Aug 28, 2011 | Constitution
Dr. Harold Pease
Meet Amanda Collins, a University of Nevada, Reno Campus student, who was brutally raped in the same parking garage where campus police park their cruisers, less than 100 yards from the police station. What is different about her, from the approximately 9 other students raped per day on college campuses throughout the United States, is that it happened near the police station and she had a concealed weapons permit which authorized her to carry a gun everywhere except on campus. She maintains that it probably would not have happened had she been allowed to carry her concealed weapon. What is worse, is that she is haunted by the knowledge that she was the first of three rapes and one murder which all could have been avoided.
With respect to her right to have a concealed weapon she wondered, “why I could be trusted at the deli shop across the street [to carry a gun], and then as soon as I crossed that arbitrary line, I was suddenly deemed incompetent and unable to make sound decisions or untrustworthy for whatever reason by the same authorities who granted me the permission to carry in the first place.”
It turns out that the individual who raped her, James Biela, now sitting on death row, ended up killing yet another rape victim, 19-year-old Brianna Denison. It was Amanda Collin’s drawing of him that allowed the police to find and arrest him ten months later but Amanda, having first fired a gun with her father at age 5 or 6, could have killed him in self-defense with one well-placed bullet.
Collins argues, “My inability to be able to carry allowed [Biela] to continue assaulting women, and ultimately he murdered one, too.” Her mother said it best when confronting the university chancellor, “ If guns aren’t the answer, then what is? Where were your police when my daughter was being raped?” Next door was apparently not good enough.
So what has the University of Nevada, Reno Campus done to prevent the same thing happening again? The lighting in the parking lot has been improved and they installed more call boxes so victims can get help. What is Amanda’s response to this? “A call box above my head when I am being straddled wouldn’t be any more help than the police that night. What am I supposed to do, ask my attacker to hold on and then run and push the button, then fight off my attacker while telling the operator what’s going on (Fighting Chance, by David Burnett, First Freedom, Sept. 2011, pp. 22-28)?”
When institutions deny their students the right to defend themselves—even making it a criminal behavior to carry a gun with the intent to protect oneself—they then assume that responsibility unto themselves. When they fail to provide the protection that they deny are they responsible? This is presently being tested in the courts and so far it looks promising for future victims. Victims unprotected by their colleges or universities are suing their institutions.
Some might argue that allowing everyone qualifying to have a concealed weapon on campus would invite frequent “shoot-outs.” This has proven not so in Utah which has had such a law for sometime. Colorado has left concealed carry to the board of directors of each campus so some allow it and others do not. A national campaign to open this part of society to firearms is gaining momentum. If you wish to be better informed on this issue see www.concealedcampus.org. More than half of the Texas House of Representatives has signed as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns for both students and professors. Texas has 38 public universities and more than half a million students. Wisconsin and Virginia are also liberalizing their former views against concealed weapons on campus.
Yes Amanda, you could have saved three rapes and a murder but your story of such is resonating to thinking people with the reality that first responders (police) “are good and essential and necessary—but instant responders are better. The university takes instant responders out of the equation” and, unfortunately, the victims are the innocent—often dead.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 17, 2011 | Constitution, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
Michele Bachmann was winner of the Iowa Straw Vote held August 13 with 29% of the vote. In a close second, just 152 votes behind her, was Ron Paul at 28%–together that totals 57%. The significance of this cannot be over-stated as the two are the only Tea Party Presidential candidates in the race and as such a significant majority of Iowans voted for the Tea Party philosophy. Will the establishment media notice this story and give adequate credit to the Tea Party Patriot influence? I am writing this the day of the straw vote. You will be able to answer that question for yourself when this column is published next week in your newspaper, but let me predict the answer. Not likely!!
Iowa is the first hard evidence, in an election year, of where the nation is politically and it appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Tea Party Patriot core values: limited Constitutional government, the free market, and fiscal responsibility—themes consistently emphasized by Bachmann and Paul. Polls are not hard evidence as they are too subject to who is polled and how questions are phrased so should not be given the same level of credibility.
Media selected, front runner, Mitt Romney, who clearly did not get the kind of applause that Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich did in the Presidential debate held just two days before, only got 3%; an extremely low number for their favorite not likely to be emphasized by the major media. Were it anyone else he/she would be moved to the bottom of the stack until he/she proved himself/herself again elsewhere—perhaps in New Hampshire this winter. Rick Perry, announcing on the same day as the Iowa straw vote, and not campaigning at all in the state, received more votes than Mitt Romney. Based upon this Bachmann and Paul are the only real front-runners but the numbers are too close to give either of them a decisive victory over the other so media coverage of each should be somewhat equal.
Only once has the Iowa straw vote actually picked the eventual winner but it does give the winner more exposure and the spotlight for a time—unless, of course, you are Ron Paul who consistently and unfairly gets downplayed. Will the establishment media undermine or belittle this win, and Paul’s near victory (short by only 152 votes), as they already have the applause factor—he did get louder and more frequent applause than any other candidate? Based upon how he was treated in the last presidential election. Yes!! This is an excellent example of how the media guide us in our thinking. That is why in political science we teach that the first election is the media’s.
Although the media have never understood or fully acknowledged the significance of the anger of the American people to excessive government and uncontrolled spending as exemplified by the approximately 2400 Tea Party gatherings held throughout the United States in the year 2009, the people have and this anger is apparently alive and well in the Mid-West. Falsely characterized as “Astroturf,” then “mobsters,” then “racists,” and, more recently by the Vice President as “terrorists,” has not deterred Tea Party followers but rather hardened these “political unseasoned ‘mom’ operations with homemade signs.” They have come to know that the core values they endorse are at the very heart of freedom and the Constitution and must be preserved.
Anything could still happen in the weeks ahead as the actual vote comes this winter in New Hampshire then in South Carolina, but the race has begun with a clear cut win for the Tea Party Patriots. Unless the media successfully vilify, undermine, or discredit them a sizable hurricane in the political world may follow. Certainly the establishment media did not see this one coming, especially not just out of the shoot, so to speak, as was the case in Iowa.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 13, 2011 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold Pease
I do not usually write on themes getting extensive attention in the media but the establishment press has overlooked a big story in the debt limit debate. Every one has covered who lost: the President, Congress and both major political parties but almost no one identified the Tea Party Patriot movement as the clear victor.
Remember the over 2400 separate and spontaneous gatherings of Tea Party Patriots in 2009, geographically spread throughout the nation and proportionately held April 15, July 4, and Sept. 11, with about 800 such gatherings held each date. These gatherings, with no national leadership or direction, led mostly by moms with homemade signs, was perhaps the showing of greater anger against the federal government than in any single year in our history—certainly in my life time.
Remember as well the two Tea Party assemblages of over a million in Washington D. C. during that same year crying out “President Obama!! Can you hear us now?” “CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?? Yes, the establishment media had trouble covering these stories then too, but they still happened.
The Tea Party movement resulted in the election of a few candidates committed to Constitutional limited government, the free market and fiscal responsibility—the Tea Party’s core values and actually those of the U.S. Constitution as well. Values perceived by them as having been largely abandoned by the leadership of both major political parties.
All this is conceded but how does this translate to a win for the Tea Party Patriots on the Debt Limit Deal? True to the Constitution and their election promises these patriots bucked the weak-kneed Republican Party in the House of Representatives and the spend-happy Democrats in the Senate and forced both to talk about the following previously ignored concepts. What is the proper role of government? How do we get a Balanced Budget Amendment to curb our addiction to debt? Are raising taxes always the only answer? And given government’s addiction to growth, will they ever have enough?
The promise to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, to not raise taxes, and to actually cut future spending, are each a part of the finished agreement because of the insistence of the Tea Party members of Congress. As a group only the Tea Party saw the looming financial problems ahead if we did not seriously live within our means and scale back our debt. NOW!! With our debt credit down grade and near stock market crash of this week can anyone seriously question Tea Party philosophy now? Still, there are voices in the land aimed to discredit them.
Republicans have shown themselves to have no fire in their bellies and have thus caved-in to the run-away spending plans of their adversaries every time. Sometimes, as under the Bush Stimulus, they have shown themselves as leading the charge for debt enslavement. In short, modern Tea Party Patriots gave the Republican Party enough fire so that they did not cut and run so easily.
Did the Tea Party get what they wanted? No! Definitely not!! Were that the case they would have had an actual Balanced Budget Amendment, actual spending cuts, and our credit rating would not have been down graded. Reducing the rate of increase is not the same as reducing spending. The deal did nothing to stop the growth of our debt and resulting bondage of our children. In fact, it did just the opposite. Still, opponents were forced to listen and give some attention to the Tea Party Patriots—a huge victory especially given their small size in Congress and governments nature to spend without restraint. We just need more of them in Congress. Returning to the Constitution is the only answer and they are the only ones saying it.
Hopefully, more Americans will see the Tea Party Patriot movement and our defense of the Constitution as the same thing. Until now they have been a somewhat lone voice in the wilderness as far as Congress was concerned but with this victory should merit our greater confidence lending to greater support resulting in even bigger victories to come.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 9, 2011 | Constitution
by Dr. Harold Pease
The only power the president has with respect to making law is his signature or the veto of law passed by Congress, or threat thereof. That veto power requires that he return the bill with “his objections” for reconsideration which Congress can override by a two-thirds vote. He may also suggest an area needing the attention of Congress in his State of the Union Address. That’s it! Everything else is pure fabrication on his part to more fully empower himself.
So what are so-called “Signing Statements” used extensively by President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama who once condemned them? These two words are not in the U.S. Constitution nor is there anything that could suggest this practice. Instead of using one of only two options provided by the Constitution and sending objectionable parts back to Congress for reconsideration, he has created a more powerful third option, that of signing into law the bill excluding the parts that he disagrees with thus undermining the veto power. Signing Statements also have the effect of enabling him to give his own separate spin to the law that is not that of the 535 individuals who created it. One person alone was never given such power. Unless immediately challenged by the Congress his will be the interpretation used by future Congresses, as well as by the Supreme Court, when related issues resurface. In essence he openly refuses to enforce the law he just signed despite his oath to do so. Kings with parliaments never had it so good.
Candidate Obama understood how the practice violated the Constitution and empowered the president when he said: “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” He continued, “That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution.” Then he promises not to do the same thing were he to be elected president. “And I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress” (“Obama Signing Statement: Despite Law, I Can Do What I Want on Czars,” by Jonathan Strong, April 15, 2011).
Candidate Obama was right to be so condemning of President Bush who “issued more than 100 such statements signaling that his administration would not carry out congressionally approved provisions on a range of issues, from barring the use of torture to requirements that the executive branch report certain information to Congress.” Ultimately a bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association “decried Bush’s use of signing statements as a serious threat to the rule of law, saying it ran contrary to the system of presidential vetoes and congressional overrides created by the U.S. Constitution” (Exercising his Power or Venturing into Congressional Turf? By Louis Jacobson, July 24, 2009, St Petersburg Times Politifact.com).
So with this Constitutional clarity and solemn promise we would not expect to find President Obama doing the same thing. Wrong! To date he has done so 18 times (Signing Statements Still Controversial, by David G. Taylor, July 27, 2011, St Petersburg Times Politifact.com). His justifications for doing so are filed with the same legalese as are those of his predecessor he condemned. The fact remains that he violates the Constitution as well—only he, unlike his predecessor, cannot claim ignorance in doing so. Having instructed the Constitution he knows the damage that his activity does to the separation of powers as well as empowering him to alter law.
Why does such continue and what is the solution? Because of the plague of political parties that George Washington warned would, in effect, cause us to be more loyal to them than to the principles of the Constitution. Republicans excused Bush and Democrats excuse Obama. The practice will continue to alter the Constitution until our loyalty returns to the Constitution and we threaten impeachment to anyone tampering with it whether a Bush or an Obama. It is time to do so.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 2, 2011 | Tea Party
By Dr Harold Pease
Time and time again I have overheard discussion or arguments where participants polarize. The one who knows the most attempts to stay on focus providing ever more points to show his case. The less informed cannot stay focused, as he has run out of specifics. He resorts to one of five techniques: spraying, changing the focus of the topic, repeating over and over again the few points he does have, making the argument personal, and name calling. Sometimes he uses a mixture. Let us examine each.
Spraying is the term used for those who, in essence, travel around the world in three minutes or less bringing up everything related or not. The informed seek clarity or relevance on the first point only to notice that his opponent, the ill informed and lacking depth, has switched to yet another aspect. The ill-informed stays in control of the argument only because the more informed cannot keep up. Like a shotgun blast the intent is to blow the better informed over with a mass of non-specific, semi-related data so he drops the discussion. The less informed wins only because he is left standing. Sprayers also gain additional power by increasing their volume as well. Their thought processes do not allow them to realize the extent of their ignorance.
Focus changers also run out of counter arguments or choose not to deal with the logical next step and turn instead to changing the focus of the argument. Instead of dealing with the legitimate issues raised by the Tea Party Movement the need for both major parties to provide us candidates who endorse fiscal responsibility, limited Constitutional government, and free market economics they call them racist or mobsters. The argument now moves to defending against racism. The establishment media initially relied on this technique to undermine the Tea Party Movement but it failed because the movement was a microcosm of the population itself and one might find his, normally non-activist, mother leading the charge.
Repeaters, yet another technique for the less informed, likewise run out of counter arguments and try to win by constantly restating their initial two or three points. Normally, like sprayers, they also raise their voice on each restatement. They too have no depth but it does not matter to them.
The art of sounding informed when not includes personalizing the argument. I once published a column that dealt with a plan to cut the bureaucracy by laying off 10% of their work force per year but allowing them, for ten years, to continue receiving their former pay, reduced by 10% each year, until they received nothing and sought new productive employment. A colleague, rather than debate the idea, fired off a negative memo suggesting that I be first to go. In doing so the debate was now personalized with the new issue now being my value to the institution.
Name-callers seek to destroy your credibility by linking you, or what you advocate, to something unpopular, sometimes called labeling. This allows them to write you, or your issue, off without having to think or deal with your evidence. The favorite label is liberal or conservative. It gets worse. The mere word “McCarthyism”, the suggestion that there might be a single communist in the government, Hollywood or the media, was used for decades to destroy proponents of such or any real investigation into the evidence. Those who question the need to have our troops in 31 countries of the earth are called “isolationists.” Those who even dare question Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate are degraded by the term “birthers.” Even Congress was “cowed” into silence. Those who still question global warming as being man made are called “flat-earthers.” Those advocating that we get back to the Constitution as designed are called “strict constructionists” as though this were a venereal disease of some kind. You get the picture. How many of these things are true. I do not know as the opponents won by silencing proponents. Who comes up with these labels? The opponents did, of course? And who uses them the most? The least informed.
So what should the most informed do? First, make certain that they are the most informed and that they too are not using any of these techniques to further an argument that may not be totally correct. Second, let it be. The majority is normally ill informed. Relate where you can and move on to other friends. Someone else will have to reach them and perhaps that won’t happen either. In America we do not shoot you for disagreement or ignorance. At least not yet!!!!
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
