Jun 9, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, PH. D
We drove down a quiet country road, trees and green meadows in every direction. Mount Carmel, the famous Branch Davidian Compound, was a sharp turn to the right. Gone was the mailbox at the entrance with Branch Davidian Church clearly written on it in big black letters where the once 100-plus residents of a devout break-off of the Seventh-day Adventist Church received their mail.
Once on the grounds, we were met with two simple memorials each telling us that something very significant and violent had happened here; one to the four ATF agents killed in the February 28, government raid. A few feet away was a shrine of sorts with a name on a plague for each of the 76 Davidians (19 men, 34 women, 23 children) who lost their lives in the fiery furnace in their place of residence 21 years ago, April 19, 1993. Sympathetic visitors had left money on one of the shrines.
A gravel road, less than a fourth of a mile long, lay in front with a couple of buildings to the right. The second was the home of the only actual Branch Davidian a part of the group now available, disaffected at the time of the raid, but now the minister of the sect now renamed The Branch. The road wound down curving to the left and ending in front of a newly built chapel placed on the exact same corner as once stood the chapel part of the Branch Davidian structure; the double entrance door precisely placed where the original double doors once were. Davidians argued that bullet holes in them came from outside and ATF agents that they came from inside. This would prove the origins of the assault, but the doors have disappeared. The famous structure was gone but cement remnants of a foundation were still clearly visible.
It was hard to imagine Abram tanks encircling the building running over trikes and bikes of the children destroying all in their path where now a freshly planted garden exists. Is this the place where military helicopters at one time sprayed bullets into it? Dick De Guerin, David Koresh’s lawyer, who spent 30 hours in the compound during the 51-day seize, told Dianne Sawyer of ABC News, of bullet holes in the ceiling—one presumably wounding David Koresh himself (Harold Pease, The Waco Massacre: We Did It For The Children, video, 1994)
Was this really the site of loud music being played at night, presumably to frighten the residents, sometimes accompanied with sounds of squealing rabbits being slaughtered? Most chilling was probably Nancy Sinatra’s song, “These boots are made for walking, and that’s just what they’ll do. One of these days, these boots will walk all over you.” And, “You keep playin’ where you shouldn’t be playin,’ and you keep thinkin’ that you’ll never get burnt. Ah, I’ve just got me a brand new box of matches, yeah and “ what he knows you ain’t had time to learn.” Really!?!
A Congressional investigation identified incendiary devices on the property suggesting that the government, not the Davidians, as the government and managed media asserted, started the fire. With winds blowing through the structure all life was destroyed within 20 minutes, including the little children, yet today only Branch Davidians have served jail sentences (Waco: Rules of Engagement, Congressional Investigation, video, 1997).
Was this really the place where deadly CS gas was pumped into the complex for two hours? The vast majority breathing the poisonous gas were mothers and children. It hardly seemed possible. Now birds chirp away and the grassy meadow gives the place exquisite serenity.
Is this the place where FBI snipers were shooting Branch Davidians as they tried to escape a certain fiery death, presumably to burn and erase all evidence of their blunderous, even unlawful, conduct, as alleged? In the dinning room of the Davidian complex at least 17 bodies had bullet holes in them. Subsequently empty cartridge shells have been found in one of the three-sniper positions now known to exist in the back of the complex. Is this the place where many of the children were taken into the church’s cement record vault room (referred to as the bunker) to escape the fire, which new evidence reveals was penetrated from above by a military explosive device, probably immediately killing the mothers and children huddled together inside (Video, “Waco: A New Revelation,” 2011)?
A humble Branch member, obviously serving a caretaker roll over the property, told me of agents returning to the scene to ask for forgiveness, the most recent just two months ago. The agent admitted to having assisted the snipers with a telescope. There will be others.
Video coverage shows tanks with mounted U.S. flags attacking citizens also flying a U.S. flag on their building. How is this possible? We also see Helicopters with mounted machine guns and the use of Delta Force personnel on the property. How can anyone believe that this happened in America in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act forbidding the military any function in law enforcement? Yet the evidence is overwhelming that it did, in this now quiet, serene, and beautifully meadowed environment with birds chirping the sounds of peace? This is indeed sacred soil.
Jun 1, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, PH. D
In a picturesque open-air picnic area with a creek running through it, hundreds gathered in one of the most memorably political events in Georgia’s history. Following prayer, the singing of the national anthem, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law, effective July 1, the most liberal gun carry legislation in the country. The popular Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, known by anti-Second Amendment adversaries as the “Guns Everywhere Law,” passed with by-partisan support in the State House 112-58 and in the State Senate 37-18.
The legislation still requires a background check and good standing with the law for the license, and is extended to the permit holders of 28 states that issue CCW permits. The law exempts government buildings and airport terminals having security personnel, but other government buildings and airport facilities are not exempted. Churches, bars, and schools have the right to exclude guns in their facilities should they wish to. Police are no longer permitted to hold a person “for the sole purpose of investigating whether such a person has a weapons carry license,” which was a concern to some law enforcement personnel, but firefighters and emergency responders could be armed. This last measure was in response to a man recently having held firefighters hostage in his home. This would never have happened had they been armed.
Governor Deal in his address prior to signing the law cited passages of the Declaration of Independence as the authority behind the new law and quoted from its principle author, Thomas Jefferson. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort, is to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.” The governor then added, “While we still guard against tyranny, America today cherishes this right so that people who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from those who don’t follow the rules.” The new law “will protect law abiding citizens by expanding the number of places that they can carry their guns without penalty,” he said.
Yes, most Georgians are ecstatic about the new law but other places with more lawlessness are gradually seeing similarly the benefits of an armed citizenry. A few months ago police Chief James Graig of Detroit astounded the anti-Second Amendment people with his advocacy that the citizens be armed to protect themselves in his city. Basically with burglary, rape, and murder as high as in New York City, with three times the population, and with his force of only 3,000 officers to protect 700,000, and to reign in the lawless, he freely admits that it cannot be done without citizen help. Prior to his becoming the city police chief, response time for Level One priority calls was 58 minutes. Under his leadership it is still unacceptably between 8 and 11 minutes. Basically the victim (perhaps you) has already been, robbed, rapped or murdered. “When seconds count, police are just minutes away.” The Chief says that, “It’s certainly not saying we can’t do our job; it’s saying we can’t be on every block, every corner, every minute of the day to be able to respond in seconds when someone is confronted with a dangerous situation.” To the anti-gun few he argues, “We’re not advocating violence. We’re advocates of not being victims” (1st Freedom, June 2014, pp. 32-35, 61-62).
Does law enforcement agree with further arming the citizenry? In a recent survey of 15,000 cops the question was asked. “What would help most in preventing large-scale shootings in public?” Out of eight choices provided, 29 percent chose “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.” The next highest category, nearly 20 percent, cited “more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons,” all other categories were decidedly less. With respect to “What effect do you think a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as ‘assault weapons,’ would have on reducing violent crime? Seventy-one percent said none” (Ibid. p. 30).
Think about it. Perhaps “Guns Everywhere” laws are the answer to reduced crime. Those with CCW permits must have a virtually spotless record, must have some training and are among our most respected citizens. Why shouldn’t we trust them to protect themselves responsibly? We will have a chance to observe crime rates in Georgia and Detroit in time; my prediction is that in both places crime will go down.
May 25, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Those who have long contrived to destroy the rural influence in electing the president of the United States in favor of a permanent urban influence, largely of the east and west coasts and Chicago, are one state closer to achieving their goal. New York State recently became the 10th state (all highly urban) to come on board with the signature of Governor Andrew Cuomo. They favor a popularly elected president through stealth and a largely secret plan called the National Popular Vote Interstate Alliance, concocted in the shadows by proponents that are unwilling to make changes in the Constitution through the only two ways permitted in Amendment V of the Constitution. So silent has been the movement that most Americans will learn about it only after it has been implemented and too late to resist.
The Constitution requires an open national debate on change. It outlines a two-step process, one to propose a second to ratify. The propose process can come from either two thirds of both houses or when two thirds of the states request it. Ratifying requires state action alone. They could do so through their state legislatures or the state legislature could expand the vote base to a convention, but either way, it requires three-fourths of the states to make the change.
Opponents of the Electoral College seek to alter a process that has worked for two hundred and twenty-five years for both urban and rural populations. The Electoral College incentivizes candidates visiting rural states by increasing their electoral vote—the smallest states get at least three. This attracts presidential candidates to rural areas that would otherwise be ignored by candidates thirsty for only a popular vote, if that were all that counted. The Founders brilliant plan to adjust both interests would be destroyed by the new urban-only benefiting plan. Unable to get two-thirds of the states to consider altering this part of the Constitution as required, and openly convince Americans of their “better” plan, proponents seek a largely secret end run around the Constitution. In it participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state.
When enough states assign their electors to the popular vote winner, and that number exceeds 270, remaining states will be mandated to support as well. Wham!! Almost without any public debate outside state legislatures, and seemingly overnight, the popular vote will effectively replace the Electoral College as the means by which a president is elected. We would be back to a few highly populated states deciding for the rest of the country.
Proponents use a small portion of Article II, Section 1 to destroy the rest of the section. The part used reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” This, they say, gives state legislatures the right to award their electors as they see fit. Actually, the phrase allows the state legislatures appointing powers only. To suggest that they should have influence over their voting once selected, nullifies the reason for their existence—the selection of a non-governmental entity to select the president.
Moreover, the National Popular Vote Interstate Alliance also violates Article I, Section 10. This prohibits states from entering into “alliances” with other states unless Congress gives its consent. Congress has not even been consulted. Certainly agreeing states have entered into an alliance with one another to nullify the effect of the Electoral College and to obliterate, once accomplished, the independent vote of states not in the alliance.
With New York the alliance has a combined electoral vote total of 165, more than half the 270 electoral votes needed to impose this upon the rest of the country and nullify a long-standing pillar of the Constitution. Other states voting to change the Constitution without amending it and to violate the Non-alliances Clause, as required by the document, are: New Jersey, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, California and Rhode Island.
This scheme involves ignoring the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate who have essential roles in making changes in the Constitution as per Article V. It changes the Constitution without the three-fourths state consent requirement—potentially eleven states could make the remaining 39 bend to their choice for president. It essentially obliterates most of Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 12, and blatantly violates Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. No person who values the Constitution, as understood for 225 years, could support this movement and plan.
May 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In a typical workweek prayer is said every morning in the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives. Each House invites and pays a Christian minister to pray each morning they are in session. Ministers apply for this privilege to pray for a week and they come from every part 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 and liberal justices do not become the majority of the U. S Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision this month prayer was still ruled to be constitutional. Such affirms our nation’s faith in God as Sovereign Lord of this nation. This honored the historic separation of “an organization of religion” and State, as outlined in the 1st Amendment, but not the separation of God from the government wanted by opponents.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote defending the decision: “Prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.” It serves “to solemnize the occasion, so long as the practice over time is not exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other faith or belief.” Such had been expected as oral arguments given last November lasted but an hour and the position was strongly supported by House and Senate members with 23 state attorney generals submitting written briefs in its support.
The tradition of prayer in government assemblages 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 their 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 assemblage, 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?” He continued: “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.” And so it has been, and is, in the new government to this day.
What is difficult to understand is why our justices today were not 9-0 in support of what has always been constitutional? Four were clearly out of harmony with the Founding Fathers. If they do not wish to follow the Constitution on this issue of exceptional clarity, what other areas might they distort as well? In this case one additional Supreme Court Justice can change 240 years of practice. So far the people can pray in government meetings that God will assist in their deliberations. May we never forget to do so. Reaching above mere man “to illuminate our understanding,” as articulated by Benjamin Franklin in the Constitutional Convention, is the essence of our strength.
May 13, 2014 | Globalism, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold W. Pease Ph. D
G-20 meetings come and go with much fanfare but never with any kind of detail with respect to what these meetings accomplish—at least by the establishment media. The most recent G-20 meetings will affect every person on earth and should be a topic of discussion in every newspaper or network that covers international news. Are we ready for a world tax? Such is being implemented now. Those Americans living overseas are already feeling part of the plan and at least forty governments are committed to implementing it by the end of 2015.
The globalist world tax plan is pushed under the guise of catching the “tax cheats” that invest over seas—mostly the rich it is argued—so the rest of us naively assume that it will not impact us. We are told that tax evasion is a global problem so we need an IRS-type world organization to catch the “cheats” but to do this we first need the sharing of the financial records of all people with participating governments. The plan, called the Global Account Tax Compliance Act, or GATCA, requires all governments to collect and pool all personal banking or financial institutions’ information on all their people. G-20 leaders infer that the global tax authority will be the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the financial arm of the United Nations.
In the most recent G-20 meeting held last February in Australia, proponents were falling all over themselves with excitement over the plan. In a joint communiqué they wrote: “We endorse the Common Reporting Standard for automatic exchange of tax information on a reciprocal basis and will work with all relevant parties, including our financial institutions, to detail our implementation plan at our September meeting” (“A New World Tax Regime,” New American, April 21, 2014, p. 20). They continued with an appeal to all nations “that have not yet complied with the existing standard for exchange of information on request to do so and sign the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters without further delay.”
The plan is most highly promoted by a group referred to as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)—all highly socialist countries. Their enthusiasm is understandable. They oppose, and demand an end to, the free market principle of maximizing “value for customers and shareholders by keeping profits and economic activity in lower-tax jurisdictions as much as possible.”
Congress and the Obama administration have already implemented the sharing part of the program for Americans living abroad and it has been functioning since 2010. Buried deep within the “HIRE Act,” endorsed by the President and the then democratically controlled Congress, was the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) which “imposed huge penalties—30-percent ‘withholding tax’ on all U.S. transactions, including sales of securities—on firms that do not hand over all information they have on ‘U.S. persons’ to the IRS” (“Dark Road: The Worst Tax Law You’ve Never Heard About,” New American, p. 11). For the 7.5 million Americans living in other countries it has been disastrous sometimes resulting in their having to renounce their citizenship rather than to be double taxed and have their hosting country know their personal and private information. To accomplish the above requires an uncomfortable closeness between the NSA, IRS and their new government. Foreign governments that do not comply are threatened.
The second part of the plan, after the universal sharing of all our financial records, is to establish a base for a world tax authority. Catching “tax cheats” was never the “real” reason for all the effort but instead the rational for the implementation of a planetary tax with the IMF becoming the world IRS. So far Congress has not implemented this part and is not likely to do so unless hidden in another bill, as was the sharing of private financial records. Consequently, we have some time to get public awareness of the deception and of the intended objective.
The mission of the globalists, and seemingly a majority of the G-20 participants, is an independent financial stream for the United Nations, free from its present dependence on the United States wherein it resides and from which it receives a third of its funding. The globalists’ ploy to make the U N a world government could be ended should Americans decide such was not in their best interests and cut their funding. This could not be allowed to happen, thus the need for alternative funding. The GATCA plan is the most dangerous world government-funding plan presently proposed because the sharing of confidential records is already partially in place, at least for Americans living abroad.
May 5, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting April 1, by the BLM representatives of a sign FIRST AMENDMENT AREA for protestors. This coming days before the standoff certainly demonstrated their foreknowledge of impending opposition. 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.
Such was offensive to participants who promptly added to the sign “1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA” and thereafter refused to do their protesting where allowed by the government. Besides the area was too far away from the action causing the protesting. A sympathizer posted on the Internet a map of the United States with the words FREE SPEECH ZONE written over the length of the nation from California to South Carolina; this was the Founders interpretation and reverenced as so until more recent times.
Dave Bundy was the first to be arrested for taking video footage from a state highway of BLM agents rounding up his family’s cattle refusing to remain in the restricted area. Video footage now available showed that armed snipers had their guns trained on the family during the incident. Family members were told that they, “had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that.” One does not have to wonder why the Bundy ordeal attracted freedom buffs from as far away as Connecticut.
I first heard of free speech zones during the George W. Bush Administration when there were so many demonstrations against invading Iraq. College campuses initiated the zones in what appeared to be designed to intentionally limit opposition. They were always too small and if more than one zone were allowed they were separated, seemingly to minimize the size of the opposition. A nephew, in San Francisco demonstrating against the war, was arrested because he could not fit within one of the small circles. He and hundreds more, also unable to fit within the approved dissent areas, were taken to warehouses somewhere in the city and housed until all were processed. He was confined for three days. The slow processing he considered intentional punishment for his dissent. I have spoken out against these 1st Amendment areas since. They do not exist in a free country.
The First Amendment clearly states that, “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Since Congress is the only entity that can make law as per Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and since they have never passed such a law; the Executive Branch has no authority to “pen” dissent.
Unfortunately such has been altered by recent court decisions “stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression,” hence the origin of free speech zones—decidedly a court perversion. “Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush’s presidency that their scope was greatly expanded” (Wikipedia). After September 11, they were common. President Bush used the Secret Service to make certain such were not near where he might speak or pass by, a procedure closely emulated by President Barack Obama. Dissent is therefore noticeably reduced and less likely to be filmed. If such had been used against Martin Luther King, Jr. the Civil Rights Movement may never have gotten off the ground. Those refusing to dissent only in the government’s “proper” areas are charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or trespassing. If the approved dissent areas are far from the president (some a half mile away) he may never know that the people are unhappy with him.
For the Bundy friends and neighbors, the governments “First Amendment Area” had the same shape and similarity as a cattle pen where the people would be cordoned off and neutralized. How can this be seen as petitioning the “Government for a redress of grievances?” No government! This is nothing more than a ploy to reduce dissent and the more regimental that you are, as in the case of the Bundy Standoff, the more you will use it. Court approval or not it is clearly unconstitutional. The Founders would have called it tyranny.
