Mar 3, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Take Action, Tea Party
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Let me be one of the first to put it in print. The nation’s biggest threat is not Al Qaida! It is not Edward Snowden or NSA spying on every citizen in the nation! It is not the IRS targeting of Tea Party and religion groups for extra scrutiny, or even a president replacing Congress as the leading lawmaking branch of government. It is the impending financial collapse if we do not curb our addiction to debt and do it quickly. It grows by an estimated $3 billion a day and is now $17,355,598,800 trillion as I write this column. By the time many of you read it, one week from today, it will have increased by $21 billion.
Two laws passed this year have made this observation more blatantly obvious. The Republican Party’s total collapse on the debt ceiling increase and the recently passed $1 trillion dollar Farm Bill financing corporate and class welfare.
First the debt ceiling surrender wherein the Republican Party leadership, in opposition to there own party, totally capitulated without asking any concessions from the White House and Democrats in return for the borrowing authority. Please note that a debt ceiling raise eventually means higher taxes or debt. Twenty-eight Republicans joined the Democratic Party majority for a yes vote thus passing the raise in the House of Representatives 221-201. Conservatives and constitutionalists felt betrayed. House Speaker John Boehner in his “Boehner Rule,” had promised that increase in the debt ceiling must reflect spending cuts also.
Amazingly the top three Republican Party leaders: Boehner (Speaker), Eric Canter (Majority Leader), and Kevin McCarthy (Majority Whip) voted to raise the debt ceiling to March 15, 2015, as did all but two Democrats, virtually abandoning their 206 remaining Republican colleagues voting no to the debt raise. So much for fiscal restraint and holding to often repeated principles. These three voted against their own party. To his credit Paul D. Ryan, former Vice Presidential candidate, voted against. The Democratically controlled Senate easily passed the debt raise legislation along party lines 55-43.
Why is this a sign of an impending fiscal collapse? The debt ceiling has been raised 76 times since March 1962, including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W Bush, and seven times under Barack Obama. This is our 14th debt raise in 13 years. We raise it every year to accommodate our need for a “fix.” My point! Congress sadly never says no! Does anyone really believe that our debt-addicted government will ever stop the addiction on its own?
Second, the recently passed five-year Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, popularly called the Farm Bill, costing nearly one trillion dollars, over ten years—a 50% increase over the last one—certainly leaves no room for faith that they will curb their appetite for debt. The 959-page document included the following items considered pork by critics: “$2 million for sheep production and marketing, $10 million for Christmas tree promotion, $170 million for catfish oversight, $119 million for peanut crop insurance, $100 million for organic food research, $150 million to promote farmers markets, $3.3 billion for a cotton income protection plan, $12 million for a “wool research and promotion” program, and $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. Ironically the 949-page bill spends about $1 billion dollars per page ($956 Billion Farm Bill Loaded with Pork, Your World Cavuto). The Department of Agriculture will also be establishing new federal standards for “the identity of honey.”
The final vote in the Senate was 68-32, with 44 Democrats, 22 Republicans and both independents supporting the measure. The Farm Bill passed in the House of Representatives 234 to 195. Voting yes were 24 Democrats and 171 Republicans. Again, House of Representative leaders Boehner (Speaker), Eric Canter (Majority Leader), and Kevin McCarthy (Majority Whip) voted for the pork filled bill and the 50% increase over the last Farm Bill.
So my friends, how does this pork bestowal to a favored few stop the three billion dollar a day bleed to the national debt, now exceeding $17 trillion? It doesn’t even pretend to try and that is my point, nor does raising the debt ceiling without accompanying cuts. When the bleeding was resisted by at least one political party there was hope. We absolutely must replace our existing House and Senate with those fiscally responsible or there will be a financial collapse. If you are not personally involved in doing so you must begin now. The Tea Party is the only party that gives more than lip service to fiscal responsibility. You may wish be become a part of it.
Feb 24, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease PH. D
By now everyone should have heard of the recently passed five-year Farm Bill costing nearly one trillion dollars, over ten years—a 50% increase over the last one. The 959-page document included the following items considered pork by critics: “$2 million for sheep production and marketing, $10 million for Christmas tree promotion, $170 million for catfish oversight, $119 million for peanut crop insurance, $100 million for organic food research, $150 million to promote farmers markets, $3.3 billion for a cotton income protection plan, $12 million for a “wool research and promotion” program, and $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. Ironically the 949-page bill spends about $1 billion dollars per page ($956 Billion Farm Bill Loaded with Pork, Your World Cavuto). The Department of Agriculture will also be establishing new federal standards for “the identity of honey.”
Two serious problems from this action exist. First, how does this pork bestowal to a favored few stop the three billion dollar a day bleed to the national debt, now exceeding $17 trillion? It doesn’t even pretend to try. Yes, we over-spend by three billion dollars a day. This growth is our biggest national threat.
Second, where in the Constitution is the trillion-dollar Farm Bill? How did something specifically prohibited on the federal level become constitutional? The Founders clearly saw agriculture as a state or local jurisdiction not a federal one. Alexander Hamilton, credited with having made the strongest statement with respect to agriculture’s exclusion from federal jurisdiction, wrote in The Federalist #17: “the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation can never be desirable cases of a general jurisdiction.” Any “lust of dominion” in this area by the federal government, he reasoned, the states “would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite”(See Clinton Rossiter, p.118-119). They didn’t.
Ironically some $756 billion of this $950 billion mega spending bill through 2023 is not for farm programs, as inferred by the name, but for food stamps for a third of the population. It emerges as a perfect blend of corporate welfare, largely for the rich giant agri-businesses’ farmers, insuring them from all risks, and welfare for the poor —both portions of the population feeding off the middle class. Boiled down it consists of an enlarged crop insurance program where the federal government subsidizes losses from poor yields or low commodity prices.
But does the Constitution allow either type of welfare, for the rich or for the poor, on the federal level? No!! The Founders gave the federal government only four areas of power: taxes, paying the debts, providing for the general welfare (that’s not the same as providing the general welfare), and providing for the common defense. That is it. All four powers are identified before the first semi colon. The clauses, which follow, are simply qualifiers of these four.
The Founders did not dare leave the phrase “general welfare” for future power grabbers, as they could be counted on to enlarge there authority by defining everything as general welfare. They understood that it is the nature of all governments to grow. As a result, clauses 2-9 list 14 powers that comprise “general welfare.” Five deal with borrowing money, regulating its value, and dealing with counterfeiting. The other nine powers include naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.”
One, not well informed, might argue, what about the last part of the sentence giving Congress authority to do whatever is “necessary and proper?” They must read the wording that next follows: “for carrying into execution the forgoing powers.” Article I, Section 8 defines general welfare as 14 specific types of authority so that the federal government could not grow their power at the expense of state, local, and individual authority. If they had meant for Congress to legislate anything that they felt necessary they would have said so in one sentence. Neither handouts to the poor, or to the rich, are on this list and not thereafter added by way of amendment and thus both are unconstitutional. More especially is that so for agriculture specifically discussed as having been omitted.
The trillion dollar Farm Bill is no where in the Constitution yet the leadership of both parties voted for it demonstrating once again that the leadership of neither party protects the Constitution as first priority. Until that happens we will continue our blood letting national debt and accompanying loss of liberty.
Feb 18, 2014 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
President Barack Obama’s favorite president, as is the case with so many Americans, is Abraham Lincoln who now shares a national holiday—Presidents Day—with George Washington. But the Obama/Lincoln bond certainly could not be because of shared political ideology. Lincoln was for the free market and decidedly against socialism—just opposite of President Obama. He saw nothing in the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, worthy of emulation.
On the ownership of property Abraham Lincoln’s feelings were especially strong, he said, “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprises” (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, pp. 259-260). To him there was no need to take by force the wealth of those who produce and give it to those less productive. The “share the wealth” philosophy and “envy politics” so articulated by Obama would have been foreign ideology to the Civil War president.
The answer to ending poverty is not class envy, first identified by Aristotle some 2,500 years ago as being the natural inclination of those with less, a philosophy implemented by Lenin in Russia when the communists identified those holding property as enemies of the state and liquidated some four to eight million farmers, the “Kulaks” (“The Russian Kulaks,” InDepthInfo.com). Then they wondered why the country had such a horrific famine in 1921-1922 when millions starved.
No money was set aside for, or provided to, any class or special interest group in our Constitution. The power distributed benefited all equally and at the same time. The federal role was as referee only. Our Constitution does not redistribute wealth; it leaves the individual to do that by his work ethic. It remains the fairest way. Will income inequality be the outcome? Yes! Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. But all will have more than had we instead forced income equality by taking from those who produce and giving it to those who do not. We remain anxious to share our wealth producing philosophy with our less prosperous neighbors and the world so that all can have more but individuals steeling it from us, or using the government to do it for them, known as legalized plunder, is just wrong.
Lincoln’s answer to the poor, from which he sprang himself, “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence….” Unfortunately, many in our society have forgotten the “labor diligently” part of his phrase and have come to expect the government to provide, from the industry of others, their every need. On that score Lincoln also had words. “You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.” He viewed this principle as a form of tyranny to those who work. Today 47.5 % of the adult population pays no federal income tax; many actually receive benefits for which they have paid nothing.
Watching others acquire wealth was, in fact, a sign of a healthy economy for Lincoln. “I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.” Nor would he have supported the hundreds of laws that we have today that disincentivise a man trying to acquire wealth.
Lincoln might have added, “When has a poor man ever created a full time job for anyone?” Hate the Wal-Marts’ or the McDonalds’ all you want but they provide the poor thousands of jobs. Do not bite the hand that feeds you then wonder where the jobs and prosperity went, as did the early Russian socialists. The “share the wealth” philosophy, which Lincoln opposed, and Obama endorses, has never brought long term general prosperity for any people, any place, or any time.
Feb 11, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
So what if the President does executive orders! Did not prior presidents do the same thing? Yes and no! George Washington did 8, John Adams 1, Thomas Jefferson 4, James Madison 1, James Monroe 1, John Quincy Adams 3, and Andrew Jackson 12. The first seven presidents totaled 30 executive orders over forty-seven years. The most recent seven presidents Barack Obama 168, George W. Bush 291, William J. Clinton 364, George Bush 166, Ronald Reagan 381, Jimmy Carter 320, and Gerald R. Ford 169 totaled 1,859, over forty years—sixty-two times as many. Obviously something has radically changed.
A review of the literature shows that, in fact, Barack Obama has fewer executive orders than most and proponents of him are quick to make this distinction. They also convey the idea that all executive orders are similar and constitutional unless undone by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. These ideas are easy to dismiss. Rarely does Congress undo an executive order because the president’s party runs interference. Moreover, virtually no executive orders are declared unconstitutional because personal damage to someone (not the Constitution) has to be demonstrated and those damaged must be willing to pursue a legal course for several years before their case reaches the high court.
That all executive orders are similar is the biggest fallacy and the one most perpetuated by the establishment media. Rarely do they share the different types of executive orders as I do here. Initially executive orders were largely inter-departmental directives. They were never to have the force and effect of law as only Congress was allowed to make federal law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). The President is to execute the law of the legislative branch, not make it himself.
A few laws of Congress need a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. His executive order doing so stated their request and his selection of the last Thursday of November as that day. An executive order implementing a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is constitutional. Very few of the executive orders of today fit the George Washington, or constitutional model.
Nearing the end of the 1800s presidents, fearing rejection of Congress on something that they wanted and not having a specific single act of Congress authorizing their action, began gluing pieces of ancient laws together, some decades old, and initiating an executive order from these. Congress should have threatened impeachment as presidents were usurping their clear constitutional jurisdiction but didn’t, largely again, because of political party.
It was Richard Nixon during the 1970’s that found the burden of gluing pieces of ancient laws together too much work and issued them without it. Impeachment should have followed on this issue alone but didn’t. Presidents from his time to ours have continued the practice of making executive orders simply presidential decrees as dictators do, effectively creating new laws without any review and unconstitutionally usurping the powers of Congress. The normal wordage now used: “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:” is designed to sound official but it is simply made up. Added phraseology “as President,” or “by the Constitution” or, “as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces” still establishes no specific authority.
The Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of powers has been heavily altered the last fifty years. The Constitution allowed only the Legislative Branch to make federal law as noted. A law’s review by 536 individuals (435 members of the House, 100 Senators and 1 President) served as a filter for bad law as only one bill in thirty survived the rigid scrutiny of both branches and bore the signature of the President. Today we need to reject the executive order process that increasingly allows the executive branch to replace Congress as the principal law-making branch.
This is why Barack Obama’s executive orders differ from past presidents and is far more dangerous. In his State of the Union Address he boldly threatened to 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. Such is unprecedented and totally unconstitutional. Today, through the executive order process, the President makes half as many laws (decrees if you prefer) as does the Legislative Branch—about three a week. The practice is killing liberty.
Jan 31, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
In listening to the President’s State of the Union Address one would think that he actually has the power to do what he says should be done. He eloquently suggested a federal role in: curbing obesity, making the college opportunity available to all middle class Americans, partnering with local government “from homes to marriage equality,” and improving transportation. Added to the list was streamlining bureaucracy, building two “hubs” for economic opportunity (he wanted Congress to add five more) presumably in places like Detroit, unleashing funding for inventions, and preserving more “pristine federal lands”(code for confiscation). He wants new emission standards for trucks and enlarged federal standards for air quality, new jobs training programs, and a restoration of unemployment insurance. In education he wants his “Race to the Top” program accelerated and high school curriculum redesigned. He wants to impact the work place more (whatever that means), raise the minimum wage to $10.10, create “My RA’s a new savings bond for everyone” and IRA’s on the job.
The list went on and on just as it does for every president Republican or Democrat, but what was different this time was the threat of his bypassing Congress with the use of the “pen” (an obvious threat of the use of executive orders) where he felt he could. He promised to unilaterally raise the minimum wage for federal employees and his threat to do it, alone, must be taken seriously because he did just that on immigration and Obamacare law. We have never had a president who boldly promised to make law if the Congress failed to do so.
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. 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.
Obama threatens a role by way of executive order, the use of the pen to accomplish the items in his address, as kings or dictators do. The term executive order is not found in the Constitution. Executive orders were initially 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. Congress must reign-in any executive that uses them to make or alter law. Article I, Section I clearly gives only Congress law making power. Impeachment is a proper response for any president who subverts or threatens the separation of powers doctrine, as his oath requires that he “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
Jan 27, 2014 | Liberty Articles
By Dr. Harold Pease
The list of political scandals runs long in the Obama Administration, unusually long, the multi-year Fast and Furious botched gun-running operation in the Justice Department, the IRS wasting obscene sums of money on staff parties, also its having targeted Tea Party organizations for extra scrutiny, the Benghazi affair in which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a terrorist attack in Libya, government’s monitoring of Associated Press phone records, the NSA collecting and storing electronic message on all U.S. citizens, the disastrous Healthcare roll-out and etc. One thing is common. No one is fired!! No heads roll! Those at the top are protected, defended and sometimes even promoted. Critics see a pattern in Mr. Obama’s management style—no one is punished.
Not so with the military. The president with probably the highest record in avoiding self-blame, or holding his leadership accountable, also has the highest record for firing his generals. Something does not feel right. This story broke in mid-October all over the Internet but was largely neglected by the establishment press. Dianne Sawyer of ABC News had the most complete report of the few that even covered it. She reported that two-star Major General Michael Carey, with 35 years of commendable service and responsible for 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles in silos in the northern plains, was fired for “loss of trust and confidence” and “personal misbehavior.” No further detail was provided. He was the ninth general axed by the Obama administration in as many months.
About the same time President Obama relieved of command the second in command at U.S. Strategic Command, Vice Admiral James Giardina, “following a criminal probe into his potential use of counterfeit poker chips at an Iowa casino.” The firing of both generals was confirmed in short stories ran by both AP and Fox News but few additional details were provided. As reported by ABC “these officers have some of the highest security clearances you can get and have been in charge of the nations most sensitive nuclear arsenals.” Certainly Congress should be asking some big questions of the Administration respecting both generals sudden, and strange, fall from grace.
Three of the nine generals relieved of command have expressed opinions opposite the Administrations on Benghazi. General Carter Hamm, United States Army in charge of the US African command, stated that the Administration “lied about not having reinforcements in the area on that night.” Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, United States Navy, was in charge of the Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea with respect to the Benghazi debacle and in testimony, upon cross-examination, admitted that he could have had the aircraft launched had he been told to do so. He was removed for making “racially insensitive comments and abusive leadership.” Major General Ralph Baker, United States Army, commanded the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar, Djibouti, Africa said that his attack helicopters could have made it from his location to Benghazi in time. He was relieved of command “for groping a civilian.” According to the Free Patriot no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges were filed with JAG.
Brigadier General Bryan Roberts, United States Army was relieved of command for adultery. Sources suggest that while adultery “is still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.”
In early spring 2013, two Marine Corps generals were relieved of command for “not providing proper force protection” in Afghanistan from a Taliban attack in 2012. They were Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant, and Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus. No explanation was given for what consisted of proper force protection.
Lieutenant General David Holmes Huntoon Jr, United States Army was forced into retirement for an “improper relationship” according to The Department of Defense. Nothing was released as to the nature of the improper relationship.
The Navy, alone, has fired at least 16 commanders of less rank in 2014 alone. The ABC Sawyer report saw this as good as it improved the moral character of the military. Missed completely is the point that the Obama administration may have other motives—especially Benghazi—for these early retirements. Some critics see this as Obama weeding out commanders less friendly to his purposes—in short a purge.
In light of the observation that no heads roll in the numerous Obama scandals why are so many rolling in the military where no serious wrongdoing can be documented? Reasonable people ask why? As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, Napoleon may be building his own loyal army. Where is Congress and the establishment media on this story?
