For decades I read in my college classes messages smuggled out of socialist / communist prisons in Romania, Cuba, North Vietnam, the USSR, Communist China, North Korea and etc. some no worse than now coming out of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections in the United States. American citizens have been thrown into cells, denied family visits, fed horrible food, and imprisoned in essentially solitary confinement for up to 24 hours daily.
Approximately 650 January 6 Rally participants were “later charged and arrested in raids that involved armored military vehicles and SWAT teams.” Many of these thereafter were detained for most of a year without trial on Nancy Pelosi’s and the Democrat Party media outlets’ supposition of insurrection. Still, not one has been charged with insurrection!! Evidence of insurrection does not exist or this would have been charged. Confinement and tortuous treatment is largely punishment for their support of Trump in the Electoral College vote count.
They are instead American political prisoners. Those able to get messages “out to the public tell of their long-term solitary confinement without cause, sleep deprivation techniques, beatings at the hands of guards while in restraints, and threats of harsher treatment for speaking to the media (“Ignore the Dissidents of Our Time at Your Peril,” by Sarah Corridor, Homefront Crusade, October 13, 2021). All, dissident punishment techniques of communist countries cited above.
I had never supposed that I would see the same in the United States—political prisoners. But I also never supposed that socialists would take over this country implementing censorship, lock-downs, and mandates as in communist regimes. Washington D.C. is governed by the House of Representatives, presently led by Nancy Pelosi as speaker. None of this could happen without her knowledge and consent.
What follows is one of those letters smuggled out. Its author Nathan Degraves has no unlawful or violent history. He did not break anything nor hurt anyone.
Nathan Degraves.
“Dear fellow Americans, I never thought I’d write a letter like this but we’re living in very different times. This is my cry for help. My name is Nathan Degraves. And as a non violent participate at the January 6 Rally I’ve spent the last nine months detained as a political prisoner in pod C at the DC Department of Corrections, otherwise known as DC’s Gitmo.
“The conditions here for January Sixers have been inhumane. In fact, some inmates are even begging to be transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where they have more acceptable standards. Class action lawsuits are being filed against this prison and even the ACLU has gotten involved.
“So let me tell you about me and many others who are January Sixers and what we’ve been experiencing in DC’s Gitmo, our conditions for the last 120 days. For DC’s Gitmo January Sixers experienced daily lockdowns for 23 to 24 hours before being allowed to leave our small 120 square foot cell. The physical and mental anguish that results from this kind of severe isolation has caused many people to go on a rapid mental decline. As a result, a large percentage of us are heavily medicated with anti anxiety and anti depressant drugs, which helps to cope with the psychological and mental abuse we endure. Many times the little recreation we do receive is stripped away if our cell isn’t up to standards of the guard on duty. This changes from day to day.
“January Sixers have lost recreation time, and out of cell activity time, for any news interviews about the jail when they are aired on TV, when people speak up about our conditions or rallies are held in our name. We’ll probably have a lock-down upon the publishing of this letter. So I have already warned those I know in advance.
“I suffer headaches and nausea. I have already lost 15 pounds since I’ve been detained and I was quite thin and fit to begin with. After in person visits, legal or otherwise we are forced to undergo humiliating strip searches despite all visitors being thoroughly checked for contraband. If it’s an illegal visit we are placed in a 14 day quarantine with no out of cell time even if your attorney is vaccinated and tests negative for COVID. Visits with friends or family members for unvaccinated inmates are never allowed.
“I am being unfairly prosecuted and definitely overcharged. I never assaulted anyone destroyed property or stolen anything. Please don’t be fooled by the media. I am a loving and peaceful person with no history of violence.
“Please share this letter with everyone you know friends and family, senators, representatives, political organizations, organizers, civil rights groups and media outlets. The truth has to get out and the jail must pay for what they are doing to this country’s citizens. The government has essentially cancelled me.”
My publisher, LibertyUnderFire.com, publishes stories and / or information heavily censored by the controlled press in America. This letter was read by Greg Kelly of Newsmax on November 1, 2021. As far as we know Kelly is the only outlet for this story, besides you.
All America must unite in condemning censorship and tyranny. If the government can do this to one philosophy, political party, or person it can do it to anyone. The government has nothing on Nathaniel Degrave or they would have produced it long ago. They must assume his legal fees, pay compensation for his incarceration, and set him free immediately. Until then he remains a political prisoner in America.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
No act of Congress would affect negatively more Americans than the House of Representative’s recently passed Equality Act, 224 D-206 R, now slated for the U.S. Senate, then the President for his signature. Billed to ban discrimination against “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” it, instead, enshrines it into the 1964 Civil Rights Act potentially protecting pedophilia and pederasty under “sexual orientation.” Nothing in it is constitutuonal.
This is the same bill passed by the Democrat controlled House 20 months ago but dropped because it would never pass the then Republican controlled Senate and had no chance of a signature by President Trump. All this has changed with controversial elections allowing a Democrat Senate and Biden, a strong supporter, in the White House. Sixty votes must be found in the Senate to bypass a filibuster. Democrats are expected to cheat by ignoring this requirement forcing the bill though with a simple majority.
The 13-paged ambiguous Equality Act “would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more.” It specifically prohibits religious freedom as a defense. “The legislation applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more. Christian adoption agencies will be shut down, too, if they refuse to place children with homosexuals or individuals confused about whether they are men or women. That has already happened in states with similar legislation.”
It could criminalize Christianity, Judaism and Islam as their holy writ condemns as sin the behaviors of the LGBTQ community. As federal law “churches, synagogues, and mosques will no longer be able to uphold marriage between men and women, or any moral standards on sexuality at all. Counselors of faith will be banned from helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion. And Christians, Muslims, and Jews will no longer be allowed to seek out counselors to help them deal with those issues. Indeed, under the measure, everyone will have to affirm the LGBTQ agenda, or face persecution and destruction at the hands of the federal government. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they do not submit. Schools will lose their accreditation…and this is just the start” (“Equality Act Would Unleash Federal Persecution of Christians,” By Alex Newman, New American, May 8, 2019).
The Equality Act is anti- women, The unchurched may say, “This is not my fight.” But it affects them too with respect to abortion, bathroom privacy, and women’s sports! “By amending the definition of ‘sex’ in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this legislation codifies a fundamental right to an abortion up until the moment of birth.” Seconds short of infanticide. By effectively eliminating Hyde protections, it ensures that American taxpayers foot the bill for abortions (“Democrats’ passage of ‘Equality Act’ is the first stage in their attempts to CRIMINALIZE Christianity,” by Randolph Jason, May 24, 2019).
It vastly undermines women’s privacy. “Men who claim they ‘identify’ as women will be allowed to use women’s restrooms, showers, changing areas, and even bunk with women on trips, including church trips,” any man “could simply walk into female facilities under this bill and claim to be a ‘transgender’ who identifies as female,” placing girls and women at risk. “It would even be forced on churches, domestic-abuse shelters, Christian schools, and much more” (“Equality Act”).
The Equality Act decimates high school female sports and the monumental gains in the sexual revolution of the seventies that equalized opportunity for women’s sports. Biological men with more weight, size and strength, claiming transgender status, can compete with women. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) “introduced an amendment at the last minute to the Equality Act that would have preserved Title IX’s protections for female sports teams, but Democrats — the ‘party of women’ — rejected it soundly.” Women’s sports will never be the same. Ironically the Democratic Party, has abandoned 52% of the population (women) in favor of the “less than one half of one percent of the population claiming transgender status” (“Why do Democrats think they have the authority — and the RIGHT — to regulate gender on high school sports teams?” The National Sentinel, June 3, 2019). On bathroom privacy and sports Democrats are anti-women.
The real fear for critics of the bill is that it “provides the state with the power to persecute anyone who won’t celebrate any aspect of the LGBTQ agenda…it turns any recognition of the differences between the sexes or any preference for traditional sexual morality into actionable ‘hate,’ creating fertile grounds for lawsuits.” It puts the LGBTQ community in direct collision with God as defined by Christianity, Judaism and Islam. These world religions recoil from the behaviors of this group. Behaviors, they believe, places them at odds with God and salvation itself. This legislation is equivalent to “pouring legal acid on a marriage-and-family-based culture.” For them this is war between good and evil.
Instead of equality it gives legal power to opponents of religion who will, according to Prof. Robert Gagnon of Houston Baptist University, an expert in biblical sexual morality, “codify into law that you are a bigot, the moral equivalent of a racist, tantamount to being a member of the Klu Klux Klan, who must be shut out of society and, wherever possible, harassed and persecuted for your beliefs.” Thus, the Equality Act “is the most dangerous bill to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion that has ever been proposed on a national level” (“A misnamed legal jackhammer strikes,” by Robert Knight, Washington Times, May 19, 2019). No wonder the vast majority of religious communities oppose it.
Ironically the best way to have the LGBTQ community treated fairly is housed in Christianity, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” But in today’s upside down world: right is wrong, slavery is freedom, evil is good, and now equality is inequality. Again, nothing in it is constitutuonal.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, ple ase visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
With my new computer I receive unsolicited on screen messages from the Washington Post and New York Times, alerting me to news flashes they think credible and important for me to view immediately. The computer appears programed to do this automatically. But such represent an agreement with McIntosh that I should get very left leaning news first. Is this one of the subliminal message techniques Dr. Robert Epstein was speaking of in his July 16, 2019 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution?
In this hearing, evidence was provided that Big Tech, notably Google, and subliminal messaging techniques moved between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Epstein predicted that in 2020 “if all these companies are supporting the same candidate [as they did in 2016] there are 15 million votes on the line that can be shifted without peoples’ knowledge and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.”
The previous April the Subcommittee had questioned witnesses from FaceBook and Twitter. But any serious examination of Big Tech censorship would have to include Google. Subcommittee chair Ted Cruz summarized the depth of the problem. “Google’s control over what people hear, watch, read, and say is unprecedented. Almost 90% of internet searches today use Google. Google’s domination of the search engine market is so complete that ‘to Google’ is now a common place verb. With that market power Google can, and often does, control our discourse… Every time we search on Google we see only the Web pages that Google decides we should see; in the order that Google decides we should see them. Type a few letters into the search bar and Google will tell you what you should be looking for.”
He continued: “The same is true of Google’s subsidiary YouTube—the second most visited web page in existence…. And when you submit a video people at YouTube determine whether you’ve engaged in so called hate speech; an ever changing and vague stance meant to give censorship an air of legitimacy. This is a staggering amount of power to ban speech, to manipulate search results, to destroy rivals, and to shape culture.”
Not surprising Google’s parent organization, Alphabet, was the number one financial supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2016.
But Google power is world wide, Dr. Epstein told the committee. Google has a “massive surveillance operation, censorship capabilities and unprecedented ability to manipulate the thinking of 2.5 billion people, soon to be 4 plus billion.” We add, if unchecked it could come to control every human on earth. Presently Google’s closest competitor is Microsoft’s Bing at 2.5% of the market (Robert Epstein, “To Break Googles’s Monopoly on Search, Make its Index Public,” Business Week, July 15, 2019).
Dr. Epstein told the Committee, “I know how to stop Big Tech in its tracks.” He recommended two big changes. The first, because these companies support the same presidential candidate and can shift up to 15 million votes in their candidates direction, Big Tech must be monitored. Since 2015 he has been developing technology “to capture on-line ‘esemeral experiences’” which he tested successfully the next year and which has increased in sophistication each year since. He expects to be ready for the 2020 presidential race fully capable of catching “Big Tech in the act, to instantly spot when FaceBook is bias in newsfeeds or when Twitter is suppressing tweets sent by Ann Colter or Elizabeth Warren.” He added: “To let Big Tech get away with subliminal manipulation on this scale would be to make the free and fair election meaningless.”
Second, “Congress can quickly end Google’s world-wide monopoly on search by declaring Google’s massive search index, the data base the company uses to generate search results, to be a public commodity accessible by all. Just as a 1956 consent decree forced AT&T to share all its patents. There is precedent in both law and Googles business practices to justify taking this step which will make on-line search competitive again and dramatically diminish Google’s power or rise.”
Google already shares this massive index with the Netherlands based company Startpage this “in return for fees generated by ads placed near Startpage search results.” This makes Startpage an acceptable replacement for Google primarily because you get “great search results, but with a difference. Google tracks your searches and also monitors you in other ways, so it gives you personalized results. Startpage doesn’t track you—it respects and guarantees your privacy—so it gives you generic results.” Dr. Epstein also recommended DuckDuckGo “which aggregates information obtained from 400 other non-Google sources, including its own modest crawler” (To Break Googles’s Monopoly).
But Epstein uses the Startpage model to show what would happen if Google’s massive index becomes public property. Perhaps hundreds of other startups would in time surface restoring competition to the information arena.
Google has 16 data centers so Congress could only make public domain of the eight in the United States. Other countries where centers exist would have to do the same to break the monopoly. The European Union has five. Since they had to levy $8 billion in fines against Google in 2017, they might be tempted to be first to make the index public domain (Ibid.).
Free elections in any country mandates the free availability of all information.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Neither the words equality or discrimination are found in the U. S. Constitution, nor inferred, and no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving either from a state to a federal prerogative, which is the required path detailed in Article V for enlarging the powers of the federal government. State delegates formed the U.S. Constitution and they gave the federal government no power over human association. We naturally discriminate between philosophies, organizations, and people we wish to embrace, date or avoid; even whom or what we like. We call it freedom.
Now the House of Representatives, presently controlled by the Democratic Party, wishes to impose upon us restrictions over human associations without a new amendment to the Constitution. Under the misnamed Equality Act it wishes to enshrine “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination respecting race or sex in employment, housing, and public accommodations. What it does in practice is to “allow the government to impose a belief system about sexual decisions and sexual behaviors on the nation.” The Act is “basically government-sanctioned discrimination against religious people” (CBN News, October 2018). If government is empowered to manage human associations it manages everything.
So how would the misnamed Equality Act violate the Constitution? Remember the Founding Fathers created a system called federalism which recognized the principle of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government, neither the master nor slave of the other—the states to have domestic dominance, the federal government foreign policy dominance.
The Constitution restricts the federal government, (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to the enumerated clauses housed in Article I, Section 8. In this it was restricted to four areas of federal law, these were: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and national defense. To restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two of the four grants of power, general welfare and national defense, each required an additional eight clauses giving greater restrictive clarity.
Neither equality or discrimination were named, or inferred, as a function of the federal government. The eight clauses of general welfare benefited citizens equally and at the same time. None made distinctions between types of people or human associations.
All powers not specifically listed, or added later to the Constitution by way of the Amendment process outlined in Article V, were left to the States. There exists no new powers to distribute. The states retain all power that they did not specifically give to the federal government. The federal government can only expand its power at the expense of the states by distorting or ignoring the existing list. This can be done only when the people are ignorant of the Constitution or do not care. Proponents of the Equality Act include both.
Even with this clarification, states, fearing that the federal government might still attempt to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions on it, hence the Bill of Rights. But none of these housed either equality or discrimination. The Bill of Rights end with the clarity of Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So neither equality nor discrimination are in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but the word equal (not the same as equality) is in the 14th Amendment. This was a Civil War amendment (1868) designed to ensure that the rights of ex-slaves were protected as the South was attempting to re-enslave them through legislation. It reads in part, “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” One cannot pluck out this phrase and give it new meaning outside the context of its origin, — to protect freed men from slavery.
But there is another problem with the broad use of the phrase “equal protection of the laws” used out of context, This phrase applies only to that law already constitutional, and that, has to have a solid base in the listed powers of Article I, Section 8 or in a new amendment to the Constitution ratified by three-fourths of the states as required by Article V. Any other interpretation destroys the Constitution as designed.
A great irony of our time is that the misnamed Equality Act “creates grave inequalities between those who simply want to live according to their religious beliefs and the reigning culture of political correctness. In short, it threatens our most fundamental freedoms of speech, religious exercise, and privacy. The Equality Act upends two centuries of First Amendment law that restrains government from forcing Americans to speak messages or participate in events that violate their deeply held religious beliefs” (https://firstliberty.org/what-is-the-equality-act/).
The Equality Act has no origin in the Constitution, and thus is unconstitutional. If passed it would violate a large part of the First Amendment more especially the free exercise of religion, speech and press. It opens up a myriad of new laws on human association, also without constitutional base. Neither equality or discrimination can be defined and certainly not guaranteed without Orwellian governmental control. Perhaps that is the intention.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
No one has been more outspoken against the globalist agenda than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the very antithesis of their plans for world government. This is primarily the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, have come out of the closet to oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists are now praising his newly negotiated and rolled out October I, 2018 USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe first economically then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with it. It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…”. Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018)
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism—everything else he has done suggests otherwise But he has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he said was so “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
I remember when grade schools promoted UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) by asking students to raise money while Trick-or-Treating every Halloween. In fact, looking back the UN was always treated favorably in school. I never heard a negative comment in my university experience either. Out of school, when I controlled what I read, the literature on the subject was quite different—even opposite. I came to realize that I had to undo some serious programing.
But getting kids to deny themselves candy for UNICEF programing was universal. Prior to 2012, U. S. Trick-or-Treaters had contributed $157 million and Canadians $91 million. If parents, or bullies, took candy from children it would be frowned upon but if the UN does it, approved—even commended. If an organization targeted children for a political outcome it would be unacceptable. Apparently UNICEF money was also used to produce cartoons promoting children’s rights, so political is the organization.
U.N. involvement in education, especially espousing globalism, world government if you prefer, is not new. Even last year their “Global Education Monitoring Report” dubbed “Policy Paper 28,” called for textbooks to include heavier doses of “global citizenship,” and the viewing of environmental problems as global issues requiring global solutions requiring global government. It also wanted textbooks to increase favorable coverage of sexual diversity including: homosexuality, homosexual parenting, bisexuality, and transgenderism.
In a UN summit for youth, held January 30, 2017, UN General Assembly President Peter Thomson, referred to the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals,” as the “master plan for humanity.” But the master plan presented to the youth always leaves problem solving with the UN and increases planetary economic controls and wealth redistribution, each of which eventually destroys national sovereignty and liberty.
But amid these efforts to radicalize our youth in favor of globalism emerges the evidence that the UN is also the world’s leading governmental sexual abuser of children, its peacekeepers repeatedly raping children, some as young as ten. In an Associated Press Report, April 13, 2017, U. S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, gave a graphic depiction of U.N. peacekeepers sexually abusing homeless children. She disclosed one boy, in 2011, being “raped by peacekeepers who disgustingly filmed it on a cell phone.” UN Sri Lankan troops raped a 15-year-old boy over 100 times. One girl was raped, sharing later, “I did not even have breasts.” Between ages 12 and 15 “she was raped by almost 50 UN peace troops.”
But it is not just an occasional rape. The Report alleged some 2,000 allegations of rape, pedophilia, and sexual abuse of civilians in a little over a decade and it is assumed that the number is vastly under-reported.
But even this is not new. The United Nations has a long history of the same. Prostitution almost always increases wherever UN peacekeeping troops are stationed. Such was so in Cambodia, Mozambique, Central Africa, Sudan, “Bosnia, and Kosovo after UN, and in the case of the latter two, when NATO peacekeeping forces moved in.” Amnesty International disclosed, “A Kosovo victims support group reported that of the local prostitutes, a third were under 14, and 80% were under 18. The victims were routinely “raped ‘as a means of control and coercion’ and kept in terrible conditions as slaves by their ‘owners’; sometimes kept in darkened rooms unable to go out.” In 2004, they reported, “that under-age girls were being kidnapped, tortured and forced into prostitution in Kosovo with U.N. and NATO personnel being the customers driving the demand for the sex slaves.” A simple reference to Wikipedia documents these and similar reports
Much of the information on corruption in the UN (child sexual rings and etc.) come from whistleblowers such as Povl Bang-Jensen, Anders Kompass, and Rasna Warah who appear to have no other motive than to right wrongs against humanity. The latest book on the subject is by Rasna Warah, “UNsilenced: Unmasking the United Nations’ Culture of Cover-ups, Corruption and Impunity.” As the title indicates, along with the revelation of sexual exploitation of children, it reveals corruption, abuse of power, and criminal activity for the last 15 years.
The revelations of this column are important. Globalism is the process of transcending into a world government with the United Nations, created by the globalists, to be the new government and in time the only “real” power on earth. The United States would be as a state, like South Carolina, in a bigger union. Government schools have propagandized for it since my youth. Innocently I was conned into helping them by raising money while Trick-or-Treating. There was never another side presented. But the real history of the United Nations, where they have power, is that of indoctrination, corruption, cover-ups and sexual abuse of children. Why should I expect it to be any different in this country when world government is in place and they have all the power?
I support current House bill, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, bipartisan legislation to remove the United States from the UN. Proposed every year, it has more support now than ever. I find no good reason to continue Trick-or-Treating, or anything else, for an organization that undermines our sovereignty, the Constitution, and molests children.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
