Oct 6, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
“On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century,” so said President Barack Obama to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014, presumably referencing the U.S. Constitution. You may recall that the current biggest issue is his having initiated war in Syria by bombing ISIS without the constitutional approval of Congress. This is the third country that he has bombed without congressional approval preceded by Libya and Iraq, which gives him a legacy as a war president. Many recall that he was critical of President George W. Bush for having done the same thing.
All war powers are clearly described in Article I, Section 8 and the President is left with none. Once approved, he can execute the war as commander and chief, but still under the funding limitations imposed by the House of Representatives.
The obvious dig on being restricted to a document “written for a different century,” shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1). Some in Congress considered his having done so in Libya an impeachable offense stating thus in Concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 107, but Democrats did not wish to confine their president. Still, the Presidents phrase is a mockery to the Constitution and should be unacceptable and embarrassing to every American, whether said by a Republican or a Democrat. Ironically the Constitution is designed to harness presidents just like him, and his predecessor George W. Bush, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for their own constitutional abuser.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution (whether ignorantly or intentionally), which is based upon human nature and natural law, which does not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those that wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do and they will always need to be harnessed to that list. There will always need to be division of power and presidents will always, as James Madison said, “have a propensity for war” and wish to use any military power without consent. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can, in effect, purchase elections by “gifting” voters. The magic of the Constitution is that it, outside defense, does not distribute benefits to anyone. These are the reasons that it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. President Obama’s problem with the Constitution is that it restricts him from doing anything that he wishes and thus his belittling and embarrassing comment before the world.
One of my favorite classes to instruct is Contemporary Political Topics. Students are encouraged to first use the Constitution, then natural law in problem solving, rather than political party or philosophical persuasion. This base is justified because every politician has sworn to “protect, preserve and defend” this document. It is the instrument by which everything should be judged. They love it. Amazingly we have yet to find an issue where the Constitution does not address current problems.
So why should the president have the same restrictions on war as those presidents of a different century? It is because he does not fight on the front lines and is not at real personal risk. It is the sons and daughters of the nation who bleed and die for the cause and it is the taxpayer who funds the war. They, through their representatives in the House of Representatives, elected every two years by those most likely to suffer from the decision, are the ones constitutionally empowered to make the offering. War would than never be taken lightly. Suffering and cost to the nation would always have its proper place in the equation. When the war goes on too long the President must justify to the House the reasons why, and if the peoples’ representatives do not accept his reasons, funding can be limited incrementally to bring an end to it or cutting it off entirely. In short, the people, rather than just one man, make the decision to go to war. As it was under George W. Bush, and now is under Barack Obama, one man and his military machine, both benefiting from war, decide entry and exit, not the people.
The “rule book written in a different century” is still as reliable as before on protecting us on entry and exit of war. What we need today are presidents and legislators that love and use it. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply.
Sep 15, 2014 | Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold W. Pease
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the United States I came across an article that claimed that our intelligence community had found a document from AL-Qaeda arguing that Islamic war with the United States could be successful only by bringing us to them. The largely camel driven society could never win otherwise. As I recall it was called the “fly paper trap.” Once in their land they could bleed us gradually for many years in expensive, “no win” to us, wars. Destruction and death to them would feed recruitment needs as long as we were there. They would be fighting to keep their homeland free from us, everyone killed has brothers seeking vengeance who would join the team against us—doubling and tripling our enemies.
Whether this was intentionally the strategy initiated from the top or not, such has been precisely what happened. It is hard to argue that we won in Iraq when a third of the country is now under the control of ISIS and al-Qaeda is poised to return to Afghanistan after our 14-year presence there. We also left behind much weaponry to their benefit. We have been greatly diminished in “blood and treasure.”
Now it seems that we are invited—even enticed—to return. Even the most pacifists of us are enraged by two blood-splattered video portrayals of beheadings of U.S. journalist, tauntingly placed on the Internet to invite our return. First James Foley on August 19, then Steven Joel Sotoff in early September, presumably killed by the same guy with the British accent. After the second beheading the killer then knelt by his next potential victim, David Cawthorne Haines a British citizen, and indicated that other coalition countries with the United States would also be victims if the bombing of ISIS does not stop.
President Barack Obama, with the most intelligence available to him of any person on earth, appears caught off guard, indecisive, even unconcerned with respect to the Caliphate formed during his watch and under his nose by ISIS the last few months. He should have seen it coming. Vice President Joe Biden, minced no words. He said what the President should have said, and what the people needed to hear, after the second beheading, “They should know we will follow them to the Gates of Hell until they are brought to justice.” Still, the Democrats are not together on this one and rightfully so. This means reentering the Middle East in yet another no win war.
What is more horrifying is that only a year ago Republicans Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain advocated teaming up with ISIS (what they then called the rebels) to defeat Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. We were secretly providing them with arms. They were the good guys. Now al-Assad, the guy who gassed his own people, has invited the United States to assist him in getting rid of ISIS in Syria and we may become allies. Even now Presently Obama is considering bombing ISIS in Syria. Nothing could be more upside down. The Middle East is a crag mire, a trap full of quicksand, one giant Islamic family feud of which we can never benefit. Outside of supporting Israel we should not again be caught in the flytrap.
Here is what we should do. We must stop the national insulting beheading of our journalists but without a new war. By now our intelligence knows, or soon will, the name of the Islamic murderer. Let us very publicly offer a million dollars for proof of his demise. Raise this amount periodically, if need be, until even his friends will be tempted to remove him. In the meantime he becomes suspicious of even his closest comrades leading to contention from within. Nothing destroys the effectiveness of a group more than distrust. This also should discourage other would be heinous murders as we would do the same thing to them. If more is needed after this first step we can consider it then.
Give American Islamic groups, who have largely been strangely silent on this issue, an opportunity to show themselves equally horrified by this groups’ “convert or die” philosophy by encouraging them to speak out against and significantly help fund the amounts needed to remove those practicing violence in the name of their religion. This plan saves our “blood and treasure,” creates no new enemies and helps American Islamists show their support for freedom of all religions in this land.
Criminalize, then punish, any U.S. citizen funding or fighting for ISIS. Deny any foreign aid and/or trade preferences to countries supporting ISIS. Encourage free world countries to do the same with respect to their people. Isolate ISIS as we have North Korea. We have allowed ourselves to become the common enemy of the Islamic world. Without our physical presence there, they will return to fighting each other as they have for hundreds of years dissipating their own strength rather than ours.
Aug 30, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
There is finally a break in the Justice Departments infamous Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal to Mexican drug cartels of hundreds of assault weapons. Under a July 18 court order emanating from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice is now required to produce an index of hundreds of documents sought by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act. It is required to produce the index, unfortunately not the actual documents, by October 1.
You may recall the refusal of Eric Holder to surrender to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, thousands of documents in his possession that would bring to light everything known about the supposed scandal which ended in the chief law enforcement officer in the land getting a contempt of Congress citation. The House was left powerless when Holder obtained from President Barack Obama executive privilege freezing the documents from congressional or public view—thus the charge of a cover up.
Executive privilege, or anything like unto it, especially withholding potentially criminal activity, is not in the Constitution. When Richard Nixon argued similarly in Watergate the media rightfully was all over him but the media is amazingly quiet on this story as potentially it could bring down a President long supported by the establishment press. Ironically Holder used a Nixon argument in his request that Obama assert executive privilege (Attorney General Eric Holder Letter to Obama, June 20,2012).
Until the release of the suppressed documents this is what is known or believed to be true. This administration’s contempt for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is well documented. Previous attempts to get Americans to give up their right to possess firearms have not been successful nor are likely to be. Since Americans will not willingly do so, imagine someone in power plotting to create the rational that would turn most reasonable people against these rights and gun sales at gun shows.
Seemingly the intent was for the government, through the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration (ATF), to secretly sell illegal guns to the Mexican drug cartels, and then blame those sales on U.S. gun shows to discredit them. The administration had argued that 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels had come from gun shows in the United States. The ATF gun sales, if undetected, would provide the government rational and support to close down the gun shows making it more difficult for citizens to obtain a firearm. The story is full of government intrigue, lies, conspiracy, and the murder of hundreds of Mexican citizens and an American Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry.
The transfer of the illegal weapons was done without consulting U.S. law officers outside ATF or the Mexican authorities. The government would have succeeded with the scheme were not some of the illegal firearms found at the scene of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, one of which actually the instrument of his death.
What is known about this nearly five-year-old scheme is an e-mail wherein Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, charged with executing the “Operation Fast and Furious,” boasted to a colleague of the operation’s propaganda value, presumably to vilify gun shows. It read: “Some of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby” (“Will Holder’s Watergate Become Obama’s Waterloo?” Americas 1st Freedom, April 2012). They knew precisely what they could do with the propaganda value of their sales—destroy the gun shows.
Wayne La Pierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, best expressed the seriousness of this illegal operation, apart from defrauding Americans of their constitutional gun rights, when he wrote. “In that ‘gun-walking’ operation, Obama administration operatives encouraged, bankrolled, and oversaw repeated felonies at gun stores and at border crossings with criminals smuggling at least 1,700 firearms into Mexican drug-fueled criminal commerce.” Regular citizens, doing the same thing would be serving time.
What has been disclosed reportedly proves that U.S. gun shows were not the source of cartel firepower, as this administration has repeatedly contended, they through their ATF were, and that Holder intentionally lied when he told Congress he had heard about “Fast and Furious” from the media, as did other Americans. “One Justice Department official has claimed his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refused to testify,” elevating anticipation that, so far, we may see only the tip of the iceberg.
The Court order requiring Holder’s Justice Department to provide a detailed listing of all documents withheld (Congress believes that number to be 74,000) together with information as to why the material is not being released, is a big step toward bringing to light potentially one of the biggest scandals in American history. This scandal could include evidence planting—the placement of 1,700 guns in cartel hands. Sadly the transparency promised by President Obama had to be delivered in a court order.
Aug 25, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
In yet another emerging scary scandal, not well publicized, 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.” Searched Senate computer files!!! Good grief, that is our own government that they spied on!! Is there nobody safe from spying??? Their admission that they had lied for several months when accused of having done so and their apology to the senators to whom they had spied, does not make such acceptable. They readily placed the blame on three lower level technology staff members who, they said, “demonstrated a lack of candor” when doing so. Is there no punishment?
Left out of their “limp” apology is who directed them to spy on the Senate in the first place? Also minimized by existing coverage is the fact that 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.
The loudest complainant, and the one to take to the Senate floor to blast the unruly organization of lifting material from committee computers, was the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein. Six months ago, 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. Meddling with the Oversight Committee’s findings effectively tramples on the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government and, if not checked, destroys that balance.
What caused the CIA to spy on its own government was that the Senate was investigating them and about to release its incriminating findings. Despite CIA interference the Committee voted 11-3 to release a 431-page summary of its four-year 6,200 page, $40 million scathing indictment. Just why the complete document will remain classified, and thus secret, has not been disclosed but it can be assumed that the released version is the sanitized version. As a result the extent of the Bush-era CIA torture practice continues into the Obama-era and CIA misdeeds will not come to light fully until those responsible are safely out of danger of prosecution. With respect to the part that remains classified Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein threatened, “If someone distributed any part of this classified report, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.” Perhaps she should be reminded that secrecy and free government are incompatible.
The part released concluded “that the CIA’s use of brutal interrogation measures did not produce valuable intelligence and that the agency repeatedly misled government officials about the severity and success of the program.” Feinstein called the torture practice shocking, “The report exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation. It chronicles a stain on our history that must never again be allowed to happen,” she said. She was referring to the CIA’s use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics against dozens of terrorism suspects.
Maine Senator Angus King, an independent on the Committee, called the practice torture. “I don’t have any doubts on that fact. It’s a pretty hard read. It’s very disappointing.” But he was especially bothered by the amount of inaccurate statements emanating from the CIA that influenced the president and congress for years. He might have included the mainstream media and the falsehoods that will continue for decades in our history textbooks until everything is declassified and scrutinized by historians.
What appears clear is that the CIA used interrogation methods reportedly not approved by the Justice Department, that the agency evaded congressional oversight, and that the agency self-empowered itself as though independent and accountable to only itself. Also, clear is that the extent of its wrongdoing will remain hidden and classified so that no one is punished. This is the sanitized version.
But back to our original concern, apparently the CIA is so brazen that it spies on, and removes evidence from, the Senate Intelligence Committee charged with its oversight. Amazingly this to the point that they too, knowing more than any other organization the power and danger of the way-ward child, participated in keeping a part of the organizations wrong doings secret. One wonders if the U.S. Senate is that independent of the CIA, especially when this organization receives little more than a verbal retribution for spying and lifting evidence on it, an activity that should be criminal.
Aug 19, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many may not realize that Congress had prayer today before they deliberated. In a typical workweek, Monday through Friday, prayer is said every morning in the U. S. Senate and in the U. S. House of Representatives. Each House invites and pays a Christian minister to pray each day for a week that they are in session. Ministers apply for this privilege and they come from every sector of the country. This has been so since the 1st Congress in 1789 some 225 years ago and will continue as long as we are a Christian nation. Such affirms our nation’s faith in God as Sovereign Lord of this nation. This honors the historic separation of Church and State as outlined in the 1st Amendment, but not the separation of God and State, which the Founders strongly opposed.
The prayer giver this past week was Rev. Roger Spradlin, pastor of Valley Baptist Church in Bakersfield, California, representing a congregation of more than 8,000 followers. Prayers are similar requesting wisdom and courage. Spradlin prayed, “We acknowledge that our country is facing serious challenges, and that our world is in crisis. Give this body the courage that is necessary to lead” (Bakersfield Californian, August 1, 2014, p. 5).
The tradition of prayer in government assemblies is long standing. The first recorded national prayer was given by Reverend Jacob Duche,’ Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the First Continental Congress Sept. 7, 1774, even before the creation of the Articles of Confederation our first constitution and government. Notice the intensity of his appeal to God to help them obtain their freedom from British rule.
“O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
“Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.”
Even during the Constitutional Convention, prayer was referenced as a solution to the tension in the room on June 28,1787, when the patriarch of that assembly, Benjamin Franklin, stood and said, addressing the Chair: “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
“We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel . . . I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.”
Both House and Senate prayers are recorded daily in the Congressional Record. Some prayers give council and particulars, most are fairly generic and short. All ask for the assistance of Heaven.
So Congress asked God for help in their deliberations, this time through the prayer of Reverend Roger Spradin. Good! May we never forget to do so!! It is the essence of our strength!!
Aug 2, 2014 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The relentless missile attacks on Israel now exceed 2600 in the first 20 days of the Hamas/Israeli War. Fortunately only 43 Israeli soldiers have been killed because of Israel’s elaborate missile defense system. Return fire, however, has reportedly left 1,035 Palestinians dead in a war that appears to have no immediate end, despite President Barack Obama’s appeal for a cease-fire. At issue, and a major reason for the Israeli ground offensive in the Gaza Strip, are the million-dollar concrete-lined tunnels from the Strip into Israel designed to launch internal attacks inside heavily populated areas—28 discovered to date. All this is commonly known.
What isn’t—at least for those under age 35—and the need for this column, is the history behind the conflict. Those who rush in with traditional answers to such conflicts like cease-fires and peace plans have no hope of ending the hostilities. This is perhaps the single most complex area on the planet and Jerusalem is geographically the home of three of the world’s largest and competing religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity; the most aggressive being Islam, which has a very low tolerance for any faith other than their own. Hostilities between they and Judaism reach back 4,000 years to Father Abraham and his sons Ishmael and Isaac, each the ethnic father of one of the religions. The “permanent feud” began when Ishmael and his mother Hagar were expelled from Abraham’s family.
Of course we should assist where possible in solving the feud but the reality is, no other powers on earth has been able to do so for 4,000 years and there will be an Israeli/Islamic conflict decades to come. It, as in the past, will be resolved by “might is right” and today, try as they might, the Arabic countries cannot liquidate their unwanted neighbor.
History basically left the Israelis without a homeland during the Middle Ages and they were scattered largely throughout Europe mostly because of Islamic intolerance. England came to dominate the Middle East after World War I and they clearly favored the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. A constant trickle of Jews flowed into Palestine joining those who had never left. World sympathy for the scattered Jews was amplified during and after World War II when Adolph Hitler annihilated at least 6 million of them and the trickle to Palestine turned into a river.
After the war, in 1947, the United Nations created the State of Israel. The plan was to divide the Holy Land between the Israelis and the Palestinians; each having its own homeland but the plan was rejected by the Palestinians and all Arabic countries, who denied Israel’s right to even exist. So much so that the League of Arab States formed in 1945 (consisting of the six surrounding countries) attacked Israel after it was recognized as a country by the United States. In the resultant war Israel retained its right to exist but the rest of the Palestine area was divided between competing Arabic states: Jordan had the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip. Now, because of their refusal to allow the Jews a homeland, the Palestinians were without one. Arabic states again attacked Israel in 1967, vowing to destroy them, and were soundly defeated in a six-day war.
By this time the West had little interest in the original plan of providing the Palestinians a homeland and as a result of the wars encouraged by them, and the Arabic countries surrounding them, Israel had come to possess most of the land that would have made up a Palestinian state. Moreover, they were building settlements on it. The Palestinians longed to remove the Jews from “their” land and during the 1980’s initiated six years of uprisings and again in 2004 under Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The most contended Palestinian land included the West Bank, next to Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip on the coast. Israel has been receptive to removing their settlements in these areas but the Arabic community still denies Israel’s right to exist, thus peace is unlikely to come to the region for some time.
Enter Hamas, which began as a Palestinian political party winning a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority Parliament in 2006. It divided the Palestinian people into moderates and extremists (even terrorists) quite willing to use terroristic tactics such as human shields and suicide bombs to achieve their objectives. Hamas seized the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority, which controlled the West Bank. It is this faction of the Palestinian people that have attacked Israel and that are responsible for the invasive tunnels into Israel. Of course, money for the costly tunnels and the missiles almost entirely comes from the Islamic states around the Holy Land.
Hopefully this historical overview will be helpful as we view the horrors of war from this part of the world. Meanwhile the missiles and death will continue.
