Dec 3, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
No one has been more outspoken against globalism than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the antithesis of their plans for world government. This is the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, especially The New York Times and Washington Post, oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists now praise Trump’s USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller's to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades-old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe, first economically, then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 USMCA rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with USMCA? It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…” Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018).
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our Republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism except his USMC Agreement—everything else he has done demonstrates otherwise. He has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he called “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own. And in time will be linked with the Rockefeller’s and George Soros as having helped bring about world government.
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.
Nov 25, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Both major political parties had the power to control or end enslaving national debt the last fifty years. Both failed. Neither even try anymore. Neither party had the intestinal fortitude to say no to government gifting and now offer only more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. The hard truth is, there will be no Social Security for the children of today. The present path offers only loss of liberty and bankruptcy.
Our national debt exceeds 23 trillion dollars. To pay this debt today each taxpayer owes $186,578, immediately. Our largest creditors in order are: Medicare/Medicaid $1,253,523,000,000, Social Security $1,044,752,000,000, Defense/War 673,433,000,000, Income Security (welfare) $301,114,000,000, Net Interest on Debt $374,060,000,000, Federal Pensions $287,602,000,000, and Food / Agricultural Subsidies $151,840,000,000 (USDebtClock.org).
Even with the present robust Trump economy (the best in several decades) it has continued to escalate by four trillion dollars the last three years. We face economic Armageddon which, at this late date, may not be avoidable.
We have indebtedness, because both political parties failed to keep their oath of allegiance to the Constitution to follow it. If we do not get back to the Constitution with a strictness that we are not accustomed to, the new slaves (those encumbered by the debt of those before) will not even have freedom. If the Republic falls because of this national debt threat the new tyranny will not restore the government gifting programs responsible for the fall—the above programs disappear either way.
Yes the expensive programs will go, at least on the federal level, regardless, but we can yet save the Constitution and liberty, if we have the will. All power not listed in Article I, Section 8, or elsewhere in the document, or added by way of amendment to the Constitution thereafter, is a state power. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of the seven highest creditors listed above only Common Defense was specifically authorized in the Constitution. Constitutionally the others should have necessitated Article V authorization, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the states. This did not happen. Most of the programs of the 20th Century, most policies presently advocated by the Democratic Party, and the infrastructure program advocated by President Trump, are outside Article I, Section 8 and are state prerogatives as per Amendment 10, thus cannot be implemented constitutionally without state permission. The hard truth, they lack specific constitutional authority. All six others, although now seen as “sacred cows,” are entwined with government gifting which has accelerated beyond our ability to control.
The Legislative branch was limited to only four areas of law-making power: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the common defense. These are laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 prior to the first semi-colon, so essential to the proper interpretation of Section 8. To tax needed one qualifier that such must be “uniform throughout the United States” but in the same article, Section 7, Clause 1 the power to tax was given to the House of Representative to originate. To pay the debts needed no qualifiers. But no one in the Constitutional Convention trusted Congress with a free hand in deciding the two other powers, general welfare and common defense. Either could mean anything to a power grabbing federal congress. Each of these needed eight additional qualifiers for clarity so Clauses 2-9 were the law-making powers of Congress with respect to general welfare and Clauses 10-17 respecting common defense.
The long 18-paragraph sentence (yes, sentence) ended with Congress having the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…,” those listed. Congress was never given power to make any law they thought desirable but only within four perimeters and 17 qualifiers. Section 8 is the most ignored, most abused, part of the Constitution. The hard truth, Congress was not empowered to make any law outside the 17 qualifiers without Article V permission of the states—even if every member of both houses approved.
A careful read of Section 8 reveals that the Founding Fathers gifted no individual or group. It only provided a level playing field enabling citizens to gift themselves by their work ethic and talent.
So what is the constitutional solution ending enslaving national debt? End government gifting!! Begin by initiating a bill or amendment that requires all future requests for gifting to accompany the constitutional wording that authorizes such. If such wordage does not exist the new bill cannot proceed.
Next begin to remove all existing gifting measures of the past that are not specifically identified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1-18, or added by a constitutional amendment thereafter—even those longstanding and sacred. These should be transferred to, and entirely funded by the states as soon as possible. States that wish to retain portions of the gifting are not prevented from doing so under the Constitution as written, nor are states that wish not to do so prevented. But each state must fund their own programs.
There is hope. The Constitution can save us but only if we have the resolve to use it as written.
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.
Nov 11, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In listening to the 2020 Democratic Presidential debates or President Donald Trump’s many addresses to the American people, you would not know that we have exceeded 23 trillion dollars in debt and that to liquidate this debt $186,577 per taxpayer is due immediately (see, https://www.usdebtclock.org/). America cannot pay its existing bills.
Four trillion of this debt is from eight years of George W. Bush and nine from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone doubled the national debt and accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together. The major reason is government gifting to buy elections. Each election year more freebies are offered.
In the second democratic presidential debate held in Miami, June 28, 2019, Free healthcare . In other words, anyone in the world who comes to this continent and crosses our border, although it is against the law to do so, will be given free healthcare thereafter paid for by the American taxpayer. This one freebie, by itself, would bankrupt America, let alone free college and all the rest they have promised.
In late October, 2019, presidential front-runner Elizabeth Warren, released her Medicare For All plan. Its cost, 52 trillion dollars over ten years No such assets exist.
Democrats want everything free or subsidized— healthcare, housing, food, even free college. They can’t give away enough. Where will all that money come from?
So what is a trillion dollars? To begin with a trillion is the number one followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon . If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $9 trillion, would reach the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $23 trillion in debt today would take you to the moon and back almost four times (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009).
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (Ibid).
I ask students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” “Go without!!!?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their share to liquidate this debt is $186,577 per taxpayer —due immediately. (see USDebtClock.org), they get angry. Someone should have told them that government handouts are not free.
The 13th Amendment ending slavery has been rescinded, they are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children to have them. Worse, the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in U.S. History?
The favored method to deal with this problem is print more fiat money. But expanding the money supply just reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My Camaro bought new in 1968 cost $ 2,700. Had I instead put the money under a mattress and tried to purchase a Camaro today it would cost more than ten times that much. In this instance money has lost 90% of its value since 1968 Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as if a thief had lifted their wallet or purse. Those on pensions cannot receive a raise to compensate for the value loss caused by their own government.
The last president to fully pay for his government was Warren G. Harding in 1922. Thereafter all presidents added to the debt by spending more than they received. Deficits from Ronald Reagan on exceeded a trillion or more (US Debt by President by Dollar and Percentage Who Increased the U.S. Debt the Most? Depends on How You Measure It. By Kimberly Amadeo Updated November 04, 2019).
We print whatever money we want to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we have imposed upon our children and grandchildren. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked atop one another can go to the moon and back almost four times, or that pensions loose their value, or that we haven’t fully paid our debts in 98 years, so long as the government fills our stomachs and the new slaves pay for it.
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.
Oct 21, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The Constitution is presently used by both major political parties defending or opposing the House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump. Both argue their loyalty to it.
It reads: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5). The people place a president in power and their representatives—the House—alone initiates and formulates the charges for his possible removal. The “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” So one indicts, the other tries. Simple enough.
But formulating the charges does require a favorable vote of the FULL House,-not just a committee. Therein lies the rub. The House Intelligence Committee charged with finding a crime hasn’t yet found bribery, treason or any high crime, —the only impeachable offenses— but it “knows” one exists somewhere. During three years of a dozen or more attempts to impeach Trump charges crumbled from lack of documentation.
Probably the most profound statement made regarding impeachment was made by Democrat Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, presently engaged in impeaching Trump: “The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions” (144 Cong. Rec. HI 1786 daily ed. Dec. 18, 1998). This Nadler argued during the impeachment proceedings of Bill Clinton.
Using Nadler’s criteria Donald Trump does not pose a “dire threat” to our system of government or constitutional liberties, there is no “overwhelming consensus,” and only the Democratic Party is working for his removal. Most Americans oppose impeachment.
The Constitution give the House sole power to create the charges against a president. Additional authority is housed under past practice which in time effectively adds to the Constitution unless found to conflict with an original part of the document.
Only Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton have been indicted. House past practice in each has been based upon fairness. In each a vote of the full House was required to initiate an impeachment inquiry, for Nixon the vote was 410-4 and for Clinton 258-176 (See H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. 1974 and H. Res. 581, 105th Cong. 1998). The full House participated in defining the scope of impeachment and established its rules and procedure. After the vote was taken to form an impeachment inquiry both the chair of the inquiring committee and the ranking member of the opposing party had co-equal subpoena powers to call witnesses subject to a vote of the full committee upon the request of either.
The indicted president’s council participated. It exercised the right to attend all hearings and depositions, to present evidence, to object to the admittance of evidence, to cross-examine witnesses and to recommend a witness list.
Thus far Nancy Pelosi has opposed a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry as was established in previous impeachments nor has the full House been given input in “defining the scope, rules and procedures” as before. The Committee Report accompanying H. Res. 581 developed in the Clinton impeachment stated: “The full House of representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment.”
One serious constitutional provision yet remains in our consideration of the attempt to impeach Trump—due process. This is housed in several places in the Constitution especially Amendments 5, 6, and 14. Democrat Jerrold Nadler referenced them when Bill Clinton was impeached, “the power of impeachment demands a rigorous level of due process … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses and to have the assistance of counsel” (Hearing before the Subcom on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary 105th Cong. 17, 1998). These have not been extended to Trump.
As Trump’s council recently wrote. “These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations…[even] impeachment proceedings” (Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President White House, October 8, 2019).
Thus far none of the above established practices have been followed in the case of the proposed impeachment of President Trump, especially due process. No House vote and no formation of an impeachment inquiry committee after the vote. Pelosi simply asked the House Intelligence Committee, led by Adam Schiff, to assume the responsibilities and he is behaving as though his committee will do it alone including the trial constitutionally reserved to the U.S. Senate. Moreover, Schiff has been holding secret hearings of witnesses denying House Republican observers of other committees. He forcibly removed colleague Matt Gaetez .
Clearly, respecting impeachment, Democrats are sloppy with 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 columns, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Oct 14, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Constitutional instructions for impeaching a president of the United States are very specific. Actually, reading the Constitution should easily put to rest the proposed impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. His enemies obviously have not done so.
Impeachment means tried by the U.S. Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors whether found guilty and removed or acquitted and remain in office. It begins in the House of Representatives who formulate the alleged charges then passes to the Senate for trial.
In the case of Trump the Democrats called for his impeachment before he took the oath of office, before he made a single decision as president, or nominated a single cabinet member. Enemies began immediately searching for a crime. All other impeachment proceedings began first with a specific crime—Trump’s was being elected.
The “crime” for Andrew Johnson was his violation of the Tenure of Office Act which Congress had just passed requiring him to first get their permission before removing a cabinet member. To test the constitutionality of what is now common practice, Johnson fired Edward Stanton as Secretary of War. Johnson was accused by the House but spared conviction in the Senate. So, the impeached (tried) president remained in office.
Richard Nixon was never impeached because, although accused by the House, he was never tried by the Senate. He resigned the presidency before the charges of the House could be hand delivered to the Senate for trial. The“crime” hinged on his alleged cover up of the break-in of the Democratic Party national headquarters at Watergate. These would have included obstructing justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress. But he was never tried, thus not impeached.
For Bill Clinton the “crime” was "high crimes and misdemeanors.” The specific charges were lying under oath (perjury), abuse of power, and obstruction of justice; charges that stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. The senate did not come to the necessary 2/3 majority, so he was acquitted (Art I, Sec. 3, Cla. 6). Tried (impeached), like Johnson, but not removed from office.
Who formulates impeachment charges? The Constitution reads: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5). The people placed him in power and their representatives—the House—alone initiates and formulates the charges for his possible removal. But formulating the charges does require a favorable vote of the full House.
Who tries the charges? “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath…” [to support the Constitution and tell the truth].
Who presides at the trial? “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice [presently John Roberts} shall preside.” (Ibid. Sec. 3, Cla. 6).
But a president can be removed for only four reasons. “The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Art. II Section 4). Can we remove a president we simply do not like? Only in the next election.
What are the charges against Trump? His enemies first tried treason, “he’s a Russian spy.” That failed! What about bribery? That’s hard when he gives to charity his monthly salary. Then collusion and obstruction of justice under “high crimes,” those failed too. How about adultery with Stormy Daniels and others? But that was before his election and John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton did adultery as presidents in office, Clinton even with an intern in the Oval Office, and that was not enough to call for his office. Adultery effectively erased less serious charges essentially removing from the Constitution misdemeanors as impeachable offenses.
Enemies then tried the 25th Amendment, containing a provision that allows for the forceful removal of a sitting president who cannot physically continue to serve. They tried, he’s crazy therefor unfit for office, Rod Rosenstein offering to wear a wire to entrap the president. They could not find a cabinet member to so state. About 15 different accusations, all backfired—even the The Mueller Report. For three years our hostile establishment and Democratic news outlets never let up. Within weeks, the Russian Hoax was replaced with the “Ukrainian Hoax” but the promised Quick Pro Quo could not be found. Still no impeachable offenses.
If the intelligence community went rogue with a coup to undo the 2016 presidential election, which we have documented in previous columns, it is Trump’s absolute duty to take this story to its original source, in the Ukraine in 2016, for complete exposure so it never happens again for any president of either party. The Constitution requires it. “He shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Art.II, Sec. 4). As does his oath of office: ”I do solemnly swear…that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cla. 8).
So impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office as Johnson and Clinton finished their terms. Nor will it for Trump. He will be acquitted for the same reason as Clinton—partisan politics—and likely will be reelected as no crime has been established.
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
Sep 23, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph, D.
While many on the left are presently tripping over themselves to advance socialism in the United States, it might be well to remember that this philosophy has been responsible for more death than any other in world history. What are the numbers? It is hard to really know. Socialist and liberal organizations never disclose such and never support any objective research to know as it undermines their hope of “advancing” socialism in the United States.
Democratic Congressman Larry McDonald of Georgia entered into the Congressional Record April 2, 1979, p. E 1458, the numbers as reported by Figaro magazine Nov. 1978, as 143 million lives lost since 1917. It broke this number into categories. The human cost of communism in USSR, 1917 to 1959, under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin was 66,700,000, that of the USSR from 1959 to 1978 was 3,000,000 minimum, and that of China 1949 to 1978 at 63,784,000, all but two years under Mao Tse-tung. Another 2,923,700 Germans civilians were killed during expulsions of 1945 and1946.
Following World War II “freedom fighters” rose in resistance to socialism in East Berlin, Prague, Budapest and the Baltic states between 1945 and 1975 but the price was very heavy; 500,000 were slaughtered by the socialists. Death by socialism was experienced in communist aggression in Greece, Malaysia, Burma, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa and Latin America. The report attributed 3,500,000 deaths in these areas combined.
But the highest per capita deaths occurred in Cambodia where 2,500,000 of a total population of 7,000,000 were executed by socialist leader Pol Pot between 1975-1978. One of every three people did not have the right to live and died in the “killing fields,” their bones scattered throughout Cambodia.
Chairman Mao Tse-tung, a favorite of the American left, exterminated 1,176,000 his first year. Death by socialism did not let up after initial enemies were destroyed. “Fourteen million Chinese were eliminated in the first five years of Maoism.” He came to power in 1949 and died in 1976. He was the greatest mass murderer in human history at 63,000,000 followed, in order, by Joseph Stalin between 40,000,000 and 60,000,000, Adolf Hitler at 6,000,000 Jews and 5,000,000 other undesirables, 11 million Germans total, Nikita Khrushchev at 11,000,000 (starving his own Ukrainian people), Pol Pot at 2,500,000 and Vladimir Lenin at 1,861,568—all socialists. Perhaps Ghengis Khan could compete for third place. He is credited with 40 million but real documentation as to numbers is impossible to verify 800 years back.
These numbers, consistent with others at the time, vary as to how personally involved each dictator was in the killings. Hitler did not kill anyone but his policies resulted in the death of millions. Khrushchev’s 11 million are not attributed to him but to Stalin as he was working under his direction. Comparatively, Fidel Castro only killed 15,000 but most of these were firing squads at his direction.
Socialists and liberals prefer lower numbers and make the issue about accuracy of the numbers rather than socialism’s horrific death history. To appease them let us cut this horrifying number, 143 million murders due to socialism, in half. It remains horrific.
That Congressman Larry McDonald would share the numbers provided in Figaro magazine is interesting as he himself was also killed by socialism in the Korean 007 Airliner crash of 1983. All 269 passengers and crew were killed. Some believe socialist dictator Mikhail Gorbachev responsible. McDonald and Senator Jesse Helms, the two leading opponents of socialism in Congress at the time, were traveling together on the same plane from New York to Anchorage, Alaska to Seoul, Korea—a tempting soviet target. Finding a friend in Anchorage, Helms decided to take a second plane to Seoul leaving thereafter. He sent an aid to get McDonald, napping on the plane, to switch also but the aid decided not to awaken the Congressman leaving him to be yet another socialist casualty.
These figures do not cover death due to socialism the last 41 years mostly because of two factors. The first, the more violent nature of socialism has been rejected by most of the world as expressed by the fall of the Berlin Wall, and thereafter the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Still, there have been violent socialists revolutions in Nicaragua led by Daniel Ortega in the 1980’s, Ethiopia, Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990’s and more recently Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. Each have led to extreme economic hardship—even the people eating out of garbage cans—tyranny and death. Over 101,000 died in Bosnia, mainly Bosniaks, in the first example of ethnic cleansing since World War II.
The second, the United States maintains over 800 military bases throughout the world sufficient to deter any would be mass murders as seen in the 20th Century. We are the world’s policemen.
Tyranny lies at the heart of socialism ready to spring forth without warning to its most violent form. The Constitution, when followed, protects us from socialism. It recognizes natural law and individual rights and places limits on the government. Under socialism no such protection from total government exists. Once a society believes that the wealth of their neighbor belongs to them, it will never be expunged. We are close. If the United States falls to socialism who will protect us and the world from it? No one!!!
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
