Mail-in Ballot Fraud Worse than Admitted

Harold Pease, Ph.D.

Accessing truth is getting increasingly difficult. The political world has divided into two camps. Almost no outlet is interested in the middle anymore. Leftist publications give leftist propaganda and use leftist fact checkers to authenticate it. The same exists for rightist publications. Take voter fraud in mail-in balloting for example, virtually all Democrats see no crime, or possibility of crime in it, and advocate national mail in voting for 2020. Virtually all Republicans see voter fraud as an outcome and a way to rig elections for the left. I greatly fear the next close national election as Antifa and Black Lives Matter organizations have demonstrated that they are fully ready to vote by violence.

In the 2016 presidential election debates Hillary Clinton asked Donald Trump if he would accept the outcome of the election. It turns out that she was the candidate that did not accept the election outcome—she still doesn’t. The George Soros funded, “Not My President” movement made it apparent that Clinton followers came close to wanting that election settled with violence. Trump’s big Electoral College victory is the probable reason the nation eventually, although reluctantly, accepted his win.

Since the left in unison insist that there exists little or no significant corruption of mail-in voting, let’s ask the right for documentation of such. Apparently the Heritage Foundation is the only organization on either side that actually documents voter fraud. Four years ago it found 1,071 instances of it resulting in 938 criminal convictions and detailed each by state. It identified nine types of fraud: impersonation fraud at the polls, false registrations, duplicate voting, fraudulent use of absentee ballots, buying votes, illegal “assistance” at the polls, ineligible voting, altering the vote count, and ballot petition fraud. About half of these dealt with mail in voting per se. The study is billed as but a sampling demonstrating “the many different ways in which fraud is committed,” It documents “a long and unfortunate history“ of the same (“A sampling of election fraud cases from across the country”).

Four years later in 2020, The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database number had to be increased to 1,285 instances. Since the left is arguing that the coronavirus exempts many from in person voting the updated Foundation report included how Wisconsin successfully held a primary during the coronavirus scare and “how other countries such as Liberia have conducted an election successfully during a health crisis” (Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in America, Kaitlynn Samalis-Aldrich and Hans A. Von Spakovsky, May 10, 2020, The Heritage Foundation).

To the issue that many elections are too close to call, sometimes for weeks, any fraud is too much fraud and intolerable. Fraud in battleground states is especially serious.

Unfortunately major voter fraud abuses have been identified in Texas, California, Pennsylvania and Michigan. In Texas the former head of the Texas Democratic Party in Fort Worth funded a voter fraud ring. Leticia Sanchez and three accomplices “have been indicted for allegedly submitting fraudulent absentee ballot applications and then either intercepting the ballots in mailboxes or improperly “assisting” elderly voters in filling out their ballots.” In another case, the attorney general is “investigating mailers sent to non-citizens by the state Democratic Party asking them to register using applications that already had the box asking about citizenship checked ‘Yes.’”

Apparently in California the Democrat led state registered almost 25,000 ineligible voters under the state’s new automatic voter registration system. This was brought to the attention of the Los Angeles Times when a Canadian complained that he had not been registered properly.

For 20 years the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles allowed thousands of non-citizens to register to vote. This information was forced into the light by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) after months of successful litigation.

Similar findings were made in Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois by the PILF. Michigan had no mechanism “to keep false citizenship claims from being accepted during voter registration.” This allowed Detroit to register to vote at least 1,444 non-citizens. This was so in numerous sanctuary cities in other states as well.

Imagine how the left, especially their establishment media, would howl were they to discover that the right was doing this to them.

Voter registration is constitutionally a state function and Democrat led states have taken advantage of this for years. “A 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States found that more than 1.8 million dead people were registered to vote and 2.75 million people were registered in more than one state.” The Pew report also “found that 24 million registrations were either invalid or inaccurate, making the registration systems vulnerable to fraud” (“Voter Fraud Exists – Even Though Many in the Media Claim It Doesn’t,” by John Fund, Oct 29th, 2018).

So voting by mail apparently “makes it easier to commit fraud, intimidate voters, and destroy the protections of the secret ballot” more especially in battleground states. “It puts elections into the hands of the Postal Service. Without the oversight of election and polling officials, ballots can be lost, disqualified, and even stolen” (Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in America) Why would we want to put our 230 year old tried and trusted present system at risk to corruption?

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.

Can One Judge with a Stroke of a Pen Nullify Law?

By Harold Pease Ph. D

The very thought of one unelected judge with a stroke of a pen nullifying law is unconscionable to most Americans but this has become common against the Donald Trump Administration blocking the executive function of the government at least 37 times. Before him it was 20 times against Barack Obama. When this happens it is called an injunction, most are delayed for a time and overturned by a higher court. Consequently Trump has had to ask for 20 emergency stays from the Supreme Court while these were resolved. No president has had to deal with such unconstitutional judicial overreach. This exceeds the combined number of all 42 presidents preceding him.

There are 663 Article 3 District Court judgeships across the country. Unfortunately, as practiced, any one of whom can issue a nationwide injunction against a federal government action.

These lower district court judges have weaponized themselves against Trump with the complacency of Congress. In fact, it has become a major distortion of the separation of powers doctrine amplifying the judicial branch powers well beyond the Constitution and original intent. Not because Trump did anything particularly unconstitutional, but because one judge out of 663 across America said he had.

National injunction topics include: travel bans, DACA, immigration, border wall, census citizenship, and the environment. Some call this judicial tyranny. Jefferson warned in 1820 that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional question [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” James Madison’s address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788 was specific to this silent danger, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” (Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injuctions at the Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2019).

Judicial review by the Supreme Court of laws passed by Congress came about in 1803 with the Marbury v. Madison decision, fully 14 years after the Constitution was formed, thus wording nullifying created law is not found in the Constitution. Imagine the Founding Fathers placing in the Constitution the power of a very few—now nine—to undo what the majorities of both the House and the Senate had agreed to, then signed by the president. Essentially the court gave itself the power to nullify what hundreds of legislators had agreed to. That judicial review has become sacrosanct by past practice (nobody opposed it enough to end it), it remains not actually in the Constitution—not even in a subsequent amendment—so let us try other constitutional remedies first, dealing with district judges, before challenging judicial review.

Actually District Court judges, those issuing the injunctions blocking presidential authority, are not in the Constitution as a permanent fixture either—only at the behest of Congress. Article III only created the Supreme Court but did authorize “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Thus in adjusting to the work load, Congress has the flexibility to enlarge or contract the District (inferior) Courts. Unfortunately government seldom contracts.

Notice also in Article III the division of powers of the court into original and appellate jurisdictions. In original jurisdiction they operate independent of the legislative or executive branches and these are listed as “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” While in appellate jurisdiction, essentially everything else, they function under the direction of Congress “both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such Regulations as Congress shall make.”

Such Congressional oversight is now desperately needed. For instance, where did District Court judges get the authority to by-pass the Supreme Court becoming proactive in stopping the executive branch of government from executing the law? Typically the Supreme Court has to wait until someone challenges a law, “has standing,” a term used to suggest “harmed by legislation.” So the Supreme Court is a passive organization until called to action. What the District Court judges are doing is initiating aggression on their own. Article III also authorizes Congress to impeach justices should their misbehavior be demonstrated. We suggest using it on District Court judges issuing injunctions.

Congress or the Supreme Court needs to remind the District Court judges that their power is limited to resolving single cases between specific parties who brought a case before them, not issuing national edicts restricting a president’s ability to function nationally within his executive authority. Justice Clarence Thomas urged colleagues that “if federal courts continue to issue them, th[e] Court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so” (Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams delivers remarks on nation wide Injunctions at the Heritage Foundation, February 4, 2019). The Supreme Court restricting itself should be the first option, this followed by Congress if still not satisfied.

The Founding Fathers gave the States one additional option for bringing any of the three branches of government back into line. It allows them to use the 10th Amendment of the Constitution to nullify the law in their state, but usage of this is a last resort when the two other branches of government are unwilling or unable to bring in line the rogue branch.

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.

On Which Side do You Stand in This Revolution?

Harold Pease, Ph.D.

In the first American Revolution Americans roughly divided in three equal groups, Loyalists favored England, Patriots the Colonists, and another third too apathetic to help either side. The Patriots won because the apathetic third would not stand with the Loyalist but also would not support them. In that revolution the enemy, England, was largely overseas.

As a young man I wondered which side I’d have supported as a colonist in 1776. Would I have been at Valley Forge with George Washington during the devastatingly cold winter of 1777? Would I have have left my plow, grabbed my rifle and raced to the front without command to stop Johnny Burgoyne in the Battle of Saratoga? Would I have supported the Declaration of Independence and eventually the Constitution and Bill of Rights that followed? And still later, would I have risked my life to end slavery for my black brother in the American Civil War? Yes! I know because as an adult I now stand for the same things as they. With which group would you have stood? Is it still so today?

In the current American Revolution the enemy is inside the United States. Basically they are the hate America, the Constitution, the Founders, tradition, statues, religion, law and order, and the police, crowd. Many are anarchists, socialists, and gang thugs like Antifa. They achieve their purposes by intimidation, fear, looting, burning buildings in primarily black neighborhoods they pretend to uplift, and killing policemen. Most probably do not vote, they have a more effective way to destroy America—anarchy; nevertheless, they decidedly favor the Democrat Party.

Amazingly Democrat Party icons: Jimmy Carter, Bill or Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden do not publicly condemn their positions or violence. Together they could stop anarchists in their tracts but do not. Because there exists no pushback from Democratic Party leadership—not even when the flag is burned—an intelligent person must conclude that this is now the Democrat Party—a party that would have been rejected by John F. Kennedy and all pre-Kennedy Democrat Presidents.

This 4th of July is very different from all preceding it. America is poised to openly reject everything the Founder’s stood for. Portland recently toppled a statue of even George Washington, the father of this country, placing the flag around his neck before setting it afire. The Abraham Lincoln statue, representing the man who, with 360,222 northerners, gave his life ending slavery, was torn down while leaving untouched the statue of Steven A. Douglas who ran as the Democrat Presidential nominee for president supporting continued slavery. Logic is upside down and inside out.

Democrats have historically been the party of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan. Today they run America’s 20 largest cities, most wanting to defund their police leaving poor blacks unprotected, but blacks still vote for the party that historically betrayed them. In this they remain under slavery. Today it encourages the slaughter of their young through abortion.

There exists a division in this country unlike any since the Civil War. And a threat to individual liberty unlike any since the first American Revolution. As then, only one side can win. The choice is freedom or tyranny, the Constitution or socialist enslavement. But today Internet platforms and the vast majority of media outlets, college professors, and elected officials favor one side of this equation. These are formable opponents every bit equal to England in 1776. But stand we must, everyones’ liberty is at stake.

Imagine a country where its enemies seek to disarm its citizens (2nd Amendment), remove its border protection (ICE), defund its protectors (police), and threaten religious assembly and free speech. Today the biggest enemy to our liberty is from within. I believe the day will come, when our eyes are opened to the designs of the would be tyrants around us, when no one will admit having been a member of the Democrat Party.

The vast majority of our opponents in the present revolution show bias towards Christianity. They ruled church meetings non-essential in the coronavirus scare. They set St. John ’s Episcopal Church, across from the Whitehouse, afire. BLM leader Shaun King wants Christ statues torn down. Are Bibles next to be burned?
A relationship with deity is mentioned five times in the Declaration of Independence. This document brought on war against the then greatest power on earth, and no European strategist gave the Patriots’ winning a ghost of a chance—yet they stood and won. They could count on no one but God and themselves. We must resurrect the war cry in that document again. “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.”

President John Quincy Adams said it best. “Posterity—You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” Let us never forget that liberty is not free. It was purchased and maintained by the blood of those before us and may have to be once again.

Let this be a warning to those who would take freedom from us now. We too are standing “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” mutually pledging “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Again, which side are you standing with?

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.

Coronavirus Big Tech Censorship Could Spell End of Liberty

Is it possible Americans are watching the death of free speech and therefore liberty? The defiance of the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Bill of Rights from March-May by Democrat governors and mayors has been beyond mind boggling and demonstrates that the Constitution, at least in these states, is on a ventilator.

But the growing collusion between Big Tech and government has been even more threatening as the former seems hell-bent on political censorship in favor of the left. At a time when the world is threatened by an unknown virus dissenting speech from physicians who work with the virus would be most valued, but it was stifled.

The examples of big tech censorship are many, we identify only two. Dr Knuit M. Wittkowski, former head of biostatistics epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University, argued that massive lockdowns, mass quarantines, were a mistake, “We will see more cases among the elderly, because we have prevented the schoolchildren from creating herd immunity.” A dissenting view that conflicted with that of the government. “Google decided that disagreeing with the government is forbidden” (Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 19, 2020).

In mid April two Bakersfield, California physicians, Dan Erickson and Arten Massihi reported similarly, “Our immune system is used to touching. We share bacteria, staphylococcus, streptococcal bacteria, viruses. We develop an immune response, dealing to this stuff…. When you take that away from me,” Erickson continues, “My immune system drops as I shelter in place…. You keep me there for months, it drops more. Sheltering in place decreases your immune system and then as we all come out of shelter in place with a lower immune system, and start trading viruses, bacteria, what do you think’s going to happen? Disease is going to spike” (https://youtu.be/xfLVxx_lBLU). YouTube, decided to back lockdown state governors and removed both videos because they conflicted with the government’s position.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, in an interview with CNN, admitted that, “Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations, would be a violation of our policy.” It would be classed as unsubstantiated or harmful misinformation and therefore removed (Tim Hinchliffe, “Big tech COVID-19 surveillance data & censorship threaten privacy & free speech: op-ed,” The Sociable, April 22, 2020).

In effect Big Tech has created an unholy alliance with Big Government and Big International agencies against the people to control the parameters of acceptable opinion and speech world wide. Harmeet Dillon, civil rights attorney, acknowledged that these companies, although private, have exceeded the rights of being just private. “But where the government is actually instructing and conspiring, which is happening with some of these states, contacting and working with Google, Facebook, Twitter and others to say take down the misinformation. That is the government using these tech companies as their tools and all of a sudden, it’s a whole different scenario in terms of legal liability, as well as in terms of the terrible impact on America.” (Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 19, 2020).

Facebook, defining political speech it disagreed with as hate speech, in 2018 banned Infowars’ Alex Jones from his Internet audience of millions. More recently, using the virus as an excuse, it began removing what it called misinformation speech, basically blocking anything out of harmony with the WHO. Now it is removing “event posts for anti-lockdown protests in various US states, in tandem with state officials”—specifically in California, New Jersey and Nebraska. “Facebook ‘reached out to state officials to understand the scope of their orders’ and resolved to ‘remove the posts when gatherings do not follow the health parameters established by the government and are therefore unlawful’, such as when protests intend to flout social-distancing rules.” They have made themselves “arbiters of truth” (Tom Slater, “We need to stop the spread of Big Tech censorship,” Spiked, May 8, 2020).

Facebook and YouTube both “monopolize huge arenas of public discussion. Writers and thinkers unable to promote their work on Facebook, or video makers unable to upload their work to YouTube, are effectively denied access to a significant portion of what now constitutes the public square. At a time when billions of people are under house arrest, and the literal public square is largely off-limits, this is an even more sinister development. As is the fact that governments and powerful organizations seem to be working hand in glove with tech firms to enforce conformity” (Ibid.).

Emboldened by their new power they will only accelerate it. “Facebook has stressed that state governments did not ask them to remove specific posts. But what seems to have happened is almost worse. Facebook moderators appear to be banning events posts on the basis of what they reckon the laws of a particular state constitute” (Ibid.).

How serious is this? Social platforms were already important theaters for democratic participation and deliberation; now they’re the only game in town (Sam Adler-Bell, “Facebook Is Removing Protest Pages. That’s a Terrible Precedent,” Harvard Law Today, April 24, 2020).

Tucker Carlson assessed the damage to liberty, “The right to have your own opinions, to think for yourself, to disagree with your elected leaders, politicians, was the most basic right that every American enjoyed for 240 years, it was the signature right of this country.” He warned, “They’re going to try and censor Fox News next, you watch” (Tonight, May 19, 2020).

Dr. Harold W. Pease

Dr. Harold W. Pease

Author

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.

“The Constitution is Above My Pay Grade,” Say Civil Liberty Offending Governors

A few days ago two Michigan police officers visited a mother that had allowed her daughter to play with the child next door in their backyard. They demanded to know why she was not enforcing the governments’ stay at home order. They demanded her name which she refused to give as she “has done nothing wrong.” For this she was cited as being uncooperative. The video of the incident showed them treating her with pure contempt (Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 1, 2020).

This should never happen in America. The Constitution gives government agents no such power.

Given the draconian measures used by Democratic governors denying civil liberties in their states many Americans wonder why the Constitution isn’t protecting them as before. But today elected officials are largely constitutional illiterates as are their constituents. Virtually no one has read fully and recently the less than 10 page document. For years I had to tell students that Democrats overwhelmingly ignore the Constitution and Republicans carry it with them but seldom read it—neither defending it against actions of their own political party.

Hence some governors have turned into little tyrants respecting the 1st Amendment. When Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey was asked if his actions were not violating the Constitution. He answered, “That’s above my pay grade.” But it shouldn’t be! It is Government 101 and all governors took an oath to preserve it. The Constitution required it.

“The Senators and Representative before mentioned, 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 … to support this Constitution” (Article 6, Clause 3). All elected leaders and all military personnel swear an oath to preserve the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The First Amendment that Democrat governors and some mayors are threatening reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The 14th Amendment made it applicable to all states offices as well.

Simply put, for those with tyrannical tendencies. No governor, legislature (including city and county), congress or president shall make or enforce any law or decree respecting religion, speech, press, or peaceable assembly. Nor may they deny citizens petitioning government for redress of grievances when civil liberties are offended.

We will walk on public places, including beaches, when and where we please. We will attend any church where, when, and in any size allowed by the pastor of the attended congregation as we please. You may not regulate the distance between walking or communicating people. We will wear face coverings at the request of the owner of buildings we visit but not at your order, as you do not own us. You may not require us to stay in our homes or yards. You may not collectively shut down our work places without individual due process. You may not use drones above our heads taking photos and shouting instructions monitoring and enforcing a collective behavior. We are a free people. These rights are not negotiable and do not disappear in times of national emergencies. These rights come from God—not from you. Yes, the Constitution also gives us due process on the parts of the above where contested.

The remainder of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Governor Phil Murphy follows:

Tucker. “Fifteen congregants at a synagogue in New Jersey were arrested and charged for being in a synagogue together. Now the Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans …. right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together to assemble peacefully. By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order? How do you have the power to do that?”

Governor. “That’s above my pay grade Tucker. I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.

Tucker. “Since you are an elected official, a leader in the government, an executive, how do you have the authority to order something that so clearly contravenes the Bill of Rights of the United States, the Constitution? Where do you get the authority to do that?

Governor. “Well here’s the thing. We know we need to stay away from each other, number one. Number two, we do have broad authority within the state. Number three we would never do that without coordinating, discussing and hashing it out with the variety of the leaders of the faiths in New Jersey.

Tucker. “You can’t just, as the governor of a state, tell people who they can talk to, when and where, because the Constitution of the United States, upon which all this is based, prohibit you from doing this; so you clearly decided that you could do it.

Governor. “We have to find a different way to worship.

Tucker. “Government is not allowed to tell people how to worship” (Tucker Carlson Tonight, April 15, 2020).

Unfortunately the same conversation could have been with almost any of the other 1st Amendment violating governors, or worse, 3rd world dictators.

Dr. Harold W. Pease

Dr. Harold W. Pease

Author

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.

“Snitches Get to Work”

Constitutionalists watch with fear as Democratic mayors and governors openly defy the U.S. Constitution. Liberty taken in emergencies is seldom returned. Democrats heretofore have defended the Constitution’s civil liberties regardless of emergency circumstances. Today they hand deliver civil liberty to Republicans. Older Democrats are perplexed with their party’s abandonment of this emphasis and younger Democrats, now increasingly socialists, do not seem to care.

“If you see someone failing to practice social distancing, rat them out.” Mayor Bill de Blasio urged New Yorkers April 18, simply, “Snap a photo of an offending person or crowd, set the location on the image, and text it to 311-692. Action will ensue” (“De Blasio urges New Yorkers to snitch on social distance rule breakers,” by Mary Kay Linge, Georgett Roberts and Laura Italiano, New York Post, April 18, 2020).

The following day reacting to the enormity of criticism accusing him of employing Fascist and Communist tactics on his own people and reminding him that such snitching on Harriet Tubman in the Civil War and Ann Frank in Germany under Adolph Hitler would have destroyed both. The mayor doubled down adding, “This is not snitching, this is saving lives.”

He reminded them of the $1,000 fine for those that failed to heed social distancing guidelines. “We need those photos. We need those locations so we can enforce right away.” To date the “city had issued a total 244 summonses and fines of up to $1,000 thanks to ‘proactive enforcement efforts’.” They had also patrolled “restaurants, bars and supermarkets” and made two arrests. “The folks who still don’t get it are gonna have to pay a price,” the mayor said (“De Blasio: Ratting out neighbors for social distancing isn’t ‘snitching’” by Lee Brown,” NY Post, April 19, 2020).

But Mayor de Blasio was not the first to dump the Constitution encouraging snitching, Democrat Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti had already done so March 31. He ordered: “If any non-essential businesses continue to operate in violation of the stay at home order, we’re going to act to enforce the Safer at Home order and ensure their compliance.” He boasted of his “business ambassadors” having already visited 540 businesses enforcing compliance as of the end of March. He too had a hotline for snitchers. “You know the old expression about snitches, well in this case snitches get rewards,” Garcetti said. “We want to thank you for turning folks in and making sure we are all safe” (“‘Snitches Get Rewards’: Garcetti Issues New Rules For Construction Sites, Encourages Community To Report Safer At Home Violators,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2020). He did not explain how Angeleno’s were rewarded by losing their freedom to assemble.

But Democratic Governors are implementing other draconian unconstitutional measures. In Michigan, led by Gretchen Whitmer, “The governor’s order provides that residents cannot leave their homes except for essential services such as food or medical supplies, or engage in outdoor physical activity. It also bans travel to second homes and vacation properties. Businesses, meanwhile, cannot require workers to leave their homes unless they are necessary for basic operations or to ‘sustain or protect life,’ like grocery store and healthcare workers, and law enforcement.” When one goes to the store he may not purchase gardening or camping supplies, only essential items.

One Michigan resident complained that “he is forbidden to see his girlfriend of 14 years because they live in different homes” One resident was arrested on his own boat on his own lake for being engaged in outdoor physical activity. Businesses forcibly closed include “landscaping and gun shops, while marijuana stores, with curbside service and delivery, remain open.” One Michigan resident “complained that he can’t even use his time off to take his son fishing on Lake Charlevoix because motorboats have been banned under the order” (“Michigan residents sue Governor Whitmer over coronavirus pandemic orders,” U.S. Legal News, Reuters, April 16, 2020).

In New Jersey a man was arrested for sitting alone on the beach. Moreover, Democrat Governor Phil Murphy uses drones to spy on people searching for social distancing violators, a practice also used in New York City. He has closed church and synagog services and arrested people for attempting to attend them as have most Democratic led state governors. Governor Murphy explained, “We have to find a different way to worship” (Tucker Carlson Interviews Governor Phil Murphy on the Tucker Carlson Show April 15, 2020, Fox).

Kentucky Democrat Governor Andy Beshear ordered limited “in-person church services” and took down license plate numbers of parishioners who had gathered on Easter Sunday, and did other similar draconian measures. These caused Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to tweet, “Usually in a totalitarian state they first shut down dissent, then they shut down religion,Gov. Beshear did it backwards, but still the same result.” Demonstrators, hereafter, were ordered to remain in their cars (“Rand Paul attacks Andy Beshear for running ‘totalitarian state’ with protest restrictions,” by Ben Tobin, Louisville Courier Journal, April 17, 2020).

This story is much the same with other Democratic Governors: Ohio, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. But the abandonment of civil liberties, especially the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights has been common to state Democratic Party leadership. Republicans have become the defenders and party of civil liberty and Democrats its greatest threat. Constitutionalist want both parties defending the Constitution.

Dr. Harold W. Pease

Dr. Harold W. Pease

Author

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.