Aug 12, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Given the mass murders due to gun violence last weekend, 22 in El Paso, Texas, 9 in Dayton, Ohio, 11 in Chicago, 4 in Baltimore; it is easy to see why President Trump would seek a national solution—it is a national problem. Still, the Constitution specifically forbids a national solution—even a state solution—without a new amendment to the Constitution altering the second Amendment, because self-defense is an individual right (even God-given) not a right from government.
The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” At the time of writing “militia” was the citizen and “shall not be infringed” meant off limits to government.
The only constitutional solution is a new amendment processed through Article V which requires a two-step proposal and ratification process, the latter requiring three-fourths of the states. Anything short of this is a serious “infringement” (violation) of the Constitution and a single violation justifies future violations until this particular freedom (self defense with a firearm) is lost to future generations.
“Red Flag,” laws are thought to be the “go to legislation” for the presumed mentally unstable of society that could resort to violence against themselves or others. These potentially allow thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear that a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses.
Anyone that can approach a judge with the claim that someone is thought to be a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate the alleged offenders weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime. All this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior. This legislation flies in the face of presumed innocence first which, until now, has been the backbone of our judicial system.
“Red Flag,” laws, are based entirely upon the assumption that someone may commit a crime, rather than, has committed a crime. If we disarm enough we will get the supposed perpetrator before he commits a crime. Their speech or behavior is viewed a red flag. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Castro, all socialists, would have loved such laws. They could have labeled and disarmed their opposition before they did anything.
“Under Colorado’s proposed law, anyone can make a phone call to the police. They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before them is the statement of concern.” Moreover, “little certainty is needed. Some states allow initial confiscations on just a ‘reasonable suspicion,’ which is little more than a guess or a hunch.” In just nine months of Florida’s Red Flag law passage, just last year, “judges granted more than 1,000 confiscation orders. In the three months after Maryland’s law went into effect on Oct. 1, more than 300 people had their guns taken away.” In Anne Arundel County, “a 61-year-old man died when the police stormed his home at 5 a.m. to take away his guns” (“The Folly of ‘Red Flag’ gun laws,” June 17, 2019, The Washington Times).
The biggest problems with Red Flag evaluations is that they happen “ex parte,” without the defendant present to defend himself. Due process, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in three places, is denied. If “ex parte,” a second hearing is scheduled, some weeks later, where the defendant must provide evidence proving his innocence (U.S. & Texas LawShield Blog). You must prove yourself innocent of something that you never did, nor probably thought of doing, but was previously punished for by the forcible confiscation of your weapons. We are dangerously close to destroying the backbone of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence.
Some remember going down a similar path with Japanese-Americans many years ago. More than 110,000 were feared to be potentially dangerous in World War II and thus were rounded up in secret raids throughout western states and placed in “relocation camps.” No crimes had been committed and the United States later had to pay reparations to descendants for this injustice.
Both mass murderers appear to be politically motivated. El Paso mass shooter and Trump supporter Patrick Crusius, 21, traveled 650 miles to target a community at least 80% Hispanic for his victims. Far left Dayton, Ohio mass shooter and Elizabeth Warren supporter Connor Betts, 24, worshiped Antifa and hated ICE. Both far left and far right think the other crazy and capable of violence which is the foundation for Red Flag laws. Both want the power of government to remove the other.
An ominous cloud hangs over America if its citizens flood authorities with calls to take away the gun rights of the other. Historically government is happy to do both. El Paso and Dayton may be equivalents to Fort Sumpter in the Civil War.
LibertyUnderFire has already published how Red Flag laws violate, not only the Second Amendment, but amendments I, IV, V, VI and XIV as well. It essentially emasculates the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. President Trump cannot support red flag laws and the Constitution simultaneously.
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.
Jul 28, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Virtually all of my acquaintances in the LGBT Community are Democrats, but their party leaders have left traditional democratic principles and are now strong advocates of socialism. So why not move with them? Perhaps there are good reasons the LGBT community should fear socialism. Show me a “real” socialist country that guarantees their right to even exist.
Russia, the first socialist country, quickly conquered its 15 neighbors and assembled itself into the the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (U.S.S.R.). Vladimir Lenin criminalized homosexuality under Article 121 which read. “Sexual relations of a man with a man (pederasty), shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to five years. Pederasty committed with the application of physical force, or threats, or with respect to a minor, or taking advantage of the dependent position of the victim, shall be punished by the deprivation of freedom for a term of up to eight years.” (Basic Documents on the Soviet Legal System; by WE Butler, p. 344, The Criminal Code of the USSR). After the conquest of Germany ending World War II the Union grew by 8 additional countries to 23. It might be well to remember that prison then was forced hard labor with meager rations which often resulted in starvation.
Adolf Hitler’s the National Socialist Workers Party, of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was decidedly socialist. Hitler preached class warfare and agitated the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists, particularly Jewish capitalists. Nazi persecution of homosexuality was horrific including castration, murder, and incarceration in Nazi (short for nationalist socialist) concentration camps. Both gay men and lesbians were targeted.
In the socialist Republic of China during the Mao tza Tung era homosexuality was pathologized and criminalized. During the Communist Revolution (1966 to 1976), homosexuals were regarded as “disgraceful” and “undesirable” thus heavily persecuted. Homosexuality was banned until 1997 and removed as a sexual illness in 2001 yet “psychiatric facilities across the country still considering homosexuality as a mental disorder on various degrees and continuing to offer conversion therapy treatments,” the same as did its counterparts North Korea, “illegal through decency and obscenity laws,”and North Vietnam. The treatment of homosexuals under Fidel Castro in Cuba was horrific.
Venezuela, the most recent socialist country, headed by past president Hugo Chavez, likewise has not shown itself as “gay friendly.” In 2009 the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission sent out an urgent alert expressing their concern regarding the arbitrary detention of LGBT leaders in Caracas reporting that they had been verbally harassed, beaten and detained by Caracas police.
LGBT adherents, flirting with a love relationship with socialism, might take notice of what else the internationalist had to say about how modern socialists treat their community. “This incident is one of many arbitrary arrests carried out against the LGBT community under the ‘Operation Safe Caracas’ campaign, meant to crack down on crime. The police harass and abuse people whose sexual orientation and/or gender identity differs from social norms. These detentions are arbitrary under international human rights law and violate the right to life and security, to be free from arbitrary detention, to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to be free from discrimination, to equality before the law, to freedom of expression, and to the rights of human rights defenders” (Venezuela: Condemn Arrests of LGBT in Caracas, OutRight Action International, November 12, 2009).
All the above socialist countries lowered their standard of living by adopting socialism. The USSR faced famine, even cannibalism, twice in 1921-23 and again in 1932-1933 and was twice rescued by capitalist America. Millions died in these government contrived famines to liquidated undesirables like the Kulaks, Ukrainians and Kazakhs. In Venezuela today, under Nicolus Maduro, people are eating out of garbage cans. China and Vietnam escaped much of the economic hardship by incorporating some of the free market philosophies of the West.
We observe an expansion of human suffering and death of “undesirables” under socialism. Even today China has a million Uighur Muslims in concentration camps primarily because of their religious beliefs; some suggest for ethnic cleansing. The LGBT community has never been the majority in any country and thus their practices are lawful only in a sympathetic democracy or dictatorship, which could be changed at a whim. Democracy is tolerant until the money is gone. Once fully in place, socialism becomes the most intolerant form of government known and genocide, practiced by most socialist founders, was justified for the good of the whole.
The Constitution, under federalism and as written, left behavior matters (alcohol, drugs use, or sexual preferences—even abortion) entirely to the states or lesser governments. Thus pockets of such could exist in counties or cities. But citizens of such are protected by a common Bill of Rights in any measure against them and there could never be genocide, castration or concentration camps as government policy as elsewhere. In our republic alone, again as designed, the peoples right to exist does not come from government but from God, and is guaranteed.
Socialism seeks to mold all into sameness—not just economically. Dissident, religious, or sexual expressive groups are not viewed as moldable. These will never fit. The LGBT community has nothing to gain by flirting with socialism.
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
Jul 15, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D.
As government controls more portions of the economy, democracy transcends to socialism. Sometime in this transition democracy ceases to be democracy although the term continues to be used, and no-one can identify that moment when it is too late to pull free.
So why should the dependent class, defined as the approximately 47% who pay no federal income tax and are largely those who benefit from food stamps, subsidized housing, healthcare and other assistance programs, fear socialism? Because socialism has a history of ending assistance programs. Democracy enables a marriage between the assisted class with their vote power and politicians wishing to empower themselves by, in effect, transferring wealth from those who have to the poor. Once established this marriage self perpetuates and amplifies. Try seeking office today on a platform that ends all governmental assistance programs—or, even just one, food stamps.
The brakes (limits) of the Constitution are powerful when observed but they cannot perform well once gifting (bribing the dependent class for their vote) has been introduced into the body politic. Once ingrained it cannot prevent itself from offering larger and more gifts until elections are bidding wars without constitutional restraints. This feeds an enlarging national debt that can never be paid. We see this today in the Democratic Party presidential debates: free college, reparations for the descendants of ex-slaves, a guaranteed income, and free healthcare for everyone in the world willing to cross our borders illegally. In exchange for your vote the socialist politician advocates that everything be free. This is his most powerful lure and works well on idealistic youth and the already dependent but it risks collapsing the economy, democracy, the Constitution and liberty.
Aristotle recognized this when he wrote, “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism.” The deadly virus of democracy is voter gifting by politicians willing to sell their souls for elected office.
King Solon of Athens created the governmental form a republic because the philosopher king believed that man should govern himself and, once he had the republic in place, left Athens to attend the University of Alexandria in Egypt never to return. The new idea, personal freedom, resulted in five major unintended consequences: a booming economy, a creative and intellectual surge, an ever enlarging voter base, an unequal distribution of wealth because not all were equally gifted or industrious and, finally, class envy because, although all who worked were comparatively better off from pre-republic standards, some still had more.
The ever enlarging voter base deteriorated into a democracy which had no brakes, no resistance to class envy and the marriage between the expanding less productive who could link their vote with unprincipled politicians willing to transfer the fruits of labor from those who produce to those who do not in exchange for their gaining power. Democracy degenerates into gifting but soon enough there does not exist enough money to sustain the gifting and it ends with an economic crash. Once despotism replaces democracy there are no constitutional checks.
Rome repeated the same experiment with a similar result about a century later. Bread and circuses (free food and entertainment) destroyed the noble idea.
The previous failures were known to the well-read Founding Fathers who wanted the burst in creativity and general prosperity for all as delivered in a republic without the class envy and voter gifting. What if the powers of government were divided and separated into three branches with each a check on the other two and each given a list of the things they could do with gifting excluded? What if all powers not specifically mentioned in Article I, Section 8, remained with the states and the people as stipulated? What if all taxes must be spent only on the items on the list? What if the federal government could not assume additional power without the consent of 3/4th of the states? The government could not take over the economy by confiscation or regulation and the poor could never destroy the rich or devour the middle class. We could never degenerate into democracy then to the most common form of despotism today, socialism—fathered by Karl Marx.
Not a single sentence in the Constitution gives a benefit to anyone, only an environment of equality where one can maximize his talents.
In our republic all votes are not equal. Under the Constitution as designed only the House of Representatives was democratically elected by the people. State legislators voted for U.S. Senators, an Electoral College selected the President, and he appointed supreme court justices for life confirmed only by the Senate.
We must apply the brakes of the Constitution to retain our republic. Otherwise in time the productive classes cannot provide the money that is demanded of them to feed and otherwise subsidize the less productive class. It already can’t. We exceed 22 trillion dollars in debt. Each taxpayer owes the federal government $182,881, payable today (See USDebtClock.org). Despite unrealistic promises, socialism gives only slavery and shared poverty.
Gifting must end. When the banks crash a new government will form and it will not honor the debt that destroyed its predecessor government, nor is it likely to fund social security, medicare, unlimited war , income security, federal pensions or any other program that contributed to it. Under socialism freedom does not survive.
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.
Jul 1, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
A week before the 4th of July everyone dons patriotic symbols . A week later few do. The event comes and goes: colors red, white, and blue are popular for a day. One might be viewed as “super patriotic” (as though this were bad) were one to display the symbols too long.
The evening is filled with fireworks (the bigger the better) but few know why. When asked, the most common response is freedom. “Freedom from what or whom?” I ask. If a stare could kill, I’d be dead. But there is no real understanding behind the expression. It is rare when anyone answers correctly, “Freedom from excessive government.”
The cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. Some say, “taxation without representation” but this is but a part of excessive government. Every U.S. History text has a chapter dealing with the causes. It is filled with the rules and regulations that were most oppressive to the colonists: the Stamp Act, Tea Act, Currency Act, Iron Act, Molasses Act, Sugar Act, even the Hat Act. Such acts were viewed by the colonist as restrictions on their freedom to act independent of governmental permission. When they descended like rain, as they did prior to the Revolution, the colonists demanded to know why, when not satisfied, they resisted the rulings without success, then, “Where is my rifle?”
For one day of the year there is peace between liberals and conservatives. Each wear the emblems of the Revolution and demonstrate their patriotism by raising bigger flags, exploding bigger fireworks, eating bigger steaks and guzzling more alcohol. Parades too are non-partisan and show patriotism, but for what? The next day we ask the federal government to place more restrictions on our neighbor and give us more free stuff at his expense, totally ignoring the Constitution and the reason for the Revolution.
Few share with their children the reasons behind these symbols and still fewer tie the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution which essentially ended the need for a future revolution by restricting the federal government to a handful of areas in which they can constitutionally restrict our behavior (Article I, Sec. 8), freezing forever, if we adhere to the Constitution as designed, our legislative branch doing the same thing to us as had parliament to the colonists. If the two are not tied together then the American Revolution was just a revolution, rightly commemorated by having a longer weekend and an excuse to get drunk.
Lost in the translation and replaced by the blank stare previously mentioned, is your right to do most everything you wish without permission from a government, more especially one located hundreds, often thousands, of miles away. Outside the short list in Article I, Section 8, which, incidentally, has no restrictions on the individual himself, the Constitution left the individual to manage himself. When his behavior offended the right of others to also self-manage, his community, starting at the lowest level (cities, counties, and finally his state government), may regulate his behavior protecting the right of self-management for others as well. Please review this list with family and friends.
This is called freedom. And this is the end result of a 13-year transformative period from the Declaration of Independence through the Articles of Federation to the Constitution, which included the Bill of Rights. The federal government constitutionally could only increase its power through Article V, which required the permission of the states. Today it does so at will because legislators openly oppose these documents or do not care.
The collective view of the Founders was to never elevate to a higher level that which could be resolved at a lesser level. Resolving problems at the lowest level of government, the city for example, allows the individual access to his elected representatives for redress and the offended to those he has most directly offended. A more just outcome is likely.
The 4th of July and Constitution Week in September are our best opportunities to share the message of why the Revolution and the Constitution interconnect and are among the more important events in U.S., even world, history. These two events are our best opportunities to remember and convey to friends and family what liberty is and how and why it must be preserved. Do they know that the vast majority of all inventions on earth came from within the United States under this Constitution, from the clipper ship to moon landing technology? Liberty incentivizes creativity. Do they know that it was purchased by blood and if lost will remain lost until purchased by blood again? Have you told them that if just one generation fails to convey to the next these precious ideas, it will be lost to their posterity. Freedom is not free and never will be.
We are grateful to those who know the real meaning and significance of this event in history and are willing to share it with others. We are forever indebted to those who gave their lives for our freedom in the Revolutionary War and thereafter. We remain grateful for fireworks and parades as long as we do not forget that excessive government is the enemy of liberty, then and now, whether it is taken from us by a parliament, as then, or a Congress, as today.
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.
Jun 17, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Neither the words equality or discrimination are found in the U. S. Constitution, nor inferred, and no new amendment to the Constitution has been added moving either from a state to a federal prerogative, which is the required path detailed in Article V for enlarging the powers of the federal government. State delegates formed the U.S. Constitution and they gave the federal government no power over human association. We naturally discriminate between philosophies, organizations, and people we wish to embrace, date or avoid; even whom or what we like. We call it freedom.
Now the House of Representatives, presently controlled by the Democratic Party, wishes to impose upon us restrictions over human associations without a new amendment to the Constitution. Under the misnamed Equality Act it wishes to enshrine “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination respecting race or sex in employment, housing, and public accommodations. What it does in practice is to “allow the government to impose a belief system about sexual decisions and sexual behaviors on the nation.” The Act is “basically government-sanctioned discrimination against religious people” (CBN News, October 2018). If government is empowered to manage human associations it manages everything.
So how would the misnamed Equality Act violate the Constitution? Remember the Founding Fathers created a system called federalism which recognized the principle of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government, neither the master nor slave of the other—the states to have domestic dominance, the federal government foreign policy dominance.
The Constitution restricts the federal government, (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to the enumerated clauses housed in Article I, Section 8. In this it was restricted to four areas of federal law, these were: to tax, to pay the debts, to provide for the general welfare and national defense. To restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two of the four grants of power, general welfare and national defense, each required an additional eight clauses giving greater restrictive clarity.
Neither equality or discrimination were named, or inferred, as a function of the federal government. The eight clauses of general welfare benefited citizens equally and at the same time. None made distinctions between types of people or human associations.
All powers not specifically listed, or added later to the Constitution by way of the Amendment process outlined in Article V, were left to the States. There exists no new powers to distribute. The states retain all power that they did not specifically give to the federal government. The federal government can only expand its power at the expense of the states by distorting or ignoring the existing list. This can be done only when the people are ignorant of the Constitution or do not care. Proponents of the Equality Act include both.
Even with this clarification, states, fearing that the federal government might still attempt to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions on it, hence the Bill of Rights. But none of these housed either equality or discrimination. The Bill of Rights end with the clarity of Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So neither equality nor discrimination are in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but the word equal (not the same as equality) is in the 14th Amendment. This was a Civil War amendment (1868) designed to ensure that the rights of ex-slaves were protected as the South was attempting to re-enslave them through legislation. It reads in part, “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” One cannot pluck out this phrase and give it new meaning outside the context of its origin, — to protect freed men from slavery.
But there is another problem with the broad use of the phrase “equal protection of the laws” used out of context, This phrase applies only to that law already constitutional, and that, has to have a solid base in the listed powers of Article I, Section 8 or in a new amendment to the Constitution ratified by three-fourths of the states as required by Article V. Any other interpretation destroys the Constitution as designed.
A great irony of our time is that the misnamed Equality Act “creates grave inequalities between those who simply want to live according to their religious beliefs and the reigning culture of political correctness. In short, it threatens our most fundamental freedoms of speech, religious exercise, and privacy. The Equality Act upends two centuries of First Amendment law that restrains government from forcing Americans to speak messages or participate in events that violate their deeply held religious beliefs” (https://firstliberty.org/what-is-the-equality-act/).
The Equality Act has no origin in the Constitution, and thus is unconstitutional. If passed it would violate a large part of the First Amendment more especially the free exercise of religion, speech and press. It opens up a myriad of new laws on human association, also without constitutional base. Neither equality or discrimination can be defined and certainly not guaranteed without Orwellian governmental control. Perhaps that is the intention.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jun 10, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Outside a declaration of war there is no act of Congress that would affect negatively more Americans than the House of Representative’s recently passed Equality Act now slated for the U.S. Senate, then the President for his signature. Billed to ban discrimination against “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” it, instead, enshrines it into the 1964 Civil Rights Act potentially protecting pedophilia and pederasty under “sexual orientation.”
The 13-paged ambiguous Equality Act “would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more.” It specifically prohibits religious freedom as a defense. “The legislation applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more. Christian adoption agencies will be shut down, too, if they refuse to place children with homosexuals or individuals confused about whether they are men or women. That has already happened in states with similar legislation.”
It could criminalize Christianity, Judaism and Islam as their holy writ condemns as sin the behaviors of the LGBT community. As federal law “churches, synagogues, and mosques will no longer be able to uphold marriage between men and women, or any moral standards on sexuality at all. Counselors of faith will be banned from helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion. And Christians, Muslims, and Jews will no longer be allowed to seek out counselors to help them deal with those issues. Indeed, under the measure, everyone will have to affirm the LGBT agenda, or face persecution and destruction at the hands of the federal government. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they do not submit. Schools will lose their accreditation…and this is just the start” (“Equality Act” Would Unleash Federal Persecution of Christians,” By Alex Newman, New American, May 8, 2019).
The “unchurched” may say, “This is not my fight.” But it affects them too with respect to abortion, bathroom privacy, and women’s sports! “By amending the definition of ‘sex’ in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this legislation codifies a fundamental right to an abortion up until the moment of birth.” One minute short of infanticide. By effectively eliminating Hyde protections, it ensures that American taxpayers foot the bill for abortions (“Democrats’ passage of ‘Equality Act’ is the first stage in their attempts to CRIMINALIZE Christianity,” by Randolph Jason, May 24, 2019).
It vastly undermines women’s privacy. “Men who claim they ‘identify’ as women will be allowed to use women’s restrooms, showers, changing areas, and even bunk with women on trips, including church trips,” any man “could simply walk into female facilities under this bill and claim to be a ‘transgender’ who identifies as female,” placing girls and women at risk. “It would even be forced on churches, domestic-abuse shelters, Christian schools, and much more (“Equality Act”).
The Equality Act decimates high school female sports and the monumental gains in the sexual revolution of the seventies that equalized opportunity for women’s sports. Biological men with more weight, size and strength, claiming transgender status, can compete with women. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) “introduced an amendment at the last minute to the Equality Act that would have preserved Title IX’s protections for female sports teams, but Democrats — the ‘party of women’ — rejected it soundly.” Women’s sports will never be the same. Ironically the Democratic Party, has abandoned 52% of the population (women) in favor of the “less than one half of one percent of the population claiming transgender status” (“Why do Democrats think they have the authority — and the RIGHT — to regulate gender on high school sports teams?” The National Sentinel, June 3, 2019).
On bathroom privacy and sports they are not the party of women’s rights.
The real fear for critics of the bill is that it “provides the state with the power to persecute anyone who won’t celebrate any aspect of the LGBTQ agenda…it turns any recognition of the differences between the sexes or any preference for traditional sexual morality into actionable ‘hate,’ creating fertile grounds for lawsuits.” It puts the LGBT community in direct collision with God as defined by Christianity, Judaism and Islam. These world religions recoil from the behaviors of this group. Behaviors, they believe, places them at odds with God and salvation itself. This legislation is equivalent to “pouring legal acid on a marriage-and-family-based culture.” For them this is war between good and evil.
Instead of equality it gives legal power to largely opponents of religion who will, according to Prof. Robert Gagnon of Houston Baptist University, an expert in biblical sexual morality, “codify into law that you are a bigot, the moral equivalent of a racist, tantamount to being a member of the Klu Klux Klan, who must be shut out of society and, wherever possible, harassed and persecuted for your beliefs.” Thus, the Equality Act “is the most dangerous bill to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion that has ever been proposed on a national level” (“A misnamed legal jackhammer strikes,” by Robert Knight, Washington Times, May 19, 2019). No wonder the vast majority of religious communities oppose it.
Ironically the best way to have the LGBT community treated fairly is housed in religion. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,”
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.
