one door, which opens outwardly. Everyone inside, including me, has been set up by his own government to be a victim. Turning out the light, if the classroom is not the first visited to do the killing, might trick the gunman to move on to another classroom—but this is unlikely. If this were the first classroom with no warning no one could possibly get to the door in time to lock it.
For years my only defense was to ask students sitting on the door side of the room, upon hearing gunfire from outside the room, to lineup next to the wall, remove the fire extinguisher from the wall next to a door that opens outwardly, and spray or hit the intruder as he enters. Those behind him then were to overwhelm the intruder after the distraction, but this is all that we can do and it is not enough. Since my students are young adults this could work with a lot of luck. Again, if we were a killer’s first classroom such is, in fact, a “free kill zone.” Better yet, a teacher or student with a concealed weapons permit, need only pull out a weapon from pocket or purse and fire a couple of rounds at a very surprised—then very dead—potential killer.
Elected officials, please give students and teachers a fighting chance to survive. Teachers have done nothing that should justify disarming us, or fearing us, and thus leaving us with virtually no hope of survival. You may answer, “We can’t just let anyone have a weapon of mass destruction!” You already do!! Anyone, 16 and older, can have access to an automobile, which is decidedly a weapon of mass destruction—even if he might commit crimes with it.
This brings us back to the lessons of Umpqua Community College. In this case the killer did his deed in a location that he probably supposed to be gun free and ceased his rampage of killing only when confronted with another gun. Next time let that person be a teacher or staff member with a concealed weapon, and a vested interest in his and the safety of those around him, whose immediate action would allow so many more students to live.
Oct 6, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The fear generated by media use of the words “government shutdown” is amazing. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit such an extreme emotional response. It appears designed to frighten the least informed against the other political party, thus the terminology.
It always involves the House of Representatives, as it alone constitutionally must approve all government spending. This normally happens every October 1st for the upcoming year. No monies are to be spent by the federal government without the consent of the peoples’ representatives. This places the people in charge of taxation. The Senate cannot initiate a tax bill but can adjust any initiated by the House.
In the present instance, calloused filmed admissions of Planned Parenthood personnel extracting body parts of aborted babies for sale, has caused many members of Congress, mostly Republican, to seek the retraction of federal funding for the organization. President Barack Obama and most Democrats want the organization funded despite the films and the President promises to veto any budget that excludes the funding.
His refusal to enact the spending approved by the people, than begins what the hysteria peddlers have called a government shutdown because he will not accept what the people’s representatives have agreed to fund, or not fund. If Congress caves to the President, as it has so often the last seven years, it is a form of blackmail. If they do not, the press that favors the President yells government shutdown and blames the Republican Party. As the left dominates a great majority of the media, excepting talk radio, it becomes public perception that the Republican Party is responsible for government shutdowns, not the President.
Moreover, the phrase essentially becomes a weapon to be used on other potential government “shutdowners.” This enables the President to have undue influence, way more than envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, in spending and undermines the sole power of the House to initiate all bills for raising revenue.
So what does a government shut down look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No, they stay on the job and receive full pay as before. Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? NO! No, No! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and cops, prisons, and teachers remain in place. Will I still get my mail? Yes. The U.S. Postal Service functions as an independent business unit. Will I still get Social Security benefits? Yes! And food stamps? Yes. And unemployment compensation? Yes. And veterans’ benefits? Yes.
Then why the hysteria? My point exactly!! Because these two words, “government shutdown,” and the possibility of missed food stamps send the largely uninformed into frenzy, they finally awake from their stupor. They largely know nothing of the wrangling of government to protect them from themselves and oppose any proposed government diet that might reduce their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders that are least likely to disturb this base.
There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen short of an overthrow of the government from within, the collapse of our financial structure (which is becoming ever more likely due to our obsession to live beyond our means), or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.
How do we know this? Because we have had 17 government shutdowns since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service, the Reagan Administration having 8 of them alone. Because in 1979 the government was shut down for 10 days while Congress argued over a proposed salary increase for the legislative branch. Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of the bad things mentioned above happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice.
Then what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.
So at worst a government shutdown is really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services and a delay of payment for some few federal workers. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. Let’s call it such in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed and they overreact?
Sep 21, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Eleven debaters gathered at the Reagan Library September 16, 2015, to share their plans and visions for our future. Each extolled the virtues of Ronald Reagan and claimed to be more Reagan-like than any of their competitors. Countries discussed included Russia, Iran, China, Syria and Israel. And topics seen to be most important were mostly centered on illegal immigration, Planned Parenthood’s federal funding, and the use of marijuana. But where was the Constitution in the debate?
All were important concerns but minimized was how these and other concerns might be addressed using the Constitution—the government’s rulebook. After all, the next day, September 17th, was Constitution Day throughout the United States. This especially in light of the fact that the last four presidents, two Republican and two Democrats, largely ignored the Constitution in problem solving going far beyond its restrictive boundaries.
Liberty Under Fire carefully took note of who did and did not, use the word Constitution, or references to it, in the three-hour debate. Three: Dr. Ben Carson and Governors John Kasich and Chris Christie, never used or referenced the word. Governor Scott Walker said the word Constitution once but did not attach it to a specific part of the document. Governor Jeb Bush also used the word without attachment but a second use was attached to his support for gun rights. Senator Marco Rubio did not use the word but identified himself in support of the 2nd Amendment.
Carly Fiorina used the word twice but negated both immediately thereafter with comments clearly showing that she had no understanding of the use verses the issue. The issue was the use of marijuana and federal enforcement. One cannot be for the Tenth Amendment, which leaves all areas not specifically mentioned in Article I, Section 8 to the states alone, and advocated the existence of federal authority not in the Constitution. There exists no constitutional authority for drug enforcement on the federal level. She, Bush, and Kasich received serious negatives on their understanding of the Constitution on this point. She did reference Lady Liberty and Lady Justice but made no attachment with respect to the Constitution with either. She is no doubt sincere in her use of liberty symbols but her generalities did not demonstrate depth in what liberty and justice actually mean.
Outside the Bush and Rubio support for the 2nd Amendment, Liberty Under Fire found little hope that these seven presidential candidates would give first consideration to the Constitution in problem solving. At least three of these lacked understanding of the Tenth Amendment. This is very serious. On constitutional issues, based upon this debate at this time, Liberty Under Fire cannot recommend any of these candidates for this office.
Donald Trump is a bit of a mystery for numerous reasons. But on the issue of birthright citizenship not being in the 14th Amendment, he is spot on. In fact, in previous columns I have carefully documented how the amendments founders were specifically denying such. His only use of the word Constitution was with respect to this issue. Because this fact is not well known it is strange that a businessman who probably benefited from the common distorted belief would either know this, or so passionately defend this view. He made no other reference to the Constitution in problem solving in any other issue thus, as with the others afore mentioned, I expect to write many columns showing his subsequent violations of the document should he become president. But on this one issue he has the ear of someone who understands the Constitution, which gives me some small hope that he will continue to listen to a constitutionalist on other issues as well, but there exist no guarantees.
Three presidential candidates stand out with promise that they will use the Constitution in problem solving: Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Governor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee used the word freedom but did not elaborate. He also used the word Constitution twice but more often used constitutional references specifically citing the current threat to Amendments 1, 2 and 10. He condemned the recent Supreme Court same sex marriage decision and the attack on Kentucky clerk Kim Davis with respect to freedom of conscience in her not authorizing such marriages with her name on the certificate.
Senator Ted Cruz opened with a reference to our losing freedom. He used the word Constitution with respect to its needing defended. He regretted Justice John Roberts backing down from defending the Constitution on healthcare and same sex marriage, although Bush reminded Cruz that he had written a letter of support in the nomination of Roberts. He identified himself as for the 2nd Amendment and in his closing statement promised to defend the Constitution.
Senator Rand Paul’s opening statement identified him as one who would defend the Constitution as first concern. He used the word twice more, one acknowledging that there was no birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and that we have not followed the Constitution with respect to declaring war. He cited our failure to be guided by the 10th Amendment three times, mostly with respect to the approved use of drugs in the states verses the federal government inclination to mandate a power not given it.
Although this is but a small sampling of the importance of the Constitution to the eleven presidential contenders, Liberty Under Fire fears that these indicators will not change in a year. Our bigger fear is that by then the three who really value the document will have dropped out for lack of support and that the Constitution will continue to be eroded.
Sep 21, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We have spent some time on how the Progressive Movement hurt our black communities and how some of their leaders have provided solutions to rescue their people—not the race baiters selected by the media to be the only black voice, like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Their common message: “Blacks are worse off now than they were before government began ‘helping’ them.” Their solution, “We need the government out of our lives.” Such can also be said of other races or groups that bought into the Progressive Movement’s nanny state. It has hurt all America.
The irony is that such hurt would not be the history of any group had we remained loyal to the Constitution. You recall that black leaders complained that the Progressive Movement left them less educated, less employable, less family oriented and more on welfare, and more both the perpetrator as well as the victim of crime. We have covered each of these previously. Truth is, the Constitution does not permit a federal involvement in education, employment, family matters, welfare, or local crime. Yes, let me say it again, the words—or anything like unto them—education, employment, family matters, or crime are not found in the Constitution. The word welfare is in the Constitution but not in the sense of gift giving. Nor is there an amendment to the Constitution that gives the federal government a role in any of these areas.
Article I, Section 8 has 18 paragraphs where federal authorization is permitted and these are grouped into four specific areas: the power to tax, pay the debt, provide for the general welfare, and provide for the common defense. All other areas of authority were left with the states as per the wordage of Amendment 10, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Founders knew that all governments like to grow and absorb decision-making power to them. They always have and always will. To prevent this they made a list of the areas of federal jurisdiction with the understanding that all areas not mentioned belonged to the states. All convention delegates understood this and curiously placed all federal power in one sentence with 18 paragraphs. The strange construction was to make it even more difficult for future power grabbers to isolate and enhance a power. Everything had to be considered in the context of the one sentence. Not many know what you have just learned.
As mentioned the Founders gave the federal government only four areas of power: taxes, paying the debts, providing for the general welfare (that’s not the same as providing the general welfare), and providing for the common defense. That is it my friends. All of it! All four powers are identified before the first semi colon in Section 8, Article I. That following are simply qualifiers of these four. “But all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the U.S.” These were different types of taxes. There were no qualifiers on paying our debts. The Founders rejected the normal practice following a revolution of nations reneging on the debts caused by a previous government, even though it would have been easy to do so in our case as the value of the dollar had descended to seven cents.
Now to the heart of why Section 8 is so long and so hated by big government advocates, in our case the Progressives. The Founders did not dare to leave the phrases “general welfare” or “common defense” for future power grabbers. No telling what they could do with these vague concepts. So they restricted them further to prevent them being enlarged. Notice that clauses 2-9 itemizes what they meant by general welfare and clauses 10 to 17 itemizes what they meant by common defense, this to keep government harnessed.
For now let us stay with general welfare since most of the Progressive Movement deviations from the Constitution would fall under this area. Listed are 14 powers, five dealing with borrowing money, regulating its value, and dealing with counterfeiting. The other nine included naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.” Notice also that these provided for all equally and approximately at the same time, the general welfare, not specific welfare designating privileges for some at the expense of others.
My point again!! The words—or anything like unto them—education, employment, family matters, or crime are not found in the Constitution. The Progressive Movement ignored the 14 powers detailing general welfare in Article 8 and defied Amendment 10 of the Constitution adding the five areas of federal intrusion so hurtful to our black communities. In doing so it has done much damage to these and other groups incorporating the “nanny” principles and to the Constitution. If these could be made constitutional with any logic possible, anything could, and any pretense of a government with limited powers ended.
Sep 14, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We recently looked at the well-meaning progressive policies of the last fifty years, notably welfare, that have done much to return our black brother to a slavery of dependence and seemingly to set our black communities on fire driven mostly by angry black young men who have turned first on their own race then on law enforcement. Past 2012 black presidential contender, Herman Cain, said it best: “Uncle Sam is the master who gives today’s nominally free blacks just enough to get by so that they can continue to work for their master by voting for those politicians who promise to give them more of other people’s earnings.”
Many in the black community know that these progressive policies, in exchange for their vote and loyalty to the progressive agenda, have left them less educated, less employable, less family oriented and more on welfare, and more both the perpetrator as well as the victim of crime. This column shares black solutions for black problems, not normally given by the establishment press, as they identify what must change. It also borrows much from the New American article “Real Solutions for Black Americans,” written by Michael Tennant. Their common message: “Blacks are worse off now than they were before government began ‘helping’ them.”
Black George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams speaks to the education problem where nearly half of blacks in government schools drop out of school. Those who do reach the 12th grade, according to The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), “score at the same level as the average white seventh-or eighth-grader on standardized tests.” Williams identifies private black schools such as Marva Collins School in Cincinnati and Marcus Garvey School in Chicago where “85 percent of those kids at each of those schools read at or above…grade level….” Those not happy with government schools must have choice of other types of schools. Competition with school choice must return.
Williams advocates four other changes to help his people. The Department of Education and all federal education programs and money must be abolished as quickly as possible. More should be expected of teachers. “Education majors,” he says, “have the lowest entrance-exam scores of all majors in college.” Schools must enforce discipline, order, and structure. Finally, affirmative action must be abolished. “Black students need to be admitted to schools where they belong on the basis of their preparation and aptitude. Were this the case, many more blacks would graduate than currently do.”
With respect to ending blacks being less employable, two actions are needed. First, repealing “the minimum wage and other labor laws that discourage the employment of low-skilled workers would make it possible for many blacks to get their first jobs, where they can gain skills that will enable them to move up to higher-paying jobs and out of poverty.” Second, “remove barriers to starting and expanding businesses…. From licensing laws to permit requirements to environmental impact assessments.” Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, a Black pastor working in the trenches, said it best when he said: We need the government out of our lives, really, as much as possible.” Adding: “Let the free market reign.”
With respect to welfare it must end says Professor Williams. He suggests “giving welfare recipients a definite deadline after which there will be no more handouts and, in the meantime, making them work for their welfare checks.” The private sector could help in teaching skills that enable getting good jobs, as once it did. Reverend Peterson does exactly this through his Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND). “We’re teaching these boys a trade so when they finish high school, if they don’t want to go to college, they don’t have to.” Fraternal societies and churches did much of this in pre government handout days and they will again if the federal government slowly stepped out, Peterson argued.
With respect to blacks being both the perpetrator as well as the victim of crime, both education and employment of young black men in particular would help. Blacks are also “disproportionately victimized by criminals in part because they live in cities with strict gun control laws that criminals ignore. Repealing these laws would give potential victims a chance to defend themselves.” Also needed is for black communities “to get more people attending church.” Males normally drop church attendance between ages 15 and 50, Peterson notes, “If kids are raised in the church and they stay in church…. They’re significantly less likely to get arrested.”
Welfare has effectively taken dads out of the home because single women with children could draw larger government checks if dads lived elsewhere, thus the black family is less family oriented—the government became the dad. Lacking fathers and an adult male role model in the home is a giant problem.
Getting the Black communities to detox from welfare addiction will not be easy. What is promising, however, is that real black leaders, those in the trenches (not the “race baiting” televised leaders), have the solutions for their own people if the establishment press will but cover them and the government will cease bribing their people with “free” money. For them it is not a conservative or liberal solution but a matter of freeing their people from slavery a second time.
Sep 14, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
Ferguson, Detroit, Baltimore and now the willful unloading by an angry black man of 15 bullets into a Texas Sheriff who was innocently fueling his automobile. Each seemingly has one thing in common—pent up anger directed first at their own race and now at law enforcement. “Black lives matter” some chant but most black homicides are by black perpetrators, not white. Blacks, we are told, now do half of all murders in the United States. It seems that the black communities are on fire and it seems driven mostly by young angry black men.
The problem has deeper roots than this. Well-meaning progressive policies of the last fifty years, most notably those encouraging dependency, have done much to return the blacks to a very real form of slavery. What is said in this article applies also to other races taking the route of dependency for problem solving, but they are not the focus of the choice of violence as in the above instances. They have not yet turned on themselves and then upon law enforcement.
Today unemployment for blacks is nearly twice that of whites and for black youth in the inner cities it has been known to soar to as high as 60 percent. Moreover, the U. S. Census Bureau listed the overall poverty rate in 2011 at 15 percent, but for blacks it was 27.6 percent. Overall household income was $50,054, but for blacks it was $32,229. The Heritage Foundation found that “only 56 percent of blacks graduate from high school.” The average black man has little to hope for in a world where seemingly all other races appear to have much more.
It did not used to be this way. According to black economist, Walter Williams, prior to the progressive socialist policies of the last 50 years, “black unemployment was lower and blacks were more active in the labor market than they are today.” In 1910, for example, “71 percent of blacks over nine years of age were employed, compared to 51 percent for whites.” This trend stayed strong through the 1960’s, “black male labor force participation in every age group was equal to or greater than that of whites,” he says. Although black schools, prior to the 1960s, were characteristically modest in funding and supplies, they “often produced student bodies with high average IQs and graduated scholars of note.”
Black economist Thomas Sowell, in his book “Education: Assumptions Versus History,” agreed, “In short, no stringent ‘elitism’ is necessary to achieve high-quality education. It is only necessary to … exclude the tiny fraction (of students) who are troublemakers.” Black poverty was steadily and noticeable declining.
What destroyed all this? It was destroyed by the socialist notion that the government will take from those who have and give to those who have less. The War on Poverty is the philosophy that largely led a race into the same type of dependency that they had worked a hundred years to escape after the Civil War and had made notable advancement. A trillion dollars a year now feeds this monster—15 trillion since the program was begun by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964; but unfortunately, with no measurable end to poverty as promised. Statistics show poverty to be proportionally about the same as when the program was begun.
Kurt Williamsen in a article, “Do Progressive Policies Hurt Black Americans?” described how this played out. Welfare “spending contributed to overall black poverty by encouraging single-parent, female-headed households…. Young black women often had children out of wedlock, beginning a cycle of enduring poverty and welfare, wherein they relied on welfare as a main source of income, as did their children. Welfare provided more money for young women with fatherless children, on average, than the same young women could have made if they were employed.” It also destroyed families. If she got married she would lose the benefits. Today, ”73 percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers” and well over a third of the race is on welfare. Unfortunately, “welfare provided an incentive for young black women to raise fatherless children and collect welfare, leading to the epidemic problems with black crime, black schooling, black unemployment and black poverty.” She may be a fantastic mom but odds of productivity in all these areas is more often improved in a full family setting.
So we return to the angry black young man tempted to use violence against his own race, then against authority to obtain what he wants. With the media on sight, almost encouraging this activity, he is rewarded in his violence and performs on cue. And the major point of this column is overlooked. Have we, in effect, returned our black brother to slavery by setting him up for a dependency that is as real as the slavery of his forefathers? I think so.
