Jul 2, 2014 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
I awoke on a Sunday morning where I was visiting, a ray of light coming through the window. The window view showed side-by-side symbols; one of liberty, as represented by a small community of multi-colored and multi-shaped living structures with residents going about their business oblivious to the second symbol, represented by large, grey, ugly, windowless government buildings spying on and recording everyone’s communication. The contrast of liberty and totalitarian intent was startling and breathtaking.
To the far left of the window view was a new housing development intruding into largely undeveloped land, like an extending finger, with brown hills above it and a large hay farm in front and below stretching far forward and to the right of my view. Here residents made choices that enhanced the quality and comfort of their lives largely free from total government spying and restriction—or so they thought.
The number of churches to the population seemed unusually high, five church steeples reaching skyward, as if begging for the influence of God in their community, in what looked to be no more than 300 structures, mostly apartments, as seen from my window—all within a mile of where I was. I attended one of the churches and was greeted with the opening song “America the Beautiful,” the classic patriotic tune words written by Katherine Lee Bates and music by Samuel A. Ward. It housed the favorite words “America! America!” followed by four phrases in four verses “God shed his grace on thee,” and, “God mend thine every flaw,” and, “May God thy gold refine,” and again, “God shed his grace on thee.” Obviously, these Christians loved their liberty. A similar tune representing a relationship between God, country and liberty could have been found throughout most of the country the Sunday before the 4th of July.
In stark contrast off in the distance about two miles, but still clearly visible from the left side of the same window, was the most profound symbol of big government ever—the new NSA spy center, the largest in the world, capable of holding a yottabyte of information collected from every person on earth, some say, for generations to come. These enormous, ugly, grey, windowless, buildings perched on a hill with intimidating guard-houses restricting entrance, represented potential total control of the actions and thoughts of every human. What is different about the Bluffdale, Utah spy center from other such centers in the United States is that the government does not deny that it specifically targets its own citizens.
Much has been published on NSA government spying of its own people and LibertyUnderFire.org has published on this topic two previous articles, so nothing new is found in this one. A project began under George W. Bush and accelerated under Barack Obama, Bluffdale “is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks… Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter” (“The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center. Watch What You Say.”) The project was code named “Stellar Wind.”
Fortunately the secret is out and the public has known about their government spying on them for well over a year, some much longer. Even the ill informed make government surveillance jokes, but still the collection continues. It is as though everyone is in denial. It is as though the revelations of the last two years could not really be real. No one is really being arrested or punished for their thoughts. Yet. The noose is not tight. And what is a yottabyte of information anyway? The size description is incomprehensible adding to brain overload. A yottabyte is 1,000 zettabytes (the number 1 followed by 24 zeros — 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). That “318 scientists, computer engineers, and other staff work in secret on the cryptanalytic applications of high-speed computing and other classified projects” (Cryptome, March 16, 2012, “NSA Decryption Multipurpose Research Facility”), making what is now happening possible, merely adds to the incomprehensiveness of the subject.
Monday morning the same light flooded the room. The same symbols of liberty and oppression lay in stark contrast below. The same five church steeples reach for the sky as though to appeal to God for His influence. The same residents drive by, perhaps the greatest symbol of totalitarianism of all time, on their way to work, as though it does not exist. Some may even work at this place to help give the government details on their neighbor. Everything about this ugly, windowless, grey structure violates the Constitution. Chances are those of the community next door that sing of freedom will return to office the same Democrats and Republicans that authorized and funded their surveillance. I closed the window. If I too ignore what it shows, it will go away. Right?
Jun 23, 2014 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles
The Constitution could still remove Obamacare
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
By now there exist few defenders of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, nicknamed Obamacare, which has shown itself to be neither affordable or capable of protecting the patient—especially from government managed plans. The “list of horribles” was mind boggling from day one, October 1, 2013, beginning with glitches for the first three months, then implementation extensions until December 15, then March 31, 2014, to keep afloat what clearly most Americans did not want. President Barack Obama extended exemptions to unions and to congressional staffs to limit opposition.
The oft-repeated promises that one could keep his doctor and insurance plan came to be seen as Obama lies as 5.5 million, previously satisfied Americans, received notices of insurance cancellations because the private plans they had did not fit the new mandates. An avalanche of horror stories followed. One business manager of a distinguished medical group complained of the problem of just having a phone conversation with a government healthcare representative, “If you get through at all it’s 30 to 60 minutes, and then you have to get to the right person because rules change daily and too many times you aren’t given good information.”
Many of the government plans had no maximum out-of-pocket costs on out-of-network providers resulting in surprising infinite costs. Even if you thought that all assisting your surgery were paid under your plan one or more might not be and you might get some unanticipated shocking bills. If, in some cases, costs seemed to be held down it was because providers had agreed to lower fees in exchange for a higher volume of patients, which meant less service and physician time for you.
By now most reasonable people are looking for a way out. The answer remains as always the Constitution and there exist several options. Of course, the people could wise up and throw out of office every one who voted for it. Since only Democrats did so, this would change the composition of the U.S. Senate. Those remaining could rescind Obamacare. Obama would veto it but a veto override would be easy. This is not likely as the party is not willing yet to call Obamacare a mistake, naively believing that somehow it will get better.
The states too could end the federal government’s takeover of a sixth of the economy by implementing the doctrine of nullification used in our history three times before. Actually, it was successfully used recently in the Sheriffs’ Rebellion of 2013 when 336 elected county sheriffs signed pledges that they would not enforce any unconstitutional gun control laws or executive orders. Also nine states refused to comply. The federal government backed down. Nullifying Obamacare has several sympathetic states including: Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The Supreme Court also will get chances to rule the defective law unconstitutional. Yes, in a 5 to 4 majority it ruled Obamacare a tax, which, as such, is now very problematic and guarantees a return of the issue to them. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not originate in the House of Representatives as required in Article I, Section 7, Clause 1, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.’’ It originated in the Senate. After the Supreme Court ruling, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed gutted the language in a previously House bill, but with an earlier date, and deceptively replaced it with the language of the Senate bill to look like it had originated in the House, but it did not.
The Court ruling on Hobby Lobby, argued in mid March, is due any time. The question directly before the justices is whether for-profit corporations must provide insurance coverage for contraception, mandated by Obamacare. Hobby Lobby, a chain of crafts stores, challenged the requirement, saying it conflicts with the company’s religious principles. If the contraception challenge succeeds, it strikes down only a small part of Obamacare but several little challenges over time could weaken the law to oblivion. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would give an easy victory for Hobby Lobby as there exists no role for the federal government in Article I, Section 8 for contraception, insurance, or health legislation, nor in any amendment processed thereafter. Moreover, tax revenues were designed to be spent only for constitutional purposes—not for any purposes.
A potential constitutional challenge is found in the list of limitations on the Congress with respect to making law found in Article I, Section 9, “No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Only the federal income tax (Amendment 16) is exempted from the proportional enumeration requirement. If the federal mandate is a tax, and not a fee, as stated by the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional because Congress did not apportion that tax among the states according to population.
Yes, National Healthcare has shown itself to be an albatross around our necks but the Constitution can still protect us from our own ignorance if we will elect only those who will be guided by it and that would exclude many presently holding office.
Jun 17, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease PH. D
Fury from both parties hit the fan when President Barack Obama 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. Five soldiers died in the subsequent search for a soldier who did not want to be found. The president excuses this action on the basis that Bergdadl was on death’s door and prisoners have been exchanged in other wars by other presidents. These explanations have been contested.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein, was the most vocal Democrat to voice contempt. She said, “It comes with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went ahead with no consultation—totally not following the law. And, in an issue of this kind, of concern to a Committee that bears the oversight responsibility” (“Feinstein Says White House Broke the Law on Bergdahl,” NBC news, June 4, 2014). Republicans, notably Senator Lindsey Graham, threatened impeachment if it happened again.
Libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano, spoke of the president’s action as unlawful for two reasons. One, Obama himself had signed the statute forbidding the use of taxpayers’ money with respect to Guantanamo detainees without a Congressional 30-day notice, which he violated. This was Senator Dianne Feinstein’s objection. Two, “by releasing these guys into the theater of war in the Middle East, he has provided material assistance to a terrorist organization.” This because “Federal statute makes it a crime, punishable by 10 years in prison to life, for materially aiding a terrorist organization” and, “the courts have ruled, any assistance knowingly or intentionally provided to a terrorist organization by an American makes that American liable for prosecution under this statute.” The assistance is the human assets that he has returned to the enemy. Anyone else would get 10 years to life in prison for doing the same thing (“Obama Could be Facing 10 Years to Life in Prison,” Shepard Smith interviews Judge Andrew Napolitano, FOX News, June 6, 2014).
Missing in the whole argument, and the reason for this column on an issue receiving much media coverage, is what does the Constitution say? All war powers are clearly listed in Article I, Section 8, clauses 10-17 and all are left to Congress alone except one, allowing the president to serve as commander and chief subject to this oversight. The Founders never intended for him to act alone independent of Congress. If other presidents have done so this does not make doing so constitutional. He most certainly cannot break a law that he helped create and sign.
But Article III Section 3 should have brought Mr. Obama to a quick halt. “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Is returning to the enemy three of their most distinguished intelligence personnel and two of their most distinguished military officers, each considered so dangerous that they had to be moved across a continent and an ocean to prevent them from escaping to strengthen the power of the enemy, giving Al Qaeda aid and comfort? How can a reasonable person argue otherwise? Arguably this gift of “human assets,” returned by our own president, is far more helpful to the enemy than money, commodities, equipment or even military secrets. That these five will serve for the rest of their lives to strengthen our enemy is not disputed.
The Constitution continues; “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” The overt act was the exchange. The President has clearly confessed, although not in court, and all of America exceeds the two-witness requirement. “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
Responsibility for punishing treason is left to Congress. The only restrictions to punishment are prohibition of corruption of blood (punishing relatives for the acts of one) and forfeiture of property, which must be returned to relatives after the death of the one punished for treason. Otherwise, again, innocent relatives would be punished. Certainly impeachment is an option, but something far greater is also an option as treason is the most serious national offense. The law broken already dictates the punishment if any other American did the same thing—ten years to life in prison.
Ironically the Democrats would be for impeachment and ten years to life in prison if it were a Republican president and vice versa for the other party. Political parties have destroyed us, as neither party will punish its own. Even when the vast majority believes Obama to have at least broken the law, if not having committed treason, he will remain unpunished because of party loyalty. A read of the Constitution clearly says that his action requires Congress to consider even treason, irrespective of party affiliation.
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.
