Feb 24, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
It is difficult to say what mans’ greatest crowning technological achievement has been but it is likely the Internet, which emerged and operates without a central governing body—just like most everything in a free society. It has no centralized governance for either technology or policies but is guided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for the allocation and assignment of various technical identifiers needed for its operation. UCLA and Stanford University are the educational institutions most associated with its development as is the name Jon Postel who helped guide it through three decades, but contributors are too numerous to name. My point: it moved and shaped itself as needs developed without big government resulting in a technological tsunami wave unparalleled in human history for the benefit of everyone on earth and it will continue to do so best without government interference.
Enter Barack Obama who has made no pretense of his desire to regulate the Internet. The take-over begins slowly, without review from Congress or any body except the President’s Federal Communications Commission, and is to remain largely silent. They, the FCC, will meet February 26, 2015, in a quiet room and vote whether or not the government should control the Internet. Government always chooses to enlarge itself so there exists little hope that the vote, making them more powerful, will be in the negative. Ironically warnings of the take-over, are thus far, posted only on the Internet.
It is easy to see why governments want control of this medium. Its existence promotes freedom from excessive government. Totalitarian states such as North Korea, China, Russia and even Iran have long ago restricted information adverse to them getting to their people.
Deceptively the take-over is called Net Neutrality, named by the government to infer that they will insure that no other entity, other than them, will have any undo influence over the Internet—a threat that is totally unfounded as demonstrated by its superb three-decade management of itself. There exists nothing neutral about Net Neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. Freedom is often lost in the name of freedom. This will not end well for freedom buffs or the free market.
Reportedly the FCC has planned on applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the Internet since April 23 of last year. The President encouraged the process November 10, 2014. The Republican House discussion draft bill of January 16, 2015, opposes the take-over which would reclassify internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications, such as radio or television, enabling the decades old rules over the other mediums to apply to the Internet at the discretion of the FCC alone. Thus bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns could be limited or taxed.
So far Republican opposition is weak and Democratic opposition is non-existent. Conservatives view the take-over as a means of silencing them, much the same way that Obama has used the IRS to silence the Tea Party Movement. Liberals are mixed: strong advocates of individual liberty such as the “right to die” or use marijuana without government say so, but wanting to support their President. They need to be reminded that conservative Richard Nixon used government agencies to silence them as well.
If one wants to see where government regulation of the Internet can lead it can be found in a “free” country such as the Netherlands. For them providing Net Neutrality in practice recently meant a stiff fine for a company offering an app enabling folks to stream HBO channels without charging for data usage. In an Internet free world the app would be a welcomed invention. The company was also accused of influencing its customers’ online behavior by doing so, which is not allowed either.
As far as I can tell, at press time, the 332 page FCC plan, that will be voted on February 26, has not been made available to the public or to Congress. The take-over will happen without cameras or media comment and government agents will too soon fan out over the land looking for people to tax or criminalize and a serious blow to freedom will have occurred almost without notice. This is a time to phone your congressperson and two senators. You must demand that the FCC make their plans public, and that the Congress, who is constitutionally required to make ALL the laws as per Article I, Section I, perform their responsibilities, rather than sit by and let unelected bureaucrats do so.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Feb 16, 2015 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Presidents’ Day, combining birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for a national holiday, was designed to honor the contributions of both but, though we heap praise upon each, we ignore their messages. Washington’s primary message for posterity can be found in his famous Farewell Address just prior to his leaving office.
In strong terms he asked that we avoid debt. He said: “As a very important source of strength and security cherish public credit… use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasion of expense… [Use the] time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.” Today our national debt sits at over $18 trillion—the highest in our history—eight trillion of which coming under President Barack Obama alone. We are spending our way into slavery for our children and/or financial collapse (See USDebtClock.org).
Washington pleaded with the nation to keep religion and morality strong. He said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” The founding Fathers never supported the notion of separation of religion and government—only the separation of an organization of religion from government. What would Washington say of the immorality that prevails today?
But the warning about foreign aid was especially good. He basically told us gift giving in foreign affairs is a good way to be universally hated. He said it placed us “in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.” Today there is hardly a nation in the world that does not have its hand out and when, after once giving, the amount is reduce or terminated we are hated all the more for it.
Washington worried about posterity not holding their elected officials strictly to the limits imposed by the Constitution. He knew many would seek to undermine that document by twisting it to give power they could not acquire without the distortion. Sound familiar? He said: “But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Today much of what the federal government does is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
But freedom fighters are not likely to be popular, he said: “Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.” One need not look far for the tools and dupes; they seem to be everywhere in high office and in both parties.
Lincoln was for the free market and decidedly against socialism—just opposite of President Obama. On the ownership of property Abraham Lincoln’s feelings were especially strong, he said, “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprises” (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, pp. 259-260). To him there was no need to take by force the wealth of those who produce and give it to those less productive. The “share the wealth” philosophy and “envy politics” so articulated by Obama would have been foreign ideology to the Civil War president.
Lincoln’s answer to the poor, from which he sprang himself, “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence….” Unfortunately, many in our society have forgotten the “labor diligently” part of his phrase and have come to expect the government to provide, from the industry of others, their every need. On that score Lincoln also had words. “You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.” He viewed this principle as a form of tyranny to those who work. Today 47.5 % of the adult population pays no federal income tax; many actually receive benefits for which they have paid nothing.
Watching others acquire wealth was, in fact, a sign of a healthy economy for Lincoln. “I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.” Nor would he have supported the hundreds of laws that we have today that disincentivise a man trying to acquire wealth.
Perhaps teachers and parents would be wise to remind those under their charge of the wisdom of the ages as expressed by these two favorite presidents. There is a reason that we have the day off and that these birthdays were made a holiday. But with all the fun that follows we must not forget their messages.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Feb 10, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In state after state the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman was passed. Likewise, in state after state, since passage, non-elected federal appellate judges have ruled same-sex marriage to be constitutional, reversing the will of the majority—until now. Finally a justice is actually using the whole Constitution in his arguments. Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court recently wrote that the U.S. Constitution gives no jurisdiction whatsoever to any branch of the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states and is advising Alabama Governor Robert Bentley to disallow county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to do so.
In a hand delivered letter to Governor Robert Bentley January 27, 2015, Justice Moore argued that “nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage” and that it decidedly trumps Alabama state law, more specifically the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment passed in 2006 by 81% of her voters. Moreover, “44 federal justices have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states.” This he called judicial tyranny, which he defined as “unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.” He referred to the misuse of more recent interpretations of equal protection, due process, and full faith and credit concepts, as “specious pretexts” not part of the original document.
The press seldom consults the Constitution. Everything to them is simply liberal or conservative and Republican or Democrat. End of analysis!!! But is Moore constitutionally sound? What does the Constitution say about marriage and can Governor Bentley constitutionally refuse compliance with a judicial mandate?
When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution they recognized two co-existing governments known as Federalism: one, the federal government, to function primarily externally, the other, the states, to manage internal functions. Like a marriage they functioned—neither being master nor slave. Of the two only the federal government was restricted in its functions by a list of 17 specific powers found in Article I, Section 8. The Founders knew that all national governments like to grow. The states were left unrestricted and all power not identified was assumed left to them and lesser governments. To make doubly certain that this limitation on the federal government was permanent, the States insisted on having a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution as a condition of their acceptance of it. Amendment 10 of it reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Unfortunately for advocates of federalizing loving relationships the word marriage, or anything like unto it, is not in Section 8, nor has it been added to the Constitution by way of amendment through Article V, which is the process for change and thus this issue is devoid of federal constitutional authority. If we are to follow the Constitution as intended, and not make a mockery of it, marriage related questions are state functions at best and cannot be moved to a federal jurisdiction without a 3/4th affirmative vote of the states as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Alabama has every constitutional right not to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
Still, what about Amendment 14, passed after the Civil War to make the southern states apply the Bill of Rights to their freed black population—the amendment now almost exclusively used to justify same sex marriages? This amendment was about slavery, not marriage; homosexuality at the time was illegal in every state. Two nebulous phrases in the wordy amendment, “due process” and “equal protection,” were extracted later by judges, sometimes with tortured logic, and used to rule that a state may not deprive their same-sex couples of due process and equal protection of the law. Each nebulous phrase took on a life of its own with no regard to original intent.
If a judge uses only the distortions of Amendment 14, not introduced into the Constitution until after 1865, seventy-eight years later and never understood by the amendment writers to justify radical change, he will use it to make same-sex marriage constitutional. To do so, however, he must intentionally ignore Article I, Section 8, and Amendment 10 and utterly discard the philosophy of federalism. Such judges endorse the movement to grow the federal government, righting all wrongs and solving all problems through an ever-enlarging central government—just the opposite of what the Constitution is supposed to do. Constitutionalist judges like Moore, on the other hand, value these essential components of the Constitution and will rule otherwise.
Judge Moore uses the complete Constitution as understood by its Founders. His opponents take one sentence out of the whole disregarding everything prior to 1865 and give it a meaning not understood at the time. So again, we finally have a judge who uses the whole Constitution in his interpretations.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Feb 2, 2015 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Billed as the storm of the year, and perhaps of the decade or 21st century, tens of millions of people from Philadelphia-to-Boston scurried home before the 50 to 75mph snow-blowing icy winds over took them. Authorities banned travel on all streets in New York City and violators, who lingered too long, could be fined $300. City Mayor, Bill de Blasio warned, “This will most likely be one of the largest blizzards in the history of New York City.” More than 7,700 flights in the Northeast were canceled and governors rushed to declare state of emergencies. Certainly the Northeast could use some of that “hot air” from the global warming predictions of the past to mitigate this mega storm.
Here are a few of those predictions as cited in The New American, “Embarrassing Predictions,” August 25, 2014. In June 30, 1989, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned, “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” Crop failures and flooding “would create an exodus of (starving) ‘eco-refugees’.” The year 2000 came and went with no nations disappearing or with fleeing starving “eco-refugees.”
In 2005 the UNEP predicted some 50 million “climate refugees” fleeing the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas within five years; 2010 came and went without producing a single “climate refugee.” The United States and China both have significant populations within these danger zones. Most of the identified areas, rather than deceasing in population because of the melting ice, actually increased in population.
Not to be outdone a Pentagon Commission Report in 2003 envisioned “a post-apocalyptic world caused by global warming within a decade, only to be proven wrong about everything.” By 2013 California was to be flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands ‘unlivable,’ polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures.” The environmentalist U.K. Observer followed with the prediction that “Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years.”
Perhaps the most outlandish global warming alarmists predictions was that of the end of snow. David Viner, a climatologist from the University of East Anglia, predicted that a “snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’…. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” And, “skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory.” Fortunately for skiers, the BBC reported in 2014 “that Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades.”
Close behind the end of snow prediction was the end of ice for the Arctic prediction, made by former Vice President Al Gore and others in 2007-09. Gore maintained that, “the entire North Polarized cap will disappear in five years.” It didn’t!! When that time came in 2013, ice coverage was actually 50 percent higher than the year before. In fact, dozens of global warmists, anxious to witness the prophecy fulfilled, boarded the flagship MV Akedemik Shokalskiy for the North Pole and enroute were frozen in place by sea-ice. They had to be rescued by a helicopter because ice cutters were unable to free the ship for two weeks. Actually, Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft measured ice volume in the summer of 2013 at 9,000 cubic kilometers—twice the thickness as reported in 2007 when Gore made his prediction. Obviously the North Pole was still deep in ice.
A similar case can be made for the South Pole. “Sea Ice area in the south is now at the highest point since records began” indeed, “if both poles are considered together, there is about one million square kilometers of frozen area above and beyond the long-term average.”
The embarrassing predictions of the global warming crowd of the past do not give us confidence in their predictions of the future. In the last three months new predictions have surfaced. The latest include: a prediction of a fifty percent increase in lightning strikes this century over the last. Global warming will threaten the survival of more than half of all species of birds in the United States and Canada by the turn of the century. And, the United Nations reported a historic rise in CO2 gases in 2013, which will inevitably force a warming of the climate. If such a rise has occurred why is the Arctic ice twice its 2007 thickness? Global warmists simply move on to the next frightening prediction without explaining why those of the past did not pan out.
Of course, neither the present mega storm in the Northeast, nor the designation of the winter of 2013-14 as one of the coldest on record in the United States, verify or fail to verify global warming. But if any of the predictions had any validity New England would not be so cold this week. Certainly the “hot air” from the global warming alarmists predictions would have easily melted the two to three feet of snow they now endure.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 1, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
In listening to the President’s State of the Union Address one might think that he actually has the power to do what he requests. On domestic issues two old requests from last years State of the Union Address were renewed: a request for raising the minimum wage and, instead of just making the college opportunity available to all middle class Americans, he went further proposing free community college for all. Other requests included advocacy for “a free and open Internet,” which, given a recent executive order means control of it, expanded child care tax credits, improved job training, expanded paid leave, and a new tax benefit for two-income families. All this to be funded by increased taxes on the rich. He threatened a veto to any legislation that altered Obamacare or undermined his recently decreed executive amnesty. He was decidedly unclear on his request for criminal justice reform, certainly a reference to the riots in Ferguson, Mo. More federal involvement always means more federal control.
He defended his positions on Cuba and Iran and threatened presidential vetoes if Congress legislated differently. Constitutionalist had to have cheered when he seemed to lecture, the mostly Republican Congress, on what he called “rash decisions, reacting to the headlines instead of using our heads; when the first response to a challenge is to send in our military—then we risk getting drawn into unnecessary conflicts, and neglect the broader strategy we need for a safer, more prosperous world.” He called it “a smarter kind of American leadership” and seemed aimed at the so-called military industrial complex of which President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned. He saw rewriting the Authorization of Use of Military Force, which authorized the air campaigns in Iraq and Syria, as a priority but left few specifics on what that meant. He still refuses to use the term Radical Islamist Terrorists in describing the Islamists involved in the mass killing in Nigeria, Iraq, Syria and France even though while he spoke they were threatening to topple Yemen who has stood with us in opposition to al-Qaida.
The list went on and on as it does for every president Republican or Democrat, but what was different from last year is that he threatened the use of the veto rather than the threat of his bypassing Congress with the use of the “pen” through executive orders. The term executive order is not found in the Constitution and initially was nothing more than inter-departmental communications between the President and his executive branch with him requesting some action on their part. Constitutionally they have no law-making function.
Unfortunately most, if not all, of these things are not in Article II of the Constitution nor have they been added by way of amendment as outlined in Article V of that document, thus they are unconstitutional. It is very probable that, even with the approval of Congress, they would be outside the Constitution but that is a topic for another time. Presidents, in their thirst for power and /or proclaimed expediency, have empowered themselves to the point of “kingship” with their worshipful, unchallenging, party followers (whether Democrat or Republican) quite willing to look the other way as government grows beyond its ability to be constitutional or efficient. At any time he could remind the people of his real constitutional powers but he will not as that would drastically reduce his power that is beginning to look limitless.
We must return to the Constitutional powers of the President as identified in Article II. As we list these powers attempt to match the State of the Union requests wherein he suggests that he might have a role. Under the Constitution the president has but eleven powers. Let us identify them: 1) “Commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States” including the militia when called into actual service of the United States; 2) supervise departments (cabinet), each presumably established by the Congress (George Washington had but four); 3) grant reprieves and pardons; 4) make treaties with the help of the Senate; 5) with Senate help appoint positions established by law such as ambassadors, ministers and judges; 6) fill vacancies “during recess of the Senate;” 7) make recommendations to Congress on the state of the union; 8) convene both houses on special occasions and handle disputes with respect to convening; 9) receive ambassadors and other public ministers; 10) make certain that “laws be faithfully executed;” and, 11) “commission all the officers of the United States.”
Simply stated the president has two supervisory powers over existing organizations and two shared powers with the Senate, otherwise he pardons, recommends, appoints and entertains. That is it! Notice the absence of power to make any rules and regulations on us. This is the job of Congress alone.
All measures listed in the 2015 State of the Union Address are but suggestions to Congress, which alone, as per Article I, Section I, has all law-making functions—the president has none. That said, he is within his constitutional bounds with his threat of the veto, which is likely to be used liberally.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Jan 19, 2015 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
First Jeb Bush, then Mike Huckabee, and most recently Mitt Romney have each announced an interest in becoming the Republican Party nomination for president in 2016. The problem is, as is the problem with every election for many presidential elections, they, as with the media appointed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, are all members of, endorsed by, or notably friendly to the international banking special interest group, the Council on Foreign Relations. Indeed for decades the CFR has not let anyone close to the nomination of either party for president that is not subject to their influence.
No special interest group has had more impact than the CFR over foreign policy in the 20th Century, leading many to question if we have but one political party in the United States with two arms. Indeed, many see no significant difference in foreign policy between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Nor was there any between George Bush and Bill Clinton. CFR candidate Barack Obama, probably the most anti-war candidate in a couple of decades, and so condemnatory of his predecessor in this area, as president not only continued the Bush wars but added Libya, central Africa and now Iraq and Syria to the list while sponsoring drone killings in Pakistan, Syria, and Somali. History will view him as having been as pro-war as George W. Bush.
Obama’s previous Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, probably admitted more than she was supposed to in her address at the dedication of a branch CFR facility in Washington D. C., when she said that her source of direction was the CFR sub-center down the street. “I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” Hillary Clinton Describes the Importance of the CFR 32511
Of those thus far indicating a 2016 intent to run for president only Mike Huckabee is remotely conservative but the CFR dominated media, because of his evangelical credentials, have undermined him as a serious candidate as they did Ron Paul, the only candidate for president in 2012 not CFR approved. Non-approved candidates are marginalized; as was Paul, “Nice guy but not likely to win,” type comments that with constant repetition become believed. “Why would anyone intentionally throw away his or her vote,” is the hidden message. Huckabee was once listed as a member of the CFR and presumably would follow instructions, at least on things that mattered to the establishment.
The next UN Ambassador, Secretary of State, Ambassadors to both Russia and China will be from this organization, as will a third of his/her cabinet. Not might be!! Will be!! No one gets to be president without its approval. No exception!! We get to choose which one of their approved party finalists we want, but the first election is theirs. I make the same prediction today for whoever follows Barack Obama to the presidency. Such has been the case since the Council on Foreign Relations was founded by its international banker creators J.P. Morgan and et in 1921. It is the special interest group of Wall Street, supported by grants from the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford foundations. Its journal, Foreign Affairs, is “considered throughout the world to be the unofficial mouthpiece of U.S. foreign policy. Few important initiatives in U.S. policy have not been first outlined in articles in this publication.” The CFR promotes sovereignty transfers from all nations to the United Nations; indeed its end goal is world government.
The Bush family has been CFR attached long term. George Herbert Walker Bush was at one time a director and later loaded his administration with advisers from that group, as did his son George W. Bush (although not a listed member but his Vice President, Dick Cheney, was). One can expect the same for his brother Jeb who was co-chair of “CFR Task Force Report on U.S. Immigration Policy,” (July 2009). The current CFR membership roster does not list Mitt Romney as a member, and in 2007, he denied such. That said, the CFR website did have a very comprehensive and favorable outline of his policies on 22 foreign policy areas seemingly to invite support for him. They cite him as having published in their July/August 2007 magazine Foreign Affairs. They publish no one unless seen favorably by them. His selection of their organization as the source for a majority of his foreign policy and national security advisers suggests that a Romney Presidency will be managed by the CFR as with his predecessors.
This is why there is so little difference in foreign policy between democrats and republican presidents. They get their advisers from the same Wall Street special interest group pool. They all support extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 900 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. They all support economic sovereignty transfers from all nations to the United Nations and outsourcing American jobs through regional partnership agreements. Likewise, they all support bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers own private Federal Reserve Bank. The one percent richest Americans heavily finance both parties. Neither represent, as first consideration, the poor or the middle class.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
