Jan 7, 2016 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
“We cannot wait for Congress to act on this,” so said President Barack Obama Tuesday in his first address to the nation in 2016. In essence he will now make the laws dealing with the 2nd Amendment himself because Congress refused to make law the President wanted. Mostly the executive orders (new laws) expand required background checks and the number of those requiring a sales license to sell guns (which requires tremendous paperwork, expense, and about a year to obtain). This Congress refused to pass three times during the Obama administration, once when the Democrats were in charge. Even gun exchanges between family members come into question. Potentially this means that people who violate the law made by the president alone will go to jail or be otherwise punished as with kings and dictators.
This is reminiscent of a statement made by the White House just two years ago on executive amnesty. “We’re not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress. We’ve been waiting a year already.” In this instance, some in Congress had worked on what was called the Dream Act that would extend amnesty and place illegal immigrants on a course toward full citizenship. Lacking popularity, twice it failed to get the majority vote of both Houses of Congress required by the Constitution, thus leaving long-standing existing immigration law unchanged. Obama, failing to get a favorable vote from Congress, openly defied Congress and the Constitution by ordering a like measure to that defeated, implemented anyway. It has since rightly been blocked by the Judicial Branch as having been an overreach by the President, thus unconstitutional.
Executive amnesty was outright contempt for Congress and the Constitution and the President knew it. Twenty-seven times prior to his doing the order he argued that it would be unconstitutional were he to do it. As for example, on March 28, 2011, he said, with respect to the idea of nullifying Congress on the deportation issue. “The notion that I can just suspend deportations just through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”
Indeed, by executive order Obama has changed existing law at least 30 times, most notably in the Affordable Care Act, which today is not the bill passed by Congress in 2010. In doing these, and the new parade of executive orders on gun control, the President is replacing Congress as the only federal lawmaker of the land.
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the Constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations of that law when contested—a division of power held “sacred” until the last few decades. The Constitution reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”(Article I, Sec. I).
The Executive branch has NO authority to make law—any law!!!! Nor does it have constitutional authority to alter existing law. Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently passed law of Congress, where that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Originally they were but interdepartmental directives.
A president can only suggest a need for new law in his State of the Union Address, and either sign or veto a law passed by Congress, which then, if vetoed, must be overridden by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses to become law. That is it.
I warned my readers when Obama blatantly violated the Constitution on executive amnesty that “if not challenged by Congress his alterations would become existing law by practice without the consent of the peoples’ representatives, voiding the role of Congress, and that he, upon finding a weak Congress, would repeat the practice of making law by decree.” He has!! Some have used the word dictatorial to describe the practice. I renew this warning, not just for Obama but also for presidents who follow from either party, as they will use past practice to justify desired practice and the trend to nullify Congress as the only federal lawmaking body will continue. Executive Orders that have the force and effect of law must stop to preserve liberty.
Obama’s present override of Congress on 2nd Amendment issues is an even more blatant abuse of his oath of office, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” To protect the separation of powers and end Obama’s threat to the Constitution, Congress must publically renounce all his new executive orders and fast track immediately to impeachment. Yes, the Constitution requires that he be retired in twelve months anyway but a bill of impeachment reestablishes the precedent that the people will not tolerate the defilement of the Constitution thus discouraging constitutional rogues of the future. Failing to do so weakens Congress’s sole role as the federal law-making branch of government, the clarity of the 2nd Amendment, and the integrity of the presidential oath of office.
Democrats must see that their failure to insist on a retraction of all law-making executive orders forever weakens the sole power of Congress to make all law and places us on the road of government by decree or edict of one man. We must choose the Constitution over party. The Constitution is there to protect all parties and all citizens from arbitrary and caprices rule as just announced. Please let it work.
Jan 3, 2016 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The December 15, 2015, Republican Presidential Debate featured a stark clash between the only two Hispanics running from either party, both also the sons of immigrants to this country. A successful bid would make either our first Hispanic president. But on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Bill of Rights they are on opposite ends, one opposing the other supporting.
A question with respect to the extremely controversial, largely on constitutional grounds, NDAA should have been a top news item in the presidential debate for three reasons: first, it had just been approved by both houses of Congress and was then on the President’s desk for his signature, second, a new president (presumably one of the debaters) would inherit the power to detain indefinitely and without trial American citizens he or his military suspected was a terrorist threat, and finally, all this in light of the ISIS terrorist attack in San Bernardino by one of our own. It wasn’t. Amazingly no commentator in any of the debates has asked about the NDAA.
It would not have come up at all had not Senator Marco Rubio accused rival Senator Ted Cruz of having voted against it every year since its inception in 2011 and accurately assumed that Cruz would veto it were he the president. Senator Cruz responded, “I oppose the federal government having the authority to detain U.S. citizens permanently with no due process. I have repeatedly supported an effort to take that out of that bill.” Rubio countered, “If you’re an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS, we’re not going to read you your Miranda rights. You’re going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country.” Senator Rand Paul attempted several times to have input in support of the Cruz position but was not allowed.
So why is this an issue? It is the word “suspected.” In the United States you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And there is also the damage to the Bill of Rights.
In the NDAA is a provision authorizing the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial, and hold 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) Article I, Section 9, 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. No freedom or constitutional advocate should be supportive of punishment without trial.
Many seem not 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 (or some other undisclosed location) for defending the Constitution. Such is possible under the NDAA. 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 seven years. Neither political party is without fault on this issue.
Perhaps Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz said it best when he proudly 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 2015 is still dangerous, still unconstitutional and still unacceptable in a free country!!
Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain pushed NDAA through the Senate in 2011 and Democrat President Barack Obama, promised to veto it, then reneged on the promise and signed it. It largely nullifies the Bill of Rights for those accused. No freedom or constitutional advocate should be supportive of punishment without trial. In the 2016 presidential race only Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, from either major political party, have voiced opposition to it. Presumably all other candidates favor it. Senator Rubio consistently voted for it and is probably the most outspoken 2016 presidential contender, from either major political party, advocating it. As such it is unlikely that, if elected president, he could fulfill the oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Dec 26, 2015 | Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The establishment media is baffled. They have influenced presidential elections since Woodrow Wilson by how they cover candidates—even more so with the advent of television. First, by limiting coverage to but two political parties of normally many offering presidential candidates in every contest. Essentially, if they do not give coverage you or your party does not exist. Second, the media shows preference by time given, comments supporting or not, questions asked or not, and placement in debates (whomever gets coveted center stage automatically gets more spotlight coverage) and etc. The first election is always the medias as they alone define serious candidates.
Collectively the establishment media has attempted to show Donald Trump as, a joke—certainly not a serious candidate, not a real conservative, a flip-flopper on the issues, anti-women, anti-immigration, insulting to everyone, a braggart, only into himself, least likely to beat Hillary Clinton, only attractive to white males, and not in touch with reality with respect to the Middle East, and more. They may be correct in some or all of these assumptions, and the constant barrage of but a third of these charges would have easily destroyed previous candidates. So why not Trump?
The establishment (sometimes prefaced by money or eastern) is likewise baffled. For over a hundred years, since William McKinley they, with the help of the media that they largely own, have propelled into power politicians sympathetic to their interests in both parties so that their interests get attention no matter which of their two political parties, Democrat or Republican, gets elected. Control of foreign policy is never out of their hands.
They oppose nationalism favoring coalition governance. Problem solving is much preferred on the world level, as in the UN, or in regional governments, NATO, the European Union and eventually the American Union. They push for international trade agreements that reduce U.S. sovereignty (NAFT, GATT, and most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership). Perpetual war feeds the “Industrial Military Complex” President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us to avoid. They benefit from increased power and money. They universally oppose an audit of the Federal Reserve, which they have controlled since 1913, and their support for foreign aid has never faltered, regardless of which party is in power. They destroy anyone not supportive of these things. So again, why not Trump?
The answer to why not Trump is almost too obvious. In the items mentioned above both parties look too much alike. Most Americans know that something is wrong—really wrong. Today Independents, those refusing to align Democrat or Republican, is about 40%, stronger than either party. Most Americans feel lied to by both parties and the media. Presidents from either party are strongly disliked by the time they finish their second term. The people feel deceived when they elect politicians to restore the Constitution and the economy and these same politicians appeared to join the other side as soon as they arrived in Washington D.C. Many have wondered the value of their vote outside “the lesser of two evils” philosophy.
Enter Donald Trump who mostly says what others were afraid to say, beginning with illegal immigration. Our Mexican friends have indeed invaded our country and taken, not just the jobs Americans did not want, but the ones that they do want as well. They have entered every field and their illegal children, being bilingual, are now favored in most other jobs. When a politician says that he will build a fence to help preserve their jobs almost no one believes him. Trump is a builder, has built magnificent structures, and is believed.
Simply put the media, the establishment, and the political parties have lost their credibility. The more the establishment or media gang up on Trump the more his following grows. He even tells off the media. His bravado is even somewhat refreshing from the Bush’s, Clinton’s, Boehner’s and McConnell’s. To return to yet another Bush, even though he is loaded with establishment money and has placed more television ads with that money than all others of both parties put together, is not going to happen. Nor is it likely for others favored by the establishment like Chris Christie, or John Kasich. The establishment has recently switched from Jeb Bush to Marco Rubio but even he, having run the second most number of television ads, has not gained the trust and traction equal to the money spent.
The establishment opposition to Trump certifies another factor in his favor. He is not one of them. He will not be control by them, as have his predecessors from both parties. Nor will any special interest group control him, as he takes no money from them. This may be the first time in 120 years that this is the case. Only the Constitution should guide and restrain him—not the moneyed establishment.
This brings up another factor in his favor, also not mentioned by the press. Most Americans believe that the economy is on a crash course. No country can long endure when more money is spent than taken in. No candidate understands the economy better than Trump having worked successfully with it for decades. He has the most incentive to get it back to a sound base than any other candidate, or even you or I; we lose hundreds when it goes, he loses billions.
The Trump phenomenon is essentially a rebellion against the media and the establishment by a population tired of being manipulated every four years into staying with the same failed internationalist foreign policy presented by establishment candidates of both parties.
Dec 18, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D with Mary Santomaro
The year 2015 was a dark year for babies denied birth. The filmed conversations of Planned Parenthood personnel boasting of harvesting, then selling, their body parts disgusted almost everyone who heard them. What have we become? Contrast this dark practice and feeling with the Christmas poem “If Mary Had Said No,” written many decades ago by Mary Santomaro. It warrants deep and serious reflection. Normally my readers are not treated to something written by another but this Christmas message cannot be said more profoundly by anyone other than to whom the message was given. It follows:
She was a young Israeli girl
Living with her mother, Anne.
Thrilled that Joseph, House of David,
Sought her daughter’s hand.
Anne was happy for she felt
She had not long to live.
Joseph would be good to her,
A happy life to Mary give.
The betrothal was announced
To family and all friends.
The preparations had been made.
Soon wedding vows would blend.
But then a strange thing happened
One day as Mary prayed,
Gabriel stood by her and spoke
“Hail, full of grace…” he said,
Then, “…the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women.”
And he told her even more,
She would bear a son, this omen.
She wondered at his greeting words.
She knew no man. How could this be?
“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,”
“…the power…Most High…over shadow thee; …”
This young Israeli girl then spoke,
“Behold the handmaid of the Lord;”
She accepted what God had asked,
“… be it done … according to Thy word.”
We all know as a direct result
A Blessed Babe was born
And laid within a manger
Upon a blessed morn.
For thirty-odd years, Emmanuel,
Then we put Him to scorn,
Crucified Him on a Cross
And all man’s sins were borne
By One Who could repair
The wrongs that man had done
And once again restore to each,
Adopted daughter, son.
Since that time more have died
Willingly for His Name.
In every age, from every land,
Sprung from martyrs, they came.
Christians, they have long been called,
Followers of the Holy One,
Living what He taught and lived
That triumph over death he won.
Many people since that time
Fought great evils to live as He
Carrying the flame of Eternal Truth,
Heads bowed, on bended knee.
But what if Mary had said, “No!” ?
Suppose that she had then
Told God, “It’s not convenient.”
“Can’t afford the stipend.”
She might have said, “There’s no way!
Everyone will talk!”
“I don’t want to have a child.”
Today, would any blame her balk?
But if she had, chances are
The world would long be gone
And none of us would be here
To choose the right or wrong.
Long before we even arrived
The world would have become
A more-sophisticated people,
Fewer, hedonistic, everyone.
There would be no call to peace,
No inalienable rights assumed,
The mighty would gobble up the weak,
No intercessions for the doomed.
Entire nations would disappear,
Progeny ripped asunder
For within their very bodies
Sprang no new lives to encumber.
Pretty soon God would call off the world
Knowing we would never change.
Why put up with us any more,
This people of such evil-arrange?
One thing, though, we’d have no need
To make decisions we now do…
To kill each other, do as we want,
Live our life and abort any new!
But Mary didn’t do that.
Not a wail of complaint was wrung.
“Behold, the handmaid of the Lord.”
For this Jesus Christ was sprung!
There are many, including a daughter, unable to have their own babies that pray everyday that they might have one or more of these rejected babies. Instead, over a million mothers in the United States annually choose to extinguish that which moves inside them. In the United States since Roe vs Wade in 1973, that number has been 58 and a half million. Worldwide, since 1980, that number exceeds one billion 359 million (US Abortion Clock.org).
Dec 15, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
President Barack Obama addressed the nation Sunday, December 6, 2015, a few days following the radical Islamic terror in San Bernardino that consumed the news and just one week following the radical Islamic terror that descended in several places in Paris. Both societies had two things in common, gun control and ISIS. Sadly, in both places sharing the same gun philosophy, violence was unrestrained. Also sadly, the president’s solutions to ending such violence in Americas’ cities are all unconstitutional.
When he covered what we should do at home he advised Congress “to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?”
George W. Bush created the no-fly list after 9/11. Prior to this there was a list of but 16 who were considered security risks for flying according to a June 7, 2007, CBS 60 Minutes presentation called “Unlikely Terrorists on No Fly List.” It is largely secret, “even members of Congress have been denied access to it.” 60 Minutes disclosed a no-fly list of 44,000 and another 75,000 Americans who should have “additional security screening.” At that time, eight years ago, the list was over 540 pages long.
Whether maintained by Bush or Obama a no-fly list for U.S. citizens is itself unconstitutional. The government places a restriction on someone because of a perceived belief, practice or action and thus defined him or her as a possible threat—no actual evidence required. In most instances he has not even been informed of the government’s intention to punish him until he attempts to fly and is forbidden doing so. In the Obama speech he was referred to as a “terrorist suspect.” A punishment is applied without any evidence of unlawful behavior—he may not fly. If there had been unlawful behavior the person would be incarcerated and the issue of a no-fly list would be irrelevant. Remember U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy was once on the government’s no-fly list as was a six-year-old boy, a number of persons over 80 years of age, and an 18-month old toddler Reianna (last name not given in the CNN report to protect family identity).
No-fly restrictions violate Amendment 5 as he was denied free movement or “liberty” “without due process of law.” The Amendment guarantees the person the right to be accused before punishment, but no accusation was made nor was evidence presented to a jury to evaluate as required.
It also violates Amendment 6 which guarantees one accused of his right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” None of this happens for the no-fly list people as the government has already effectively convicted and rendered punishment, sometimes indefinitely. Most have no idea why they are on the list or how to get off it.
Should Congress adhere to Obama’s request to “make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun” they will amplify the already existing constitutional infractions of Amendments 5 and 6 and keep thousands of lawful Americans from protecting themselves with arms. Amendment 2 guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and certifies that this right “shall not be infringed.” This too would be violated. A law—any law—cannot trump a constitutional amendment. The only constitutional way that Obama can change this amendment is with a new constitutional amendment.
Obama’s solution to the gun violence in California, we “need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino,” shows some ignorance of what happened there. California has the toughest gun control laws in the nation and it was not enough nor would it be if the government had gun confiscation. Paris, France had total gun confiscation over its people and ISIS still had free reign on its citizenry. Paris and San Bernardino had ISIS as their common denominator and the philosophy that if guns are restricted or confiscated there will be no violence. This proved false should put an end to this illogical argument.
Obama continued, “I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.” I know of none. My associates, who have guns, are very aware of safety measures. Firearms are dangerous. I have held a concealed weapons permit for many years and gun safety measures were always emphasized.
Then amazingly the President, probably without knowing it, made the case why gun control or confiscation will never end violence. He said: “But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.”
I rest my case. The federal government just admitted that it cannot always protect us. Natural law kicks in. People have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Violence will always exist in society. No matter how fast law enforcement is, (in San Bernardino the first officer arrived in 4 minutes), it is always not fast enough and people are normally already dead. As long as this is so, good people will carry guns—lawfully or unlawfully.
Dec 14, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
November 29, 2015, was the deadline for the end of NSA bulk collection of telephone records as established by the USA Freedom Act six months ago. This ended the Patriot Act, revealed by Edward Snowden, to have been the authority used to collect the bulk phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans, a certain big government invasion of privacy, which incensed civil libertarians. Libertarians and Constitutionalists, on 4th Amendment concerns, led by Senator Rand Paul brought the demise of the hated Patriot Act. This ends government surveillance of its citizens. Or does it?
The USA Freedom Act called for a six-month transition period allowing NSA to continue bulk collection as before, but at its end NSA must only access targeted data from telephone providers with judicial approval. Unfortunately for Constitutionalists it, like its predecessor the Patriot Act, nullifies the 4th Amendment requirement of “probable cause” and thus is as unconstitutional as the law it replaced.
Under the new law, the federal government forces telephone companies to collect the metadata instead and store it at their expense. The NSA may still access the information with approval of the secret FISA Court (a court that almost never denies permission) if the government maintains there is a reasonable suspicion that the phone data of a target is relevant to a terror investigation. What is missing is that Congress cannot simply pass a law nullifying a portion of a constitutional amendment. Its only option is another constitutional 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 and effects, 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, cellphone messages and phones are our “papers and effects.” 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 to use against you 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 USA Freedom Act, through proxy corporate entities charged with keeping our records for potential government inspection, is clearly unconstitutional.
“No, federal government!” You may argue that you are only protecting us from bad people out there by gathering our private information without our consent or knowledge, but who protects us from you? Historically far more terroristic acts happen under government authority than under private authority. Fortunately the Constitution does when enough use it in their voting practices and those we elect honor their pledge to protect it, and us, from you.
