May 12, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Safety is probably the natural right most easily explained and is based primarily on the presumption that people have the right to exist and will naturally first flee from danger, then, if unsuccessful, will arm themselves regardless of what the law may or may not say or permit. Natures’ law will never allow gun confiscation to be fully implemented in a free America.
I learned this lesson my first year teaching college in California many years ago. A Mexican gang led by a black attacked two white students in the college quad because they were white. As the nearest faculty member available, I intervened only to have the students flee and I alone faced perhaps a dozen thugs I had never seen before who hated me only for the color of my skin. On the ground, unable to comprehend what was happening to me, I took a boot every time I raised my head. Another faculty member came into the quad and being white also was attacked. Half the group left me to attack him. Eventually we were able to escape behind a nearby classroom door. When police arrived the leader of the gang threatened to kill me if I identified him. A day later a student highway patrolman secretly gave me a can of maze, at the time illegal. “This will take care of 20,” he told me. I carried it for years. Giving it to me would have cost his job and mine. Neither cared—safety was the issue.
Thousands fled socialist countries as it enveloped their countries. Hundreds risked their lives going over the Berlin Wall once socialism was imbedded in Eastern Germany and hundreds of thousands fled to the south in Korea and Vietnam or on boats away from Cuba to America. The same is so from Venezuela in our day. It was once said that communism would end tomorrow in China if everyone were issued a hand gun tonight. You might miss the shooting the next day if you slept in. Certainly the more than a million Uyghurs in slave labor camps would take their religious freedom back and their genocide end in China.
Thousands are escaping socialist-leaning states of California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, New York and New Jersey under excessive, even tyrannical rule by their Democrat governors exceeding that of the tyranny of King George III. Here political refugees are finding freedom from excessive government in Florida, Texas, Idaho,Utah and South Dakota; Republican led states who refused to lock down their citizens.
Residents feel unsafe when society or government appeared unstable as in 2020, when Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots were staged in most major cities in America, even near the White House, especially in Democratic controlled cities. This was especially so when nowhere condemned by Democrat Party leadership or their media. When statues were torn down, inner city buildings and automobiles set afire, Molotov cocktails thrown at police, and thugs occupied downtown Seattle and Portland, people did not feel safe. When George Soros’ financed district attorneys in Chicago, Los Angeles and St. Louis were setting criminals free as fast as they were arrested, it resulted in concern for normal people. When a senior citizen couple living in a private gated community in St. Louis, Missouri threatened to use firearms to protect themselves and their property from a mob of thugs who broke down the gate, were themselves arrested—instead of the thugs—all Americans felt unsafe. This could happen to me. If government won’t protect me, I must.
The Democrats solution to runaway crime has become the following: to allow convicts to vote, to release inmates back on the streets during the Wuhan, China virus, to same-day release arsonists, looters, and Molotov cocktail throwers in our cities during the social unrest of 2020, to deny potential victims the means of protecting themselves through confiscatory gun laws, to open our borders to every thug in the world and, most insane of all, to defund, disarm, cancel and victimize law enforcement—those willing to risk their lives in the defense of others to maintain a civil society.
Those who spoke out against these dangerous practices, like Tucker Carlson, could expect a mob of thugs to do property damage to their homes or threaten bodily harm to his wife and children who had to hide in a closet for protection. My point!! The more these practices become common, and anarchy and lawlessness reigns, the more the victims and innocent seek a gun to protect themselves—natural law—whether it is legal or not.
When cities like Chicago, where a person is shot every two hours, have the toughest gun laws, but the most gun violence, it is obvious that what Democrats, because they are the government in most of these cities of chaos, propose does not, has not, and will not work because their measures violate natural law. Yet they want to spread their chaos to the whole nation and leave the weak and innocent perpetual victims. Natural law postulates, When cities defund police and people do not feel protected they will flee first; then arm themselves for protection whether legal or not.
Here are some other natural laws relating to guns. When guns are outlawed only outlaws have them. It takes a gun to stop gun violence and police can’t get there in time. Good people will acquire firearms in proportion to their threat of danger. Violence begets violence; if a gun is not available a knife, bat, or perhaps poison is. Mass shootings almost always occur in gun free zones like schools, theaters, super markets, because would be shooters know they are not likely to be confronted with someone who can shoot back. Finally, there has never been a gun in the history of the world found to have, by itself, killed anyone. Gun confiscation and individual liberty are oxymorons.
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.
Apr 29, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph.D.
The Democratic led House of Representative just voted 216-208, along party lines, to make Washington D. C. the 51st state in the Union. The bill now goes to the Senate. But there are two serious problems. The District of Columbia already has more House and Senate members living within it than any state in the Union, thus is the most represented city in the nation, and the Constitution forbids making the capitol a state without 3/4th of the states’ approval.
Democrats say that the District of Columbia is under represented but what they fail to mention is that D.C. is the only city in the nation governed by the whole House of Representatives. Moreover, few commute daily from their districts thus live in close proximity to the Capitol. Technically they are D. C. residents, eating, working, socializing and sleeping in that city many times more than in their residence’s in Florida, Maine, California, Hawaii or Alaska. They regularly frequent the city’s gyms, restaurants, clothing shops, beauty salons and barber shops. They care about its streets and utilities because they use them. They socialize with other representatives about the needs and environment of the city as much or more than any city in their districts. Name another city as represented as it? No city gets more attention from people with power than Washington D.C.
Now to the Constitutional concerns. “The Congress shall have Power … to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the government of the United States” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17). Again, Congress is specifically charged to govern the city thus it is the most represented city in America and the only city with direct access to the federal budget.
One may need to be reminded of why the District of Columbia was created. The cities of Boston, Philadelphia and New York served their purpose very well in the birth of the Republic but they were cities within existing governments. What the Founders had to have was a place separate from and not subject to the influence of a host state. The two governments, the states and the new federal government created by the Constitution, that would run America must be independent of the other. This would be the home of the federal government, it would operate on its own property not within another that could influence it or, in reverse, be dominated or favored by it.
This property must never be a state and must be too small to be thought possible that it should be; presently it is 1/20th the size of Rhode Island, America’s smallest state. The perception of a small and limited federal government was important and carefully preserved by the wordage “not exceeding ten Miles square.”
Another constitutional concern involves Virginia and Maryland, who donated the ten square mile block of land to the federal government for a specific purpose, a space for a federal government, that would not have been given for any other purpose—definitely not to be made into another competing state. Certainly Maryland’s claim on it, if not used for the purpose given in the contract (Constitution), is much stronger than its claim to statehood. It could be argued that the only other “right” use of this land would be to return it to Maryland since Virginia’s portion was ceded back in 1846 with dubious constitutional authority. Then, and today with Maryland, any change in the Constitution (contract) requires an amendment.
If not used as a part of the District of Columbia it should be returned to Maryland, then a bid for statehood would violate Article IV, Section 3. “No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State….without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
If made into a state then there is the necessity of repealing Amendment 23 of the Constitution, ratified in 1961, giving the District of Columbia three Electoral College votes because it wasn’t a state and now cant’t have six. Repeal requires 3/4th of the states. In the present climate of no bipartisanship this would require one side or the other to give up three Electoral College votes. Since Washington D.C. has been and will remain Democrat Party territory for decades the new state, “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” would get three Electoral College votes in perpetuity thus Democrats logically should forgo the three Electoral College votes still given to D.C. in Amendment 23 in addition to that given as a state—but will they?
Making the District of Columbia a city state would make this city, already the most represented city in the nation and probably even more so than any state as well, even more powerful. It also is unconstitutional because D.C. was specifically designed to not be a state. This cannot be changed by statue. This bill damages or alters two articles and one amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thus could require two new amendments and one amendment repeal in the Constitution. Each demand the use of Article V which requires a proposing process of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or the application of the legislatures of two thirds of several states followed by a ratification process of 3/4th of the several states.
Everyone knows the Democrat bid to make the District of Columbia a new state is equivalent to “packing the Senate” which would vanish if they, in doing so, were establishing two new Republican Senators in perpetuity. It’s clearly a power grab akin to packing the Supreme Court and can not be rewarded.
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.
Apr 21, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Many may not remember their basic U.S. History courses as to why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where or who could carry. 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. It was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. Our Constitution was founded with a healthy fear of government. Historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
One must remember that early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt. They argued in The Declaration of Independence, that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” coming from a much higher source than mere man and 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.” God is referenced five times in this document and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, 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.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is the reason the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction needed but they had no intention of forfeiting the right to revolution they exercised giving us liberty in the first place. Nor did they assume that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction they used.
So passionate were they over this issue that they double protected it, first by making it a constitutional amendment. No presidential degree or congressional statute can alter an Amendment—only another amendment submitted through the states as per Amendment V. This requires a vote of three-fourths of the states in support. Second, this is the only amendment, that itself, specifically forbids change. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No piece of law is more secure. As far as we can ascertain, America’s Constitution is the only Constitution in world history that specifically prohibits its government from removing the right of the people to keep and bear arms and thus the means to resist its government tyranny—as was exercised against the British.
An armed populace twice proved its value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. First, many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans enroute, so they could retrieve their guns to use against the British, makes sense.
Second, the Battle of Saratoga preventing the conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne was stopped, not by the military, but by angry farmers with their own military styled “assault” rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to enter the war on our side. We would not have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns—even military issue—was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed,” but also, “they should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
But many fear our government today. We fear when tyrannical governors condemn to death thousands of senior citizens by sending COVID-19 infected patients into nursing homes, or when the Bill of Rights was openly defied and 1st Amendment protection rights denied their people. We fear: when statues of our Founding Fathers and great former leaders are torn down and those doing this are leaving our inner cities aflame, when a majority believe election integrity no longer exists, when a president rules almost entirely by executive decrees, when one party rule is largely established, when our borders previously secured are no more, and when one side of the political spectrum is largely censored or cancelled.
We fear Congress when it seeks to pass an Equality Act that insures inequality, or a Bill For the People Act cements permanent fraud in elections favoring one party in particular, or when they push to pack the Supreme Court or make DC a state—all to install one political party rule in America. This fear is demonstrated when people are fleeing for safety from tyrannical states to freer states like Idaho, Florida, Texas and Utah. How can anyone in their right mind agree to give up their right to resist the government should it become tyrannical? In some places it already has.
The Second Amendment is the Constitution’s final check on tyranny. We have the same right of revolution the Founder’s used, fully expressed in The Declaration of Independence. Widespread gun ownership has never been a threat to truly free societies. An armed citizenry keeps the government on short notice of the governs’ ability to resist should God given inalienable rights be taken from them.
A popular slogan runs. “I love my country but I fear my government.” Given the fear and unconstitutional antics noted above, perhaps we should hang on to the 2nd Amendment as designed as our final option against tyranny. An option we hope never to have to use again.
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.
Apr 14, 2021 | Constitution
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Since gun control legislation has stymied in Congress, Democrats for it and the Republicans against, the Biden Harris Administration has opted once again to legislate by executive order. Biden has governed, bypassing Congress, with 39 executive orders in almost three months. In a April 7, 2021 news conference he revealed his plans to do the same on gun control.
This is not new. The Obama-Biden Administration did the same thing over immigration by creating the DACA program by executive order because Congress would not give them authority to extend citizenship to past illegal entry foreigners. They justified defying Congress and the Constitution then with, “We can’t wait for Congress.”
This was a serious, even impeachable, breach of the separation of powers doctrine deeply imbedded in the Constitution as is Biden’s executive action that the Justice Department, an unelected body, propose new rules on gun control. Because one president defies the Constitution, and is unpunished, does not give authority for others to do the same. Constitutionally only the legislative branch can make law (rules). Why is this so dangerous? Past practice, once done, is the “go to” position, to maximize authority not actually in the Constitution or, in the 2nd Amendment case is opposite to it, and is the favored option for those wishing to destroy it. Constitutional perversion invites more constitutional perversion.
But at issue is a far greater violation of the Constitution than separation of powers. The 2nd Amendment specifically forbids either the executive, by presidential decree, or legislative, by congressional statute, branches from ANY alterations of the Amendment. It reads in part, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Period!! It is the most definitive sentence in the Constitution. Although not yet exercised, this also is an impeachable offense. Neither Congress nor the President can remove or alter the peoples’ right to defend themselves without an Article V new amendment to the Constitution.
The first half of the Second Amendment tells us why no branch of the federal government can alter or remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” The militia was the people and it was understood that the government was always the lead threat to a free state. “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them” (George Mason co-author of the Second Amendment. See also Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788). The militia was defined in the Second Continental Congress as every able bodied male 17 years of age and older—the citizens.
The Bill of Rights was numbered in order of preference with the exception of Amendments 9 and 10 as they dealt with the powers retained by the people and those reserved to the states, not specific freedoms as are Amendments 1-8. Amendment 2 is important because it protects these amendments. It is well to remember that the 2nd Amendment exists because the states would not support the new Constitution without a guarantee that the government could never deprive its citizens of their right to bear arms—to resist as they had the British. The language was as strong as they could make it and aimed (pun intended) specifically at government. It preserved their right of revolution should their other freedoms be taken. What is it Mr. Biden that you do not understand about “shall not be infringed?”
Congress may not legislate the 2nd Amendment away by authorizing some types of weapons over others, or approving some types of ammunition and denying others. Nor may the President go into the Oval Office and unilaterally make an executive order limiting or denying these things. We must never forget the federal government’s 11-day siege of Randy Weaver’s mountain home near Ruby Ridge, Idaho (view photo above) over Weaver’s sale of two sawed off shotguns. It ended August 31, 1992 with multiple deaths including his boy and dog and a sniper bullet took out his wife Vicki holding their baby in her arms in the doorway. A “friendly” reminder of then federal enforcement of unconstitutional alterations to the 2nd Amendment.
One might argue we now want federal involvement. If so, why not do it as required by the Constitution? Don’t just twist the Constitution to mean something never meant. George Washington warned: “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed” (Farewell Address).
Instructions for change in the Constitution are provided in Article V and can be proposed by either Congress or “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of several states.” Notice that the president was not allowed to propose. Once proposed the federal government is removed from the picture altogether—it cannot empower itself. The states are given two ways in which they can pass their power to the federal government (remember, all power not listed in the Constitution belongs to the states and the people as per Amendment 10) but. either way, it requires 3/4th of the states to do so. Let Congress or the states initiate a proposed amendment to empower the federal government as we have 17 times before when the nation wanted a change.
The federal government, especially the president, does not like Article V because it requires permission from the states to enlarge federal jurisdiction. That is precisely why this Article exists; still, it remains the proper and only constitutional way to change the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and anyone trying to do it in any other way should be removed from power as quickly as the Constitution allows The biggest fatality in this gun debate is irreparable damage to the Constitution, and thus to freedom.
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.
Apr 7, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Neither the words equality or discrimination are found in the U. S. Constitution, nor inferred. Also, no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving either from a state to a federal jurisdiction, 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 this freedom.
Now the Democratic Party wishes to impose upon the people 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.
More fully 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. All power was divided in 1787 between these two governments. There exists no new powers to distribute.
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. 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 which is what it is attempting to do. This can only succeed 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 ends 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—which is precisely what the Democrat Party is doing with their Equality Act.
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. A mere act or statute cannot nullify a constitutional amendment. 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 their 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.
Mar 31, 2021 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
First they censored Alex Jones from his millions of followers for saying that socialism was coming to America and that censorship, coming with it, is opposite free speech and freedom, and I did not speak out—because I was not an Alex Jones fan.
Then they tore down statues of America’s earliest explorers: Father Junípero Serra and Christopher Columbus, and I did not speak out—because they were said to have treated the Indians badly, therefore they were racists. Then statues of President Andrew Jackson, an Indian hater, followed by Confederate Civil War generals: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson etc. and I did not speak out—because statues had no real meaning and they were said to be racist.
Then statues of the Founding Fathers: Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc. and I did not speak out—because some had slaves and therefore were racists. Then statues of Abraham Lincoln were torn down, the greatest abolitionist in U.S. History and still I did not speak out—because, well because I was not bright enough to know that he was not a racist but the opposite.
Then they set on fire St John’s Episcopal Church across from the White House. An Antifa leader next threatened to take down statues of Jesus Christ and burn the Bible and I did not speak out because—well they were just non-violent activities and these socialist anarchists were just expressing themselves.
Then they turned on all law enforcement beginning with ICE protecting our borders. Then on the police in our big cities, even promising to destroy them through no funding movements, and I did not speak out—because they were racists—even when the police units and city councils were themselves predominantly black.
Then for months they looted and set fire to downtown businesses of many large American cities: Seattle, Minneapolis, Portland etc. and I did not speak out—because my Democrat Party and my Democrat news outlets said that it was just right-wing propaganda and I believed them.
Then church attendance was banned or limited because of COVID and I did not speak out—-because I was not a Christian, actually I did not speak out either when it was the beaches that were closed or limited. I just believed my Democrat Party leadership and my Democrat Party controlled news outlets when they told me to wear two masks and that it was good for me to lock myself up in my home for more than a year, and I was so naive.
Then the 2020 presidential elections happened with hundreds of whistle blowers willing to perjure themselves testifying under oath that they witnessed massive cheating by the Democrat Party. Moreover, military intelligence documented that China had electronically switched millions of Trump votes to Biden giving him the presidency and I did not speak out—because it was only the Republicans that said this and my media always told me the Republicans, especially the nearly 75 million who voted for Trump, were all liars, racists and white supremacists and I believed them.
Then they censored a president of the United States, Donald J. Trump and I did not speak out—because my media and party told me that he was a racist, sexist, xenophobic and a white supremacist and I still believed them.
Then they censored everything negative against Joe Biden and I said nothing—because I believed my party and their media that we needed to stop disinformation. If only one side can express itself then there is only disinformation.
Then they attacked the Constitution that would have prevented all the above from happening had we just followed it as written and I still said nothing—because my party and news sources said that it was a racist document founded by racist white men to protect racism, and I believed them. Now it is nearly destroyed and so is freedom and I am a slave to the state. All who did not submit are now in reeducation camps or have been removed for spreading disinformation.
I should have defended these attacks on liberty but didn’t. Where there is no other side, there is no one left to speak for me because I did not speak for them. Now oppression and tyranny rule because people like me were the most gullible in American History. I could have spoken out but chose to be complacent instead and now liberty and the Constitution suffer for my ignorance. EXCEPT___
THEN THEY CAME FOR ME because I was white. They said all whites were systemically racist and whites needed to be reeducated and self condemning for what they had done to America. NOW I SPEAK UP—because it is a lie!!! I never offended anyone of a different race. Then my eyes were opened and I noticed that those saying and doing these horrifying things to America were also largely white and used mostly fabricated racism as a tool to make the least racist country on earth a socialist country. NOW I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH ALONG SIDE MY BLACK, BROWN, RED, AND YELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES ALL UNIVERSAL FREEDOM. I will no longer be a useful idiot for the socialist left.
(An American version of Paster Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came for the Socialists.” Niemoller believed his German neighbors, had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of fellow countrymen. Dr. Pease believes the same is happening 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.
