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.
Jan 12, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In his State of the Union Address beginning the year 2014 President Barack Obama boldly threatened to “in effect” replace the legislative branch of government by doing it alone, through executive orders, if they did not do as he wished and in a timely fashion. On another occasion he said, “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation…. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions….” Some dubbed this his nullification of Congress speech. This was no idle threat. He had already effected 23 executive changes to Obamacare, which greatly altered the 2700-page law from its original meaning.
In April, we saw a range war between the federal government and the Bundy Ranch over the use of land used by Bundy ancestors for a hundred years. It brought into question why the federal government claims 87% of Nevada and sizable sections of all western states—even a third of the landmass of the United States. The Constitution gives it but 10 square miles for a capital and other land meeting three acquisition requirements. It had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of the acquired western lands followed these requirements.
Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting, April 1, by the BLM representatives of a sign, presumably for protesters, “FIRST AMENDMENT AREA.” An expandable red plastic three-foot-high wall encircled the area. In other words, those verbalizing disagreement with the BLM’s heavy-handed confiscation of Bundy cattle could only express themselves within this restricted area or risk being arrested. Opponents promptly posted a sign of their own, “1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA.” They rightfully contended that Free Speech covered the whole country.
In June of 2014, the President released five Gitmo prisoners—three top intelligence officers and two top military commanders—the five most wanted by the Taliban; one a former Taliban interior minister reportedly having had close ties with Osama bin Laden. These in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, said to be a traitor by his companions in Afghanistan when he walked off base seeking an Al Qaida representative. Article III, Section III clearly defines treason as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” No one seemed to question that these military commanders would return to the theater of war against us. Although key members of both parties, notably Senator Lindsey Graham and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein, were opposed to this action, few wanted to connect the President with an act of treason.
Children next invaded the United States–up from 6,000 in 2011 to 54,000 by late summer, these having crossed killer deserts, cartel infested drug territories, and in most instances more than one country, presumably on their own. The cause, Central Americans believed that if they could just get into the United States President Obama would let them stay. His Presidential Directive of June 16, 2012, to not enforce existing congressional law to extract illegals, fed this perception. Clearly our borders are not protected when children can cross, reportedly unaided: if children, then anyone. The Preamble, charges the federal government with the responsibility of providing for the common defense and it has failed to do so.
In yet another scary scandal the CIA recently acknowledged that it “had secretly searched Senate computer files related to an investigation of the agency’s Bush-era harsh interrogation program.” This wasn’t just any group of U.S. Senators that the CIA decided to spy on, it was the Senate Intelligence Committee, charged with overseeing all spying sponsored by our government. In effect, the CIA was spying on its congressional boss. Feinstein insisted that the CIA removed from committee computers information that cast the agency’s post-9/11 interrogation tactics in a harsh and negative light, this presumably to avoid embarrassment and legal entanglements. The President was never held to answer why his branch of government was spying on yet another.
Not content with Congress’s unwillingness to legislate on climate change to his expectations, the president issued a November 1, 2014, executive order that creates a de facto legislative branch to do so. He titled it, “Preparing the United States for the impacts of Climate Change.” Neither Congress nor the scientific community is in agreement that climate change, when it is documentable, is man-made. As a result Congress is unwilling to legislate, tax and spend on this supposed problem until more confirming data is available. The President, in disagreement, seeks to make rules unilaterally as he has in other areas, despite the fact that he constitutionally is not empowered to make any law as per Article I, Section I.
President Barack Obama acted as though he was unaware of the overwhelming rejection of his policies 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 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. After the American people soundly rejected his policies on November 4th, he addressed them in prime time fashion defiantly rejecting existing law and placing himself above Congress on immigration law. This, after he argued more than two dozen times on different dates in multiple places that he had no constitutional authority to do so, even arguing at one time that he would have to be an emperor to do so.
This decidedly has not been a good year for Constitutional integrity.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Jan 3, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D and Gary Pollock
The following is a story, written several years ago by a high school student where I live. His “Fish Story” is perhaps the most profound piece on the subject of the existence of God. As we look for ways to improve our lives the coming new year, improving our connection to a loving creator should top the list.
In one room, which was in one house, there was an aquarium. This aquarium was large, with strong glass walls. This aquarium was filled with clear, beautiful water, and had many fish. These were not ordinary fish—they were very advanced. In fact, they were so advanced that they formed a school. At the head of this school was Jim, the smartest of all the fishes. He was very respected by the fishes, and did his best to teach them well.
“Now,” he said, finishing up his lecture for the day, “we know there are many aquariums. We do not know if all these aquariums have fish, or even have water. We know that the aquariums built themselves long ago. Once they had done this, they filled themselves with water, and then fish spawned themselves in that water.”
Most of Jim’s students were very bright, and on their way to knowing as much as their very intelligent teacher. That is, except for one fish named Bill who just couldn’t grasp some of the concepts Jim taught. Because of his lack of knowledge, the other fish would tease him.
One night, Bill was swimming near the wall of the aquarium. Then, he saw it: a giant eye against the wall of the aquarium. Bill was afraid at first, but his fears were allayed as he stared at this eye. He felt a unique calm come over him. Then he saw another eye pressed up against the wall of the aquarium, and then what appeared to be a smiling face. This face spoke to Bill, who listened attentively to every word. When the face had gone, Bill quickly swam back to the other fish of the school.
“You won’t believe this.” Bill shouted to the other fish, who were now wondering why Bill had so frantically come to them. “I saw a being outside the aquarium. This being told me it was a human. It was much larger than us, even larger than the whole aquarium.”
That’s ridicules!” Snapped Jim, interrupting Bill. “We all know that nothing can live outside of an aquarium. There is no water outside. If this human exists, as you wish us believe, then how could its gill work where there is no water?”
“Well,” thought Bill, “maybe the human is different from us, able to exist where we cannot.” The other fish laughed, but Bill continued. “The human told me it built the aquarium itself, and filled it with water, and then placed us in the aquarium”
Once again, Jim interrupted Bill. “Listen to what you’re saying. Bill! We all know the aquarium created itself, and filled itself with water. Then we spawned in the aquarium, and that is how we came to be here. There is no such thing as a human and none of the fish in my school should pay any more attention to these foolish ideas, for they get in the way of the pursuit of intelligence. Ridiculous stories like this are why you are the lowest student in my school.”
Bill was heartbroken, and swam away as the other fish made fun of him. He began to doubt what he had seen. How could it be so if everyone else says that it wasn’t?
Some time later, Bill was again swimming near the wall of the aquarium, once again sad that he could not learn Jim’s teachings. Then, he saw the human again. This time he saw a smiling face with two appendages dropping food on the surface of the water of the aquarium. With this new discovery, he swam back to tell the other fish.
“I have seen the human again,” said Bill. “I saw the human drop food on the top of the water, and that is how our food comes.”
“This is foolish,” Jim once again snapped. “We all know food grows on its own at the surface of the water, and that is how our food comes. Bill, you invent these crazy ideas about a human because your feeble mind can’t understand the things I teach at my school.” The fish all laughed at Bill.
“No,” Bill pleaded, “the human exists, I saw it.”
“If this human is so intelligent,” Jim asked, “why does it show itself only to the lowest and least intelligent of all us fish? If this human is so smart as to live outside of the water, and even to build this aquarium, certainly it would be smart enough to know that I am the greatest of the fish. So why does this human choose to show itself and the great work it can supposedly perform only to you, the least intelligent?”
“Maybe because I looked for the human,” Bill replied. “The human perhaps came to me because I have accepted that there are some things I do not know. Rather than trying to dictate how my surroundings behave, I listen to the possibility that I am wrong. I believe this human will show itself to any fish, so long as they go to the wall of the aquarium and look for the human.”
Now Jim became angry. “That’s ludicrous! I have become sick of your preaching of the existence of this human. If we are ever to benefit as a school, and become truly intelligent, we cannot waste time making up things like humans. In fact, I’m going to make a law that no fish can ever talk about a human in my school. If we are to truly gain intelligence, there must be a separation of human and school!”
Bill had become saddened by this. But nothing Jim, or any fish could say would change what he saw. No teaching in a fish school could change whether the human truly existed or not.
Dec 23, 2014 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Those wishing to destroy or remove Christ from Christmas prefer “Winter Break” or “Happy Holidays;” the same is true of “Easter Break” to “Spring Break.” This language reduces the connection to Christ, the reason for both. Proponents argue that this terminology is advanced so as not to offend non-believers who sometimes choose to be offended but it offends those of us who are believers. The songs of the birth of Christ blanket the earth resulting in more love, more giving, more kindness, more caring and sharing, more thought for others, indeed more everything that is good. Why would anyone wish to remove this influence? Non-believers might say that society could have all this without Christ. Really!!— As evidenced by the other remaining eleven months??? I do not think so!! Christmas has an unexplained magic to it unlike any other time of the year.
I first noticed the unusual effects of Christ at Christmas as an eleven-year-old boy milking my neighbor’s cow while he was away. The experience was repeated on the following days also. It was a mostly opened shed, very cold at six a.m. in the morning with icy patches of unmelted snow still on the ground. The sky was lit with a thousand stars demonstrating the immensity of space and of the enormous domain of God. I was happy for no identifiable reason. This was the key—happy for no identifiable reason. And songs of the birth, especially “Silent Night,” played in my mind as I squeezed out the milk of the cow into an open bucket below. I felt all the virtues identified above seemingly all at once and I knew that this season and this little baby was much more than just special. He had to be God. I felt so warmed.
Others feel this warmth too as it is so plentifully spread over the earth as though by angels spreading angel dust. Santa is a nice guy, mostly for children, but made-up. Christ is not. Non-believers have to notice this unexplained special feeling or choose to deny it. Also easily noticed is that this special warm feeling is pretty much gone by New Years Day.
It is okay not to know as I know. I am long passed just believing. I respect the holidays and sacred days of others but I do demand my own. Of all the founders of other religions and faiths, some of which may have been impressive, none was born in a lowlier place—in a manger where cows fed—because his parents lacked the distinction to merit something better, even though with child. None was introduced into the world by a heavenly choir sung to lowly shepherds who got to be the first invitees to the birth of a king, possibly the only time that happened in history. None could read the unexpressed thoughts of others. None of them fed thousands with a few fish or loaves of bread. No other founder walked on water. None of them replaced a severed ear, fallen to the ground, simply by returning it to the head of his enemy. None of them healed the sick, made the lame walk, the deaf hear, and gave sight to the blind. Indeed He was the gift to the downtrodden, infirmed, and sinners. None could forgive sin itself. None restored life to someone who had been dead for days. None but Christ raised himself from the dead. None of them!!! None were said to be perfect. He wronged no one. None, while in the greatest moment of his excruciating pain, from one of the most savvier types of torture then know, forgave his afflicters “for they knew not what they did.” All these manifestations were shown with multiple, sometimes thousands, of witnesses. No one but God does these things.
The Wise men from afar knew of his birth in the “writings” of the stairs and came to visit bringing incense, frankincense and myrrh, gifts of great value. The American Indian legends speak of his birth and cite stories of a white God coming to them with new plants and foods and the same healing powers as expressed in the Old World. The Aztecs called him Quetzalcoatl, the Mayans Kukulcan and in Peru, Viracocha, in Brazil, Sume, in Columbia, Bochica. Time stopped and thereafter was counted as AD and BC for most of the world. Identify another who had this kind of influence over the world.
Christ left having given us the most profound political problem solving formula now known. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Such would end most, if not all, problems between humans and between governments. He commanded to first love God and then others as ourselves. For non-believers, who may contest Christ’s Godhood, can you dispute this wisdom?
Again, why take this special feeling and moment from Christians, or belittle it, or choose to offend me by expressing all this as simply “Winter Break” or “Happy Holidays.” Yes, offend me!! And most assuredly, please understand why I might retort, to someone giving me this greeting, to bring home my point, Merry CHRIST-mas. Yes, it is all about Christ, so be offended if you choose to be or be warmed with the unexplained magic of the season with the rest of us!!
Why would we not want to keep Christ in Christmas? Merry CHRIS-mas to all.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
