Recently LibertyUnderFire.com published “No Need for Article V Convention, Just Honor Your Oath,” we argued that the Convention of States was a distortion of Article V constitutional authority and was itself unconstitutional. The expectation that those who now violate the existing Constitution would suddenly be faithful to newer or different language is unrealistic—even naive. The Founders already built into the Constitution instructions on how to ensure its remaining the Supreme Law of the Land. This was Article VI the Supremacy Act, not Article V.
The Constitution has the people, through their elected representatives, make all the laws. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” (Article I, Section 1). Neither the president nor the courts could make law or mandates!! The president administers the law made by Congress and the courts adjudicate contested law made by the same.
But Congress could not make any law it wished as is now practiced. Article VI reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;” Like it or not Congress is handcuffed to the Constitution and should be able to produce the precise and specific sentence in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18, or elsewhere in the Constitution itself, that authorizes a proposed law. If they can’t the proposal should not be made law. There is no authority to stray from or distort original intent. So Congress is bound, no laws not clearly and specifically in harmony can be made.
Nor can states that make up the United States, or judges therein, neglect the Constitution. “And the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” This document, inclusive of the Bill of Rights, is, in fact, the Supreme Law of the Land. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights handcuffs all three federal branches of government, especially Congress, one step further. “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.”
This ties directly back to the enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18 that bestow on Congress ONLY FOUR POWERS: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the common defense and to provide for the general welfare. The last two of these each further restricted by eight additional clauses; all housed in one long sentence with 18 paragraphs, this absolutely critical to its interpretation. Congress is required to stay within these boundaries and it hasn’t.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798, “In questions of power… let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” That is precisely what the Founding Fathers did in Article VI, Clause 3. “The Senators and Representatives before mention, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Every single governmental official in the United States of America, plus all the military, swear by oath allegiance to the Constitution and thus are bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
If we can not constitutionally use a Convention of States to get elected officials to be bound down by the chains of the Constitution, which is the case, how can this happen? Article VI binds all to the Constitution. If oath breakers write, pass or decree things out of harmony with it, these are null and void on submission and should be declared so by all oath keepers in states, counties, and cities. Nullification of such is constitutional and works immediately.
Founding Fathers James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton each were especially vocal with respect to states having the authority to “Just Say No!” to federal law not enumerated. This was the original view of the Constitution. Such was used in 1798 in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, in 1832 in the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, and more successfully with the northern states, especially Wisconsin, in 1854 over the highly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote in The Federalist Papers #46. “Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, … the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State;” would provide “very serious impediments;” more so if states stood together. This “would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts, “where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy” and “that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.” And, Alexander Hamilton shared, “…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority” (Federalist Papers #28).
Article Vl enforces obedience to the Constitution without risking damages to it, or the loss of the entire Constitution, as does an Article V Convention of States. Its use is critical to saving the Constitution.
# 672 on current events and the Constitution
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.
Keeping one’s Oath to protect and preserve it, is.
When teaching the U.S. Constitution at the college level for several decades, I frequently asked students, “What would you add or remove.” In hundreds of classes no one offered anything. No governing document has withstood the needs of humankind and the test of time more readily than ours because it fulfills the requirements of natural law and human nature and mostly leaves us government free. Yet today both sides express unhappiness with it and want a convention to alter it; the one because they want more mandated control: mask wearing, lockdowns, vaccines, civilian disarmament, and etc., these are always ruled unconstitutional, the other, because the Constitution does not mandate obedience to it. But the Constitution is not the problem, keeping one’s oath to protect and preserve it, is. The proper “fix” for the Constitution is to use it as written.
Since a balance budget amendment is the “fix” most often cited for an Article V Convention let’s first see if there exists a need for it if we followed the Constitution as written. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18 lists the areas (only four with 18 parts) where Congress is authorized to make law and Article I, Section 7 bestows on the House of Representatives alone the origin of “all bills for raising revenue” (taxes). If Congress limited itself to the list as intended (that’s why it exists) there would be an excess of reserve money and no need for a Balance Budget Amendment as today a vast majority of the things funded by the House are not even vaguely enumerated, thus are not constitutional. In fact, both political parties have violated this part of the Constitution to oblivion—thus Congress funds everything it wants. It’s not a weakness of the Constitution that we ignore its clarity, but our oath to follow it as written, is.
In my current events classes each student was given a Constitution and ask to problem solve with it for every issue that came up during the semester. Authority to act on the issue was determined first. It was more simple than one might suppose. If not an enumerated power in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18, or elsewhere, that power was automatically assigned to the states in Amendment 10. “All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The real problem is that neither party follows the Constitution as written. “The notion that amendments can be used to limit or restrict powers that were never given to the federal government by the Constitution in the first place, or that an Article V Convention can be used to regulate the behavior of those who already violated the Constitution (emphasis added), is illogical,” even naive (“Article V Convention Will it Work?” by Christian Gomez, The New American, July 11, 2022, p. 8). If their oath to the existing Constitution did not restrict them could it, or would it, to another document. No!!
Actually, under Article V, Congress calls the convention when two-thirds of the states apply to Congress for one. States do not, and under Article V, cannot call a convention. Calling a convention is the authority of Congress alone. Article V reads, “or on the Application of the Legislature of two thirds of several States” Congress remains the only receiving body of the application request and the resulting convention is a federal Constitutional Convention—not a state Constitutional Convention, such would be unconstitutional.
The Constitution houses no language “convention of states,” this phrase is a distortion of Article V. To imply that Congress is removed thereafter or does not govern the process is false as Congress oversees the changes “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress”
Subtle Word Changes Give Activists More Power !!
A convention can not be limited by the states prior to or during, and state legislatures cannot affect it once assembled; it becomes independent from them. It also cannot be open ended. The only Constitutional Convention in U.S. history exceeded its instructions, even defying Article XIII of the Articles of Federation. In that instance it worked to our benefit and the then Federation government simply passed it on to the states. But this is extremely risky—even dangerous— especially today with honor and integrity of statesmen noticeably diminished. Justice Antonin Scalia once said, respecting a convention of states, “Who knows what would come out of it” (Ibid. p. 9).
Article V language “as Part of this Constitution” suggests no authority to replace the Constitution with another, yet the enemies of the Constitution now in place must believe this still possible. They have written at least six replacement Constitutions and are waiting for such a moment to propose them. These include: Rexford Guy Tugwell’s “Constitution for the New States of America,” “Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America,” “A New Constitution for the United States,” “The Libertarian Constitution,” and “The Progressive Constitution.” Most are socialist and Communist documents. Even the conservative movement in America has one called “The Conservative Constitution” which emasculates the 2nd Amendment (Ibid. p. 11).
The Founding Fathers provided a window for specific and limited change to correct any defects or errors such as the inclusion later of a Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-10. In 235 years there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution all coming through Congress—none by convention. This attests to its being undoubtedly the least flawed governing document in the history of mankind. This is a history of astounding success. To those in power there is no need for an Article V convention, just honor your oath to defend and preserve the Constitution as written. Your failure to do this is driving both ends of the political spectrum to risk losing it.
670 published columns on current events and the Constitution
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. www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
The Democrat House of Representatives, Senate, and President just passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act—the greatest threat to the Second Amendment in decades. It enhances Red Flag laws and is virtually a gun control wish list. Senate vote favoring the bill was 64 to 34; 14 Senate RINO’s voted with the Democrats. Almost the same day the Supreme Court struck down a restrictive New York handgun permit law in a six to three ruling that required people to show to the government “proper” cause to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home, declaring that restriction unconstitutional. Clearly the Legislative and Executive branches are knowingly and intentionally acting to violate the Constitution with this new law.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex explains her inability to read the U.S. Constitution that she has pledged an oath to preserve.
The Supreme Court in May 2021, Caniglia v. Strom et al., declared Red Flag laws unconstitutional (See “How Red Flags Violate the Constitution,” LibertyUnderFire.com, June 2022). The right of the people to “keep and bear arms,” our Founding Fathers boldly declared in the strongest language possible, “shall not be infringed.” Article V of the Constitution requires 3/4th of the states to change an amendment and enemies of the republic know that they cannot remove the popular 2nd Amendment so instead chose to defy the Court and Constitution.
Outside of disarming more civilians the most troubling part of the misnamed 80-paged new law is its violation of Amendment 6 requiring the accused “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” This is effectively removed leaving the accused to face the government alone.
Will the Democrats renounce the new law disarming more civilian Americans? Not likely!! Within a year it too will be declared unconstitutional by the same court on the same basis. In the meantime will they abide by the Supreme Courts latest ruling on self defense outside the home? Not according to NYC Mayor Eric Adams. “Nothing changes today, we cannot allow New York to become the wild, wild west” (X22 Reports, Ep. 2807B, June 23. 2022, 20:30). Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago graphically unleashed on Clarance Thomas, author of the majority opinion. “F*** Clarence Thomas. He thinks that we will stand idly by while he takes our rights.” Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House, labeled “the Supreme Court an ‘extremist’ body that punishes the American people” (Ep. 2810B, June 27, 2022, 11:39 & 13:45).
The Department of Justice says they “respectfully” disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling making it less likely they will enforce gun rights enthusiastically. (Ep. 2809B, June 26, 2022, 26:00). To hold office they must first pledge to abide by the Constitution. There is nothing respectful about publishing your objection to the Courts ruling—a ruling you are required to enforce. If not enforced a constitutional president would fire them immediately.
The next day after declaring New York’s anti-gun rights limitation unconstitutional, the Supreme Court reversed Roe vs Wade mostly on the basis that the word abortion was never in the Constitution to begin with. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any Constitutional provision including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be deeply rooted in this Nation’s ‘history and tradition’ and ‘Implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’…The right to abortion does not fall within this category” (Ep. 2808B, June 24, 2022, 8:56).
“To Hell with the Supreme Court, we will defy them,”Congresswoman Maxine Waters told a crowd gathered in front of the Supreme Court.
Will the Democrats support the return of abortion to the states where it resided prior to 1973 and accept it as having been a usurpation of the Constitution emanating from raw judicial power in 1973? This protected practice has resulted in the extinction, as of June 25, 2022, thus far this year, of approximently 430,128 unborn humans in the United States alone, and since 1973 some 63,889,912. (USAbortionClock.com). Will they ever admit that they, as a political party, encouraged the killing of almost 64 million Americans?
To the first question, they have given their answer. Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters yelled, “To Hell with the Supreme Court, we will defy them!!” On the steps of the Supreme Court she shouted “that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is ‘illegitimate’ and calls for people to get ‘into the streets.’” Other Democrats called for a “Night of Rage targeting churches and other groups defined as anti-abortion” (Ep. 2808B, June 24, 2022, 5:30).
Different federal agencies are suggesting that they will refuse to honor any state laws refusing to allow abortion access., The Pentagon has stated that “any abortion laws enacted as a result of the Supreme court’s decision will not be recognized” by them. Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne in a news statement announced he “will not enforce Wisconsin’s abortion ban.” Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice said that the Department “‘strongly disagrees’ with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, warning states about bans of the ‘abortion pill.’” (Ep. 2809B, June 26, 2022, 17:00 & 26:00) Not a single person in either agency has authority to defy.
Those wanting a constitutional change can still have it but again, they must go through Article V of the Constitution. The enemies of the republic know that they cannot muster enough support—thus the insurrectionist call to defy the Constitution, appealing instead to violence.
Will the executive and legislative branches now defy the Constitution? They clearly answer in the affirmative. This has been standard practice for both branches for many decades but it is encouraging to see the Court moving closer to the Constitution as written, as intended.
(Column 669 on current events and the Constitution).
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. www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
It always amazes me when otherwise intelligent people are unable to find evidence of God in our governing documents. The Declaration of Independence alone, the signing of which we commemorate July 4th, has five references to God—two in the first paragraph, one in the second, and two in the last. Let us read together its favored parts:
The first and second come together, “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God (emphasis added) entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Who is responsible for “the laws of nature” but God—certainly not man nor nature itself. From the “laws of nature” sprang an awareness of natural law (sometimes called common sense), understood by early philosophers to be a source of higher law that never changes.
This was best explained by Cicero, a Roman politician as early as the 1st Century B. C. —even predating the existence of Christianity, when he wrote: “Nor may any other law override it, nor may it be repealed as a whole or in part… Nor is it one thing at Rome and another at Athens, one thing today and another tomorrow, but one eternal and unalterable law, that binds all nations forever.”
Of “Nature’s God,” the creator of the laws of nature, the second reference to deity is, of course, more explicit and needs no addition explanation. Simply, nature too, the wind, rain, sun, planet rotation, the universe itself, even the sprouting of seeds in their time obey God. Organized and governed through natural law—not chaos—is evidence that he exists and remains involved. God indeed is nature’s God as well as our own.
The third reference to God is the word “creator” found in the second paragraph. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Inalienable rights are endowed by God thus cannot be repealed by human law. The three identified may encompass others as well but the Founders saw God as more than just a creator — He wanted his creation free and happy as well. They boldly identified our base for unalienable rights as God, and identified this truth as self-evident. Any person endowed with common sense or reason would/could come to this conclusion.
So passionate were they with respect to these three “God-given rights” that such were identified as the purposes of government. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
”Moreover, their right of revolution hinged upon a government’s denial of these “God-given rights.” They wrote: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations… evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Once again, an appeal to natural law, which emanates from God, was noted and the loss of which always justifies revolution—any time period, people, place, or language! America would be the first to hinge their revolution on natural (God’s) law, as stipulated in the Declaration.
To ensure that the people retained the same right and means of revolution as they were using to claim and obtain their freedom, under the laws of nature as instituted by God, they later institutionalized “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the subsequent Bill of Rights of the Constitution. This right they boldly declared in the strongest language possible “shall not be infringed.” They viewed it as “being necessary to the security of a free State.” So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety or hunting, these were already assumed and practiced for centuries. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from future generations—you and I. It was aimed (pun intended) squarely at government.
The fourth and fifth references to God are found in the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The rightness of their cause was left to God as judge. “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown….” Not only did God exist but the Founders knew as well that they would be judged by Him for their intentions.
The fifth and last reference to God asks for, and expects given, His divine protection in their revolutionary course of action. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” No European political prognosticator in that day gave the colonies a ghost of a change against the most powerful nation in the world. God did!!
There was no dissent noted with respect to these references to God and their placement or emphasis in this document by any of the participants then, nor should there be now.
(The above is Dr. Pease’s 668 published column on current events and the Constitution).
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. www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Those in power, at the moment, aim to destroy the 2nd Amendment by any means possible and with it liberty. They know what they are doing. A favorite tool for them are “red flag” laws. These trespass the 2nd amendment as well as the IV, V, VI and XIV. Let us examine the damage done to each.
Amendment II reads in part, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Government is specifically denied making ANY laws concerning the people’s right to bear arms. No exceptions are permitted outside a new amendment through Article V allowing only the states, 3/4th agreement required, to process a change—not the federal government. Anything short of this is a serious “infringement” (violation) of the Constitution. All executive orders of any president or laws of any congress infringing this right are null and void upon origination. This is so, whether it be Congress’s “red flag” laws or Biden’s magazine limitations; or similar measures originating from any state, county or city. This was insured by the Founding Fathers. No other amendment was more strongly worded against governmental manipulation. The federal government’s present attempt to disarm the civilian population cannot/will not stand.
Amendment IV, reads in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today computers and electronic devices are our “papers” and “effects” our instruments of self preservation and identity. In the case of arms it is “unreasonable” to confiscate them on someones assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove the people’s automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines they MIGHT use to harm themselves or others. Heretofore “probable cause” for government home invasions, searches and seizures was based upon evidence, not opinion or accusation. Again, there exists no crime in having things until wrongfully using them against others. Otherwise personal freedom is non-existing.
Amendment V reads in part: “No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law.” Due process is denied thousands under “red flag” laws. None accused were arrested, charged with a crime, or convicted before their gun(s) is/was confiscation.
Amendment VI requires that all accused must be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; … be confronted with the witnesses against him; … have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and … have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” In the case of “red flag” laws none of these four required conditions, prior to confiscation, were met as no crime had been committed. The targeted had no opportunity to resist gun confiscation.
Finally, Amendment XIV. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This amendment extends all “privileges or immunities” to the states as well. Thus they too, cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. “Red flag” laws totally deny “due process.”
“Red flag” laws, aim squarely at removing the 2nd Amendment from a segment of the civilian population, and violate four other Amendments as well—almost half the Bill of Rights.
“Red flag,” laws are thought to be the “go to legislation” for the presumed mentally unstable of society that could resort to violence against themselves or others. These potentially allow thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear that a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses—perhaps even the government. Anyone that can approach a judge with the claim that someone is a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate that person’s weapon(s). Those identified are punished without having committed a crime. All this, too often, without a shred of evidence of criminal behavior.
In some states anyone can make a phone call to the police—even from out the state. “There is no hearing. All the judge has before him is the statement of concern.” Moreover, “little certainty is needed. Some states allow initial confiscations on just a ‘reasonable suspicion,’ which is little more than a guess or a hunch.”
The biggest problem with red flag evaluations is that they happen “ex parte,” without the defendant present to defend himself. Due process, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in three places, is denied. If “ex parte,” a second hearing is scheduled, some weeks later, where the defendant must provide evidence of his innocence. You must prove yourself innocent of something that you never did, nor possibly thought of doing, but was previously punished by the forcible confiscation of your weapons(s). What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?“We are dangerously close to destroying the backbone of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence.” If in this situation consider contacting the U.S. & Texas LawShield Blog
Red flag laws are unconstitutional and were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Caniglia v. Strom et al. as recently as May 17, 2021 by unanimous decision. These violate due process and strip away 2nd Amendment rights from citizens who have committed no crimes. Caniglia’s guns were seized by police acting on a call from his spouse, a clear violation of the due process as articulated in the 4th Amendment (X22 Reports Ep. 2800B-June 15, 2022, 8:10).
Democrats are presently in charge of the legislative and executive branches of the nation and govern perhaps half of state governments. They also greatly dominate main stream media and Internet news censoring everything contrary to their narrative thus coverage on this decision was/is noticeably absent. So far they appear to be disregarding this Supreme Court ruling in their bold, aggressive attempt to disarm America civilians and damage the Constitution.
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.
Elon Musk to Twitter, “My offer [to purchase] was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate. Yesterday Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of 5%. This deal cannot move forward until he does.” It is illegal for Twitter to have more than 5% fake accounts. Is Twitter really 90 million account strong or perhaps half that? Twitter is backed into a corner. Are they hiding the ballooning of their accounts, buyer must know? Think about the advertisers and shareholders who base their advertising expenses and shareholding profits upon precise, not fake, information. If not accurate Twitter could collapse under their own illegal behavior (X22 Reports, Ep. 2777B, May 17, 2022, 15:50).
We are all communists at Twitter!! They call it Commie-fornia!
Enter Siri Murugesan, Twitter senior engineer caught on camera by ProjectVeritas speaking of Elon Musk, the individual above attempting to purchase Twitter to promote free speech. “He’s a capitalist and we [Twitter] weren’t really operating like capitalists, more like very socialists. Like we’re all like commies [Communist] as f**k. Ideologically, it does not make sense like, because we’re actually censoring the right, and not the left. So, everyone on the right wing will be like, ‘bro’. It’s okay to say it, just gotta tolerate it. The Left will be like, ‘No. I’m not gonna tolerate it. I need it censored or else I’m not gonna be on the platform.’ So, it [Twitter] does that on the right. It’s true, there is bias. I don’t know [if] the two parties can truly co-exist on one platform. Like we’re all commie as f**k. Twitter does not believe in free speech. Our jobs are at stake. They hate it. Oh, My God!!! I’m at least like okay with it. But some of my colleagues are like super left, left, left, left, left. You’re there and its commie. They call it Commie-fornia. They’re like, ‘this would be my last day if it. Happens’” (Project veritas.com /Brave Twitter Siru Murugesan).
A Twitter engineer just admitted his organization, and those working there, are as Communist as they can be and Twitter is fully infiltrated. He also admitted that they do not support free speech but are totally engaged in censoring the right.
In another Project Veritas exchange a twitter executive says, “that Twitter is not here to give people free speech.” To which Elon Musk, who is purchasing Twitter to allow on it free speech, tweeted back, as though surprised with the revelation, “Twitter exec. trashing free speech?”
This should shock every American. No platform is more influential in shaping social media and the political opinions of Americans than Twitter, but if it is all socialist propaganda, distortion and lies how can it be trusted? And they freely admit this. Honest people have allowed Twitter to help form their perception of the world.
Normies, those who do not think or question deeply, may have been conditioned for many years by Twitter to accept socialism—begging many questions. What if most of what Twitter called disinformation, was, instead, true? What if the Democrats want the country overrun by illegal immigrants? What if the Left really is attempting to destroy the economy, the Constitution, the country and freedom? What if the vaccine was politicized? What if the 2020 presidential election really was stolen? What if the Democrats are the real racists? What if Twitter was instead a propaganda outlet for the Great Reset and World Government? Normies must now ask themselves these and other questions.
What if what Donald Trump said is true? “Our children are being indoctrinated, our values are being desecrated, our heritage is being obliterated, and our country is being humiliated by a president who has no idea what the hell is going on.” (X22 Reports, Ep. 2747B—[F} Black sites are being closed, Irregular Warfare, A Critical Moment in Time, April 10, 2022, 6:20).
Elon Musk is walking back his long-association with the Democrat Party. “In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party. But they have become the party of division and hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. Now watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold.” He predicted, “attacks on me will escalate dramatically in coming months.” He did not have to wait long, his company Telsa Inc was removed from its S & P 500 ESG Index (X22 Reports, Ep. 2778B—Conspiracy No More, Treason at Highest Levels, It’s a Marathon not a Sprint, May 18, 2022, 15:10).
Sure enough within a day or two came the left’s playbook sexual harassment charge. A woman wanting $250,000, claimed to have been solicited by him during a massage. He responded “describe just one thing, anything at all, (scars, tattoos, …) that isn’t known by the public. She won’t be able to do so because it never happened” (X22 Reports, Ep. 2780—May 20, 2022, 18:20).
Finally, if a large portion of Twitter’s accounts turn out to be fake instead of the accepted 5%, will its value plummet like crazy? Shouldn’t it!?! What about YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and others? Are they also deceiving their advertisers and shareholders? Maybe the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ought to audit these companies as well? If so, will corrupt platforms, pretending to be more popular than they are, experience a domino effect going down?
Perhaps they too share the same Commie-fornia leftist bias. And if Twitter became the mouth piece of the left, perhaps the others have also. If so, maybe we all should say, “I was surrounded by deceit, why could I not have seen?” Most importantly, had these platforms served as a myriad of voices, a choir to deceive me, what do I still believe that is not true?
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. www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
