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.
May 5, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Anyone the least bit familiar with the Constitution and its early history knows that, despite lip-service to it, neither political party follows it, nor do any of the three branches of government actually limit themselves to their specific articles in it. All three operate outside the carefully crafted cages to which they were assigned. So how do we get the federal government back to servant rather than master? Well-meaning conservatives, and Mark Levin in particular, are wrong in their push for a new constitutional convention for the following reasons.
To begin with, why argue to get what you already have? It is a far weaker argument because it implies uncertainty on your part that you already have it. The federal government is already limited by the existing Constitution: Congress to a precise list in Article I, Section 8. The President is limited to a list housed in Article II, Sections II and III. The Supreme Court is limited to eleven types of cases most with but appellate (limited by Congress) jurisdiction and only two totally free of the restrictions of Congress called original jurisdiction. All other power was reserved to the states as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Again, to argue that we need additional amendments to get the federal government to abide by what was already understood as their limits of power is to argue to get what we already have.
An argument within the Constitution is much easier to make than asking that three fourths of the states accept something new and somewhat foreign to them. Three-fourths of the states is a big number and takes many years to acquire, and in a nation somewhat constitutionally illiterate is likely to fall short of the states needed. Meanwhile, the case for living within the Constitution can be made today because a majority of the people was taught some level of reverence for it. Showing them how the federal government has strayed from clearly cited restrictions in the document is a much easier case to make.
The argument that we have already unsuccessfully tried to keep the federal government within constitutional bounds is legitimate. But to suppose that a George W. Bush or a Barack Obama will stay within the bounds of new amendments when, with impunity, each has violated those amendments in existence is as naive as believing that more gun control laws will cause the criminals to turn in their guns.
A new Constitutional Convention potentially exposes everything that we already have placing everything at risk. Where is the basis for faith that the new “Founders” will not tamper with established basics? Three Twentieth Century amendments seriously damaged previously sacred foundation points of a republic: the 16th gave the federal government unlimited resources to spend in areas not listed as their function in Article I, Section 8 and the states lined up with alms bowls in hand for the grants. The 17th removed State influence and consent in lawmaking thus irreparably damaging the concept of federalism so critical to limiting the power of the federal government. The 18th outlawed the consumption of alcohol in the nation for ten years giving the government the right to tell its people what they can drink.
Some argue that we can limit the extent of change in a new convention. It is well to remember that the original delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not authorized to dump the Articles of Confederation, but did, exposing everything that then existed. Can Levin and others guarantee that that could not happen again? No!
Why would we suppose that new founders will have an equal to, or superior, understanding of natural law upon which the Constitution was based? We assume that the states will be anxious to get their powers restored to them but where is the basis that they see such a need? Do not almost all elected federal government personnel first serve in state legislatures then abandon the state perspective when they reach Washington DC?
Finally, the enemies to limited federal government yearn for a constitutional convention as well. They want everything dictated from Washington DC—an all-powerful government. Such groups as Wolf-Pac, AFL-CIO, Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, and the forty-five political action organizations funded by George Soros (New American, April 7, 2014, p. 18) are just waiting for the opportunity to empower themselves and government more fully. Who can promise that they will sit idly by while we further limit their ability to manage us?
Holding to the Constitution with exactness is our only real secure way to take back our country. Our weapons are the limiting clauses of the Constitution and Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. Political parties have failed us. Encouraging our people to become Constitutionalists first is a better approach. As tyranny grows so will support for our cause. Mr. Levin and other conservatives, please don’t risk losing everything by an ill-conceived constitutional convention. The answer is to make the government abide by what they have by oath promised and, when needed, carefully craft new amendments one at a time, as for example a balanced budget amendment.
Apr 20, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The most important question with respect to the Bundy Ranch Standoff remains unanswered. Why does the federal government own Nevada? It does not own New York or Virginia or Massachusetts. Cliven Bundy says that the state of Nevada owns the contested land. The Bureau of Land Management clearly considers the property the federal governments; hence the 200 snipers posted on the property and the tasing of the Bundys for resisting when the feds confiscated their cattle. Who is right?
But the problem isn’t Nevada’s alone where government owns 87.7 % of the land leaving private ownership of the state at but 12.3 %. The percentage of land owned by government exceeds fifty percent in Alaska (98.5), Idaho (63.8), Oregon (52.6), and Utah (63.6). Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10). Government owns almost half of California (47.5). Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.
States wanting their confiscated land returned, so as to be on equal footing as with 19 sister states who actually own their land, call their long-term bid to do so the Sage Brush Rebellion. Equality between states was established by giving them equal representation in the U.S. Senate, thus the assumption of the Founders was that property would follow. Without it they are not on equal footing and instead may be more servile to the federal government than states that own themselves. This could negatively affect our system of government known as federalism as states collectively serve as a check on federal overreach. This check is impaired when the federal government owns part or most of their land.
But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the states cited above although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.
Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management. Still, his stand is not practical given our long-term departure from the document and to get back to the Constitution some may do jail time, as have others like Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom has never been cheap.
Having someone willing to stand, Sage Brush Rebellion states now should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. Taking back this infinitesimal amount of the whole that is claimed by the federal government will set the stage for more acquisitions later. The governor would become an instant hero in the western states. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs. Why is a citizen (in this case Cliven Bundy) having to make the case for a state? The governor would give strength to two objectives—returning fraudulently acquired land to the states and getting back to the Constitution.
Mar 30, 2014 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
On March 11, 2014, President Barack Obama, designated the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands a national monument, setting aside 1,665 acres of a pristine Northern California coastline for future generations, thereby keeping a promise made in his 2014 Cabinet meeting and Inaugural Address. “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward….” Some have dubbed this his nullification of Congress speech.
But where in the Constitution is authority for him to take land from a state and claim it for a national monument or park? A look at Article II, wherein his powers are listed, identifies no such power. He has but eleven powers: 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 the words executive order, or anything like unto it. He has no law-making or land acquisition powers.
Constitutionally land acquisition is left only to Congress as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that leaves the federal government propertyless with but two exceptions, 1) ten miles square for a capital, and 2) for common defense. Clause 17 is the last of eight qualifiers defining common defense and allows the federal government additional land acquisition provided three stipulations are met. Those are: such land had to be purchased by the federal government (not just confiscated), receive the consent of the state legislature where located, and had to be for military purposes. President Theodore Roosevelt, who first violated this part of the Constitution by creating Yosemite National Park, should have been impeached for four reasons. The power to acquire land did not belong to the executive branch, the federal government did not purchase it, the California State Legislature did not give consent, and it was not for military purposes. Likewise President Barack Obama had no authority to acquire land, did not purchase the pristine California coastline, did not obtain the consent of the California Legislature and it was not acquired for military purposes. That presidents have followed Roosevelt’s clearly unconstitutional practice does not make it constitutional.
This is not an argument that governments should not set aside our most pristine portions for the enjoyment of those not yet born, but only that they do so constitutionally. One departure from the Constitution invites yet another until the document is not “sacredly obligatory on all” as warned George Washington in his famous Farewell Address. At any time a state, county, or city may create a park or monument or, we could have properly amended the Constitution through Article V to enlarge the land acquisition powers of the federal government but, my point, we did not. The Constitution is designed to harness the federal government from doing whatever it pleases, in this case, confiscation of property.
Presidents, in law-making through executive orders, 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 this office grows beyond its ability to be efficient. At any time a president 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 outlined in Article II, only adding to them by way of amendment as described in Article V—no exceptions! In the case of land acquisition there is no place for his pen.
