Sep 16, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
This Tuesday, September 17, is Constitution Day, arguably the most forgotten designated day in America. The mainstream media will say nothing of it. No parades or city council proclamations. No three-day weekend, beer busts or barbecues in its favor. It is as though it never happened. Probably not one in ten can tell what happened this day in 1787; it has been forgotten so long.
Still, this day the Constitutional Convention ended and the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification thus institutionalizing liberty in America more fully. This positively affected everyone in the United States and is probably the most important day in our history—so special, millions flood our borders illegally to benefit from it.
For nearly six thousand years of recorded history governments, best described as regimental, dominated man. Only for a few fleeting moments in the past has individual man had anything to say concerning the restrictions leveled on him. Under an occasional benevolent monarchy or an unconcerned king, man has, in rare instances, been left to himself and thus somewhat free. And, even more rare were the instances when as in Athens, Rome or at Runnymede, the people, sometimes through persuasion and often by force, instituted changes allowing individual freedom to flourish for a brief time. Our experiment with liberty was one of them.
Still, until 1787 man did not know how to harness government. Liberty is, in fact, freedom from excessive government and the biggest enemy to individual liberty is, and has always been, government. But the Constitutional Convention, ending on September 17, did just this.
We abolished kings forever in favor of presidents selected by the state legislatures (before the 17th Amendment) for a short, but defined, period of time. We took away the president’s power to make decrees (even laws or rules) over us, allowing him, in a state of the union address to merely suggest changes, otherwise to sign or veto law made by the legislative branch.
The legislative branch, consisting of representatives for the states, (the U.S. Senate) to protect states’ rights from federal intrusion, and the peoples’ representatives (the House of Representative) to protect the people from federal intrusion, made ALL the law. Both legislative branches from different perspectives, had to approve every law imposed upon the people and all law had to adhere to the constitutional list (Article I, Sec. 8, Cla. 1-18).
Historically, the two areas most sensitive to the people were excessive taxation, as all monies expended were extracted from the people, and unpopular wars, as all injuries, deaths, and suffering was absorbed by the people. Under the Constitution there can never be an unpopular war as the peoples’ representative (The House of Representatives) have total power over raising and funding the army. They must consent to the war by declaration (because they provide blood and brawn for it) and they alone authorize the treasure for it (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cla. 11). “All bills for raising revenue shall originate” with them (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Cla. 1). The Constitution, if followed as designed, ended for all time both unpopular taxes and war. We became the first nation in history placing the people in charge of both. Moreover, funding for war could not be extended for more than a two-year time period, thus requiring that the war remain the will of the people (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cla. 12).
The Constitution is marked by four divisions of power the first—and most important—being between the states and the federal government with fear of a national government dominant. Our Founders, under a new concept called federalism, allowed two governments to co-exist, neither to be over or under the other, with primarily external issues governed by a federal government and internal issues by the states—like a marriage—equal partners. All power not specifically listed in the Constitution remained with the states. The federal government’s powers were listed in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18 or what the states agreed to give them later, but anything thereafter added by amendment required 3/4th of the states to approve (Article V). It was decidedly a limited government from the outset with few federal laws restricting the individual.
The other three divisions divided power at the federal level. Separation of powers is basic to the Constitution with one body, the legislative branch, making federal law, another, the executive branch, enforcing it, and a third, the judicial branch, adjudicating it. But none of these branches were to legislate, execute or adjudicate in a manner to erase or undermine the first division of power between the states and the federal government. No Founding Father supported this.
The Bill of Rights, demanded by the states as a condition of their ratification of the Constitution, further restricted the federal government. Amendments thereafter 11-27, approved by 3/4th of the states, altered some parts of the Constitution. Still, the federal government remains limited and on notice to remain subservient to the people.
The Constitution remains an enemy to big government, largely supported by both political parties and liberals and conservatives alike, because big government is an enemy to individual liberty. Perhaps this is the reason so few wish to honor it or bring attention to it on Constitution Day. Americans might awaken to their extensive loss of liberty.
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 9, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
All leading Democratic presidential candidates reject present constitutional language in electing future presidents of the United States. Opponents of the Electoral College seek to alter a process that has worked for well over two hundred years. Fueled by Clinton’s winning the popular vote yet denied the White House and unable to get two-thirds of the states as constitutionally required to consider altering this part of the Constitution, some seek to reject the Constitution instead.
They call their plan the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). In it participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner of the state popular vote, thus potentially disenfranchising the popular vote in your state, perhaps even in a majority of states.
There exists no language in the Constitution authorizing a popular vote for the executive branch of government. Such came about in 1824 after the Electoral College denied the presidency to highly temperamental Andrew Jackson, the most popular man in America due to his success in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. His supporters, believing the denial to be an injustice, created a straw vote so that the people could participate in the election although this vote had no power.
Over time the media empowered it by treating it as the “legitimate” vote for the president belittling the College process as unfair and undemocratic. Seldom do they remind us that it works because we are not a democracy, but a republic, and that none of the branches of government are democratic; most especially the Senate and Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson had to wait until he could convince the seasoned citizen voters of the Electoral College that he was not too emotional for the office. He did so four years later in 1828. Moreover, today the media seldom cover the real election of the president in December, such is their distain for it.
Those unable to get a two-thirds vote to remove the Electoral College, as required in Article V of the Constitution, have conceived a brilliant but subversive plan to do just that without the constitutional amendment required. When enough state legislatures have committed their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, and that number is 270 or above, remaining states will be required to support as well. Wham!! Almost without any public debate outside state legislatures, and seemingly overnight, the popular vote will replace the Electoral College as the means by which a president is elected. A few highly populated states would decide for the rest of the country—something decidedly opposed by our Founders.
Ironically proponents ignorantly use a small portion of the Constitution to destroy a larger portion. They cite Article II, Section 1 which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” This, they say, gives state legislatures the right to award their electors as they see fit. Actually, the phrase allows the state legislatures appointing powers only. To suggest that they should have influence over their voting once selected, nullifies the reason for their existence. The Electoral College was to be a non-governmental body completely separate and unaccountable to the State Legislature once appointed, as per the rest of the section. Certainly the phrase did not authorize states to simply alter or dump Article II, Section 1 and Amendment 12 of the Constitution which is the effect.
Moreover, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact also violates Article I, Section 10. This prohibits states from entering into “alliances,” (compacts) with other states unless Congress gives its consent. Certainly conspiring states have entered into an alliance to nullify the Electoral College, which mandates the right of individual states, to chose the president.
At present 15 states (almost all Democratic) and the District of Columbia, a combined electoral vote total of 196, have come on board 74 short of the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to impose this upon the rest of the country and nullify a long standing pillar of the Constitution. Oregon, June 12, 2019, is the most recent state to join the unconstitutional alliance voting to change the Constitution without amending it as required by the document.
Unfortunately for those who revere the Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to balance the vote so that rural Americans would not be disenfranchised by urban Americans are emboldened by Hillary Clinton’s receiving the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election yet denied the presidency. Still, it is well to remember that only California gave Clinton its popular vote. In the other 49 states Donald Trump won the popular vote. Without the Electoral College Clinton would be president by the popular vote of but a single state, disfavored by all others. How is that just, balanced or even democratic?
Granted the Electoral College is the most difficult part of the Constitution to understand and is easy to oppose because it is undemocratic. Spend some time to understand it. A patriot and constitutionalist will see through the scheme to destroy it without the debate and transparency required in Article V. No end run around the Constitution should ever be permitted.
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
Aug 26, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Student unrest in many universities demonstrates what is becoming obvious; institutions of higher learning are becoming radicalized and project intolerance for anything but a liberal view. Too few permit conservative or libertarian speakers and far fewer a constitutionalist.
I was not surprised, some years ago, to hear a mother share with me her son’s fear that he did not wish to attend college because he did not wish to be politically indoctrinated. Parents increasingly worry about the radicalization of their children as well. As the years go by I hear this more frequently. Often when asked my profession, a political science professor, I get that look, “Oh! You’re one of those.” So, the assumption is that professors, especially those in political science, are socialists or worse: Unfortunately, this is largely true.
College is supposed to be a “big tent” housing all types of thinking so that the student can gravitate to what he thinks best after all sides are presented. Although everyone gives lip service to this statement, there still exists a preferred philosophy. Most colleges insist that they adhere to intellectual diversity, but the evidence and textbooks suggest otherwise; the vast majority of colleges and universities are weighted in favor of one ideology and professors to one political party. This is not hidden. Some political science textbooks acknowledge this.
There exists a consensus of what a “good education” is. Students are immersed in race consciousness, feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, collectivism, globalism, political activism, class warfare, global warming, acceptance of sexual deviations as normal, and minimization of the importance of Christianity. The end product, the student, must come to accept the above script. It is also in virtually all textbooks. It’s not that any of these notions are bad, in and of themselves, but it is the nearly universal absence of the opposing view that is most troubling parents/students who do not want the indoctrination.
This reminds me of the 1960’s popular tune “Little Boxes” by Malvina Reynolds with lyrics. “And the people in the houses…made of ticky tacky… All went to the university, Where they were put in boxes And they came out all the same.”
It’s not fear of political science classes alone in most colleges and universities. Students can escape the indoctrination across the hall in a history or sociology class. Not so! Such bias permeates most academic areas. An English professor from a large Midwestern university, who did not wish to be identified because of possible retribution, spoke of English classes giving less emphasis on grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure and more on the political correctness. “Everything from Theater to Philosophy to History to English has, in effect, become sociology,” he wrote. “Teaching subject matter has become less important than teaching a very political perspective.” In the end, “They get taught the same thing over and over: a radical critique of the entire American social structure, an indictment of capitalism, anti-Christian propaganda, and collectivism over individuality.”
Of course, additional courses reinforce the “good education” and the result is that if students have not learned to think for themselves, or have some opposing information from home or church to think with, they graduate and carry the indoctrination into every segment of society as gospel. New teachers from kindergarten to the universities will pipe the same, or similar, message.
Age and experience may alter the indoctrination but the twig is already bent in a prescribed direction and the student, like the twig, will give first consideration to returning to the indoctrination when confronted with anything in opposition. Colleges have so much power over “right” thinking.
An extreme example of this years ago, was a French Language and Culture class at Penn State University that required students to view the Michael Moore film “Sicko,” which focused on the inadequacies of the U.S. healthcare system and promoted national healthcare. In a French language class!?!
The indoctrination begins immediately in some colleges, critics say, “with orientation where students begin by learning about the evils of ‘white privilege’ in a program called the ‘tunnel of oppression’ and sit through lectures informing them that they are part of a ‘rape culture’.” University of Delaware forced incoming freshmen to participate in a “treatment” program a part of which informed them that the word racism applies only to “all white people.” It also “blamed whites for having created the term racism” in the first place “to deny responsibility for systemic racism.” At Hamilton College in New York, fall 2010, male students were required “to attend a ‘She Fears You’ presentation to make them aware of the ‘rape culture’ of which they were allegedly a part and of the need to change their ‘rape supportive’ beliefs and attitudes” (New American, Aug. 5, 2013, pp. 23-27).
No wonder the young man did not wish to be subjected to what he saw as indoctrination. Because he knows that there exist other views there is hope for him, more especially if he selects professors who attempt to give alternative views of which there are still some, he will be fine. But it will take his personal effort to not come out of the university experience “all the same.” It is students, the majority, who have no idea that there exist alternative views that are most in danger.
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.
Aug 19, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Most now understand that “red flag” laws violate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and many Republicans, including the President, now seem willing to join Democrats, after the recent shootings in El Paso and Denton by crazed left-and right wing extremists, to put dents in the Second Amendment hoping these laws “might” somehow help. But few realize that they also virtually emasculate the Bill of Rights. What follows are the amendments “red flag” laws damage and how.
Amendment I. “Red flag” laws encourage “police-led searches” of our social media, thus effectively “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. Disagreeable speech is labeled “hate” speech, thus potentially “violent” speech, thus subject to the removal of ones weapons laws. Liberty ends when free speech, press, assembly and religion end.
Amendment II. This amendment was specifically designed to protect the first amendment giving the people the ability to resist tyrannical government as the Founders had—even by revolution if required. Any law, state or federal, that threatens the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers is unconstitutional. In New Mexico that includes requirements for firearm storage and background checks for private firearm sales. In New York, it includes banning bump stock devices. In Washington State it is I-1639, which “classifies semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for recreation and self-defense as assault weapons and prohibits young adults under the age of 21 from purchasing them.” These violate “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
But “red flag” laws go further, potentially allowing 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. Any one that can approach a judge with the claim that someone is a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate his weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime. All this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior.
Amendment IV reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today computers and electronic devices are our “papers” and “effects” include our weapons of self preservation. It is “unreasonable” and unconstitutional to confiscate them on the assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove their automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines they MIGHT use to harm themselves or others.
Continuing, “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Heretofore “probable cause” was based upon evidence of having actually done something, not opinion that someone might do something. Again, there exists no crime! A warrant alone is not due process. “Supported by Oath or affirmation,” means by government agents who have sworn allegiance to protect and preserve the Constitution, which under “red flag” laws this action violates.
Amendment V reads in part: “No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law.” Due process is denied thousands under “red flag” laws. None were charged with a crime, arrested or convicted before gun confiscation. Without due process all of our rights and properties are unsecured. It is that simple.
Amendment VI lists the rights of the accused, the due process procedure entitled to all citizens, in “all criminal prosecutions.” Although “red flag” laws are not criminal prosecutions, they have the same effect. They accuse and administer punishment. They are “speedy” but not “public” as constitutionally required. None were “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; … confronted with the witnesses against him; … [allowed] compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and …[allowed] the assistance of counsel for his defence.” Where was the “impartial jury?” None of these four constitutionally required conditions were met prior to confiscation, as no crime had been committed. Those targeted by the government in “red flag” laws had no opportunity to resist confiscation.
Amendment VII reads "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Twice mentioned is common law which is the underlying principles of justice that govern all human relationships—natural law—whether fully understood or not.
This amendment speaks to property exceeding $20.00 in value, of which all guns exceed. Although largely fallen into disuse because of the now unrealistic money requirement specified, the amendment suggests the importance of common law and jury (peers) trials, rather than judges, making the decisions regarding property. Certainly “red flag” laws exempt juries and confiscate property (guns).
Six of ten Bill of Right Amendments are severely damaged by “red flag” laws with due process, the backbone of our judicial system, the greatest fatality. This is certainly the greatest threat to the Bill of Rights since the Obama sponsored National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which already effectively neutralized Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights (see “New Bill Damages Bill of Rights and Could Target Americans for Military Detention,” LibertyUnderFire.org).
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.
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
