Nov 21, 2014 | Liberty Articles
By Harold W. Pease
Many of us think about the tragedy in Dallas 51 years ago this month. Last May I visited the Texas School Book Depository on the corner of Houston and Elm Streets in Dallas, Texas and read the government’s inscription on the wall of the building, “On November 22, 1963, The building gained national notoriety when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot and killed President John F. Kennedy from a sixth story window as the Presidential motorcade passed.” The word allegedly grabbed me, as it was an admission that even the government was not certain, without some level of doubt, that Oswald did the deed or acted alone.
Most serious scholars on the assassination view the Warren Commissions review of the data with great skepticism (some with contempt) especially in light of its numerous omissions, as for example the testimony of Dr. Charles Crenshaw who placed Kennedy in the coffin at Parkland Hospital and testified years latter that the neck wound had been tampered with to look like an exit rather than an entry wound. An entry wound would have proved more than a single assassin and provoked more investigation. Also, why did they seal the unpublished portion of their findings for 75 years?
Finally, thirteen years later The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1976 concluded that “President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” They, like the Warren Commission, did their investigation mostly in secret. Unbelievably they too sealed their evidence for 50 years under Congressional rules. Withholding evidence feeds conspiracy theories. As the years fly by, and new data surfaces from the hundreds of books on the subject, it is increasingly more difficult to dismiss, as an accomplice, Lyndon Baines Johnson and his CIA/FBI friends.
My journalist friend, Don Clark, has personally read most of the 2000 books on the subject and is a noted speaker on the assassination. He told an audience in San Francisco that while the government has not, or will not, pursue the subject, private investigators have done so and we do not have to wait for the sealed records. He has a recommend list of “must reads” on the subject and they follow.
First, get the directors cut of the motion picture JFK by Oliver Stone. Despite the profanity the “movie contains more spoken words, more script, than any film in history.”
Second, On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison (a former FBI agent) treats Oswald’s time in New Orleans and four government agents identified as “handlers” that seemed to “shadow” him.
Third, read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. A stunning piece of original research published in 2008, by James Douglass.
Fourth, read MARY’S MOSAIC: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace, by Peter Janney. The work published in 2012 found that the author’s own “CIA father, was among the conspirators orchestrating the deaths of Kennedy and his friend Mary Pinchot Meyer. The latter’s death is also “in a veiled way” in the recent movie, An American Affair.
Fifth, read JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, by Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who served at the time of Kennedy’s death, as the key liaison between the Pentagon and the CIA.
Sixth, tying together many loose ends the following three books will help. Revealing the secret links between the most powerful law firm in Texas and the criminal rise to power of Lyndon Johnson is Blood, Money, & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip Nelson. Texas in the Morning by Lyndon Johnson’s long-time mistress, Madeline Duncan Brown “takes you to the meeting the night before the assassination. She reveals the identities of the men in that room. She shares the story of Lyndon Johnson coming late to the meeting, then emerging in a fury, grabbing her by the arms so hard it hurt, and swearing in a rage, ‘After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedy’s will never embarrass me again—and that’s not a threat, that’s a promise!’ ”
In light of decades of intensive reading, Clark poses the question, “Was it devious, desperate Lyndon Johnson, the viper in the nest, the Brutus to Kennedy’s Caesar, who with the help of J. Edgar Hoover had blackmailed his way onto the 1960 presidential ticket, who knew he was about to be dumped from the 1964 ticket, who knew he was about to be indicted and probably go to prison for his probable role in the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals, whose lifelong lust and endless scheming for the presidency would stop at nothing to get to that office, least of all murder?” Perhaps it is time to speak the unspeakable and be more inclusive of the new data in our history tests.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Nov 17, 2014 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
President Barack Obama acted as though he was unaware of the overwhelming rejection of his policies, which he had insisted were on the ballot this election, in one of the largest mid-term election defeats in the last 100 years. He came out of the gate with a renewal of his long-time threat of legalizing illegal immigration by himself through executive order before the end of the year. He referred to it as taking “care of business.” “I can’t wait another two years,” he defiantly threatened Congress.
Both branches of Congress returned their own warning if he made law independent of them. The new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell countered that his doing so would be comparable to “waving a red flag in front of a bull.” House Speaker John Boehner warned, “When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself—and he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the Constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, yet another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations, when contested, of that law—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!!!! 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. Presidential Directives, a type of Executive Order, differs only in defining how that law, passed by Congress, will be implemented. Neither type is to alter, or defy, law formerly passed by Congress.
For years some in Congress have been working on what is called the Dream Act that would extend amnesty and place millions of illegal immigrants on a course toward full citizenship. Lacking popularity, twice it has failed to get the majority vote of both Houses of Congress required by the Constitution thus leaving existing immigration law unchanged; once, between 2008-2010, when the President’s party controlled everything except the Judicial branch. He had his chance and was unable to even sell it to his own majority party.
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. Candidate Obama understood this when first ran, he said, “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it.” This is the law of the land and the Constitutional procedure violated by Barack Obama, as President, June 16, 2012, when, failing to get a favorable vote from Congress on legalizing illegal immigration, openly defied Congress and the Constitution by ordering a like measure to that defeated, implemented anyway. Thousands of illegals avoided deportation as a result.
This is the most open case of contempt for Congress and the Constitution and the President knew it. In 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.”
So why did he “flip-flop” and knowingly violate the Constitution? Obama saw an inept Congress that has not placed any restraint on his previous unconstitutional executive orders. He brilliantly also saw a way to “buy” the Hispanic vote. If the Republicans resisted he had a powerful campaign issue. His argument for the violation, “It is the right thing to do.” But this has nothing to do with the fact that he usurped the powers given only to Congress, and in the most contemptuous way possible, and established a precedent for the continued nullification of Congress. Moreover, he also violated his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”(Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). His failure to do so was “a high crime,” an impeachable offense, which action should have been introduced with bipartisan support with 100 signatures in the Senate and 435 in the House. This issue should have been that clear but unfortunately party loyalty is higher than constitutional loyalty. Will he defy Congress again?
The “waving red flag” mentioned by Mitch McConnell and the “playing with matches” noted by John Boehner should refer to the full use of impeachment powers by the House and the Senate if the President attempts to nullify existing law by his executive order. Democrats too must recognize that executive orders making law 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. How does a president’s defiance of Congress differ from what a king or dictator does? It doesn’t. The Constitution is there to protect all parties and all citizens from arbitrary and caprices rule. Please let it work.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 4, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold W. Pease, Ph. D
Earlier this month President Barack Obama said that, although he was not on the ballot, “make no mistake, these policies are on the ballot — every single one of them,” referring to Democratic senators refusing to allow the President to campaign with them in their states. A few days later he added, “The bottom line is though, these are all folks who vote with me; they have supported my agenda in Congress.” He referred to them as “strong allies and supporters.” Essentially he made it clear that a vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, is a vote for Obama and his policies. This was so six years ago when the unpopular George W. Bush was president as well and is so in every election when a president is not on the ballot. Mid-term elections are always a reflection of a presidents policies. Few, if any, Democratic incumbent members of the House or the Senate have voted less than 80% for Obama.
My point, mask it however they wish to keep unhappy Obama Democrats with their party. A vote for the Democratic Party is a vote for Barack Obama. It is also true that a vote for every member of Congress is a vote for or against holding to the Constitution as intended. Like the president the Constitution is always on the ballot.
So, what constitutional principles are on the ballot? Let us begin with the reality that all governments like to grow. The more decision making power they assume the less is left at lower levels of government or to the individual. Governments view everything in a way to extend their power. Either the government comes to control the people or the people control it. The Constitution advocates limited government. Personalizing it, “Are you voting for people, parties, propositions, or measures that grow government?” To prevent the growth of government all power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or identified in a subsequent amendment, was left with the states and the people (Amendment 10). “Is your national candidate or party willing to stay within the limits just referenced?” If not you must dump him or her or, at the very least, pick the one least likely to grow government.
Does your local candidate understand that part of his/her duty is to resist federal growth and will do so, and likewise, resist the tendency to grow his own office as well? Will he turn down federal “bribe money” to enhance federal control over local control. Will he/she work to keep decision-making power as close to the people as possible and away from federal bureaucrats?
Remember Thomas Jefferson said, “The best government is the least government.” It’s not that there is no government. You govern yourself constantly rather than allowing others to do so. It used to be called freedom.
Has your candidate offered any evidence that suggests that he/she supports the free market that made us the most prosperous nation on earth and in history and eliminated poverty in American for those able and willing to work? Will he/she work to protect the free market from the mountains of new rules and regulations emanating from federal and state regulators suffocating it, or are they more likely to add to them?
What is his/her stand on fiscal responsibility? Somebody has to repay our approaching 18 trillion dollar debt—eight of which accumulated under President Obama and his party. Someone has to stop the three to four billion dollar additions per day to this national debt before we fiscally collapse. Which of your ballot options is most likely to advocate solutions that reduce these amounts?
The free market, limited government, and fiscal responsibility are basic constitutional principles. The only type of federal government authorized by the Founders was decidedly a limited one. The Founders overriding philosophy of government, if it could be penned into one sentence, was, “never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level.” This applies to city, county and state governments as well. When these limitations are not understood, the federal government is constantly tempted to steal authority from the states or counties as per its confiscation of environmental, health, and education issues, which are constitutionally 100%, state issues. States should use the Tenth Amendment to protect themselves from federal intrusion. Is this the understanding of the people that you choose to place in authority over you?
City, county, and state leaders, you are our buffer from the federal government taking from you your areas of jurisdiction. They have done so for many years because you were complacent in it, or, ignorant of the Constitution. You have placed us in the position that your understanding of the document must be known before we place you in power. Our only hope now is to find leaders with Constitutional fire in their bellies to undo the precedents that you have created. All issues on the city and county level are directly or indirectly constitutional issues. We expect you to know, and abide by, the document that you swore to uphold.
If the President’s incumbent Senators running for office are running away from him and attempting to deceive the people that what they offer is different from his, perhaps we should be running from them. The fact is that neither they nor their Republican opponents have followed the Constitution very closely. Still, the Constitution is on the ballot every election and we the voter must find those candidates that will keep their election pledge to “preserve, protect and defend” it.
Oct 27, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
Recent headlines indicate that President Barack Obama is sending the National Guard to Liberia to help fight the spread of the Ebola virus. Their assignment, according to Obama in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, is to “augment the active forces in support of Operation United Assistance, providing humanitarian assistance and consequence management related to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in the West Africa region.” Specifically that means building 17 Ebola treatment centers housing 100 beds each. They would be joining the nearly 4,000 regular troops already slated to go. Why reservists, with so little training, were being sent rather than just regular soldiers, he did not say. Speculation runs high that some of our soldiers will be handling “infected blood samples,” a potentially dangerous assignment.
All this in an executive order signed by one man October 16, without congressional approval or even a measure of public sentiment as to whether we want our soldiers potentially bringing home the deadly virus, but these are questions for another time. My concern now is the constitutionality of the process.
Let us be reminded that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution left all war-making powers: raising armies, providing for a navy, and declaring, funding, and maintaining war with Congress alone. Defending the country is their prime responsibility. The President functions as Commander in Chief of the armed forces after Congress authorizes engagement outside immediate response to an attack. Remember, George Washington was strongly criticized for not defending the settlers from Creek Indian attacks. He argued that Congress had not authorized war on the Creeks thus he could not perform a military function until this was done. Today the President sends troops wherever and whenever he pleases and only asks Congress when he cares to.
But one rightly argues, this is not a war and we are not under attack in the military sense so the president has no Commander and Chief authority. If so Congress alone should decide whether we support volunteers in Africa. The enemy is a virus, not another nation or people, and this is a humanitarian effort. This argument too must be saved for another time.
My concern is the President’s emasculation of a portion of the Constitution if he sends a single national guardsman to Liberia. The militia is not and never has been the army. It is the people, the citizens, and in the 2nd Continental Congress, even before the Constitution, the militia was defined as every able bodied male 17 years of age and older. In 1903 the Dick Act revisited the topic keeping the original definition as Part A, the unorganized militia, and organizing a portion thereof into the organized militia, the National Guard, as Part B. It was to remain a separate body from the army and navy and retained its distinct internal function. Notice the wording in the Constitution authorizing Congress, “to provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Only Congress can call it forth. Its three functions are to execute the laws in the United States, suppress insurrections within our country, and to repel invasions to it. How can the organized militia (The National Guard) do any of these functions, for which it is specifically charged, if in West Africa? Unlike the army it is allowed to execute the laws of the union and suppress insurrections. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military these internal functions.
The National Guard was never to be thought of as merely a pool of reserve troops for the army. Impeachment proceedings should have been threatened against President George W. Bush when he treated them as such deploying 100,000 of them in 2005 to Iraq and Afghanistan, when enlistments were not enough, rather than asking Congress to restore the draft. This alteration of the Constitution by blatant ignorance is serious, by intent is treasonous. The National Guard was simply an easy target and no one from either party objected. It cannot perform its constitutional duty outside the United States. President Barack Obama’s mimicking the practice, as he did so much of the Bush foreign policy that he loved to condemn, by one-year deployments of Reserve troops in Afghanistan through 2014, indicating that the Constitution continues to be violated by Democrats as well.
The rational for a militia separate from the army is very simple. The first line of defense from unwanted aggression is oneself, followed by local law enforcement agents, followed by the National Guard (guarding the nation from within), followed by the military. As in soccer the National Guard is the goalie. Should invasion occur while the militia and the army are overseas we would be defenseless; by doing so both recent presidents have unconscionable left, or are leaving, us vulnerable and without a goalie.
The Constitution belongs to everybody and to generations yet unborn. It should be restored to its proper place as the item of first reference when the federal government does anything—not political party. Hopefully Democrats will remind the President of his “Bush-like” damage to it. If Congress does give proper authorization for use of the armed services for a purely humanitarian mission in Liberia, it should purposely exclude the National Guard and openly deny its use outside the borders of the United States. Actually, placing them on the border “to repel invasions” would be a real constitutional function.
Oct 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
A frequently asked question is how can a non-elected judge undo the elected will of the majority of the people on same-sex marriage? “What value is my vote?” they protest. In state after state the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman was passed—even in liberal bastions like California. 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. Probably less than fifty judges have effectively reversed the vote of several million voters and that group feels cheated.
The October Supreme Court decision to allow the rulings of the Appellate Courts to stand, by its not ruling on the issue at this time, allows same-sex marriage in 11 more states resulting in a sweep of 30, plus the District of Columbia. For the West the issue seems settled among the judges but three U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals still have to weigh in, 5 (Texas and Mississippi), 6 (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan) and 11 (the deep South), and if one of these rule for the voters, and opposite their fellow judges, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to take up the issue. If none of the circuit courts oppose, then the issue is resolved against the vote of the people unless they initiate a new constitutional amendment supported by three fourths of the states saying otherwise.
Still, many ask, “On what constitutional grounds was the Defense of Marriage Act ruled by the judges to be unconstitutional?” Under the Constitution originating with the Founding Fathers it could never have been. It is the perversions of the document that came much later that have resulted in the judges ruling as they have.
Let us begin with some basics. The first and most pronounced division of power recognized by the Fathers was between the states and the federal government called federalism. Basically state powers included everything except what was listed as federal power primarily in Article I, Section 8, because all agreed that the nature of all national governments was to grow and the Constitution was designed to specifically limit it doing so. That truth is most profoundly stated in Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. “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.” Simplistically federalism meant that the Federal Government would handle mostly foreign affairs and the states domestic affairs.
After the Civil War reentry of southern states into the union required their agreeing to extend all constitutional rights to their black population as well. Amendment 14, Section 1, disallowed states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” To the law makers of the day this was essentially the Bill of Rights and little more, but the phases “due process” and “equal protection,” not defined, became fertile soil for federal government’s natural tendency to grow; and grow it did like a cancer, many times beyond original intent—each expansion becoming the rational for even more expansion. Each phrase took on a life of it’s own. The judges, sometimes with tortured logic, were able to rule that a state may not deprive their same-sex couples from due process and equal protection of the law. Heterosexuals sometimes get advantageous by their marriage: taxes, adoptions and etc. also wanted by the homosexual community. These two nebulous phrases “due process” and equal protection” are the hinges of the door of the whole gay agenda.
So it comes to this. If a judge gives weight to these terms, not introduced into the Constitution until after 1865, seventy-eight years later and thereafter altered and expanded as needed and never understood by the writers of the amendment in the light of radical change, he will use it to make marriage denial for same-sex couples unconstitutional. To do so, however, he must minimize 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 the central government—just the opposite of what the Constitution is supposed to do.
Constitutionalist judges, on the other hand, value these essential components of the Constitution and will rule otherwise. Since marriage, or anything remotely similar to it, is no where mentioned in the Constitution the proper place for it, as for everything else not specifically given to the federal government, is at the state level. Would that mean that some states would allow gay marriage? Perhaps this in time would come about but only by the vote of the people, not by unelected and unaccountable federal judges. Then people would not feel disenfranchised.
Oct 20, 2014 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Three weeks ago President Barack Obama made it clear to the United Nations General Assembly that he no longer intended to be guided, at least in foreign policy, by the U.S. Constitution, “We cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century,” he told them, then he advocated global government through the UN. “If we lift our eyes beyond our borders – if we think globally and act cooperatively,” he said, “We can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age” (Obama UN Address Sept.24, 2014).
So with this clear directive to follow UN law, as established by those who “shaped the post-World War II age,” he spoke of the bombing of Syria to get rid of ISIS. This without either the permission of Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution or that of the United Nations though the UN Charter. Nor did he seek permission from the sovereign country of Syria to invade, with warplanes their soil.
Is an attack warranted under international law and, if not, could we be viewed by the world as an aggressor nation? Consider the following United Nations Charter violations we incurred when we crossed the Syrian border without Syrian permission to illuminate ISIS: Article 2, Sec. 4, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….” Even our threat of the use of force is a violation. The only exception to the use of force is self-defense as stipulated in Art. 51. “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Obama has yet to make a case to the United Nations for attacking the sovereign country of Syria. He has not, and will not, because he would have to justify such action on the basis that Syria had first shown actual aggression toward us necessitating our responding in self-defense. This he cannot do. Yes, ISIS has a history of aggressive behavior, even beheading two U.S. citizens on Iraqi soil, but Assad had nothing to do with this and has not even been consulted in resolving the problem either approving or denying our war planes entering his country. Were U. S. citizens attacked by Syria we could respond in self-defense but we were not. According to the UN Charter such acts of aggression justifying self defense must immediately be provided to the UN Security Council who then decide “such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Do not get me wrong, I oppose world government and think it incompatible with a country’s sovereignty and liberty and want us to operate totally independent of it, but Obama made a strong case for global government declining to follow the Constitution that he swore to “uphold, defend, and preserve” in favor of it, yet he refused to follow its charter also. He must follow one or the other or he risks being accused of following no legal path.
Other United Nation Charter rules also need satisfied. Article 39 stipulates that “the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Even before this takes place Article 40 must be satisfied which reads: “In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.” Obama went to the UN, not to comply with any of these instructions, but to tell them what he is already doing.
Theoretically Russia, China and Syria could ask the United Nations to define the United States as the aggressor nation and Obama as a war criminal and call for economic sanctions on us as has been used on other nations. That would be unlikely as they too are showing their own aggressive natures, Russia invading the Ukraine and China coming down oppressively on Hong Kong. Ironically Obama refuses to be guided by constitutional law or established international law—the very authority that he patronizes in his speech. And since we are the most powerful military power on earth the UN is not likely to press the matter, even more so as other countries, without UN or Syrian permission, are also bombing in Syria. Still, our signature on the Charter document obligates our submission to international law now mocked by Obama’s not following it. Did we think when we signed the Charter, creating the “world government,” that the rules did not apply to us, that we could just bomb whomever, whenever, and wherever we wished? Obama must think so.
