Feb 10, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Senator Rand Paul’s question to the House Managers in the impeachment question and answer phase of the proceedings against Donald Trump follows. “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware, and how do you respond to, reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.”
Why is this the most important question of the about 100 asked? The campaign to impeach Donald Trump began “at the moment he was sworn in” (Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2017). Hoax followed hoax until the present Ukrainian debacle resulting in the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal of President Trump. But the hoax perpetuators always walk away without consequence despite two notable victims—the Constitution and Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi knew what she was doing when she said, “He will be impeached forever.” Trump’s name will be listed forever in the history books with Johnson, Nixon and Clinton as having been impeached—all associated with wrong doing. When a very large segment of the population was so ignorant of the Constitution that they wondered why Trump was still president the day after being impeached by the House, the same will be so in the future. Ignorance rules. Impeachment means accused, not tried. Pelosi could not have done anything more harmful to Trump’s reputation with generations yet unborn and she knew it. Her name will be forgotten in the dust heap of history but Trump’s never will, primarily because of her.
Trump’s name has been defamed although no crime can actually be identified and certainly not one listed in the Constitution as impeachable. Trump can’t sue to recover it. He can never remove this defamation— acquittal only partially helps. This may be the best case in American history when the accused was not allowed to face his accuser in direct violation of the 5th Amendment requiring it.
Yet the individual most responsible for having placed this stain on Donald Trump walks the streets having irreparably hurt another but himself protected from disclosure because he called himself a whistleblower, although in no way does he fit the definition of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act, and thus is not entitled to special protection. Without his complaint, based entirely upon hearsay as were 16 of the 18 House witnesses, the impeachment would have never resulted. He was billed by Adam Schiff as their strongest case but was disarmed when Trump declassified and published his conversation with the Ukrainian President.
Notice Senator Paul’s question did not use the term whistleblower. Said differently, “Congressman Schiff, how do you respond to reports that your employee and his friend Ciaramella, from a shared previous post in the NSC, worked together to plot the whistleblower leak to push the House into this impeachment charade before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?” And, “In refusing to identify the person you first brought to the public’s attention as key to the need of impeachment are you not hiding your connection as a fact witness in this plot to unseat an elected president?”
Chief Justice John Roberts without explanation, announced: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.” He did the same with a second and similar Paul question the next day. A presumption is that it contained the name of the so-called whistleblower. But how could he assume this—not from the question—unless this name was already DC common knowledge. In a town known for leaking like a sieve, it was. Only the public is denied knowing.
So John Roberts, by refusing only this question of a hundred, indirectly gave credence that one of the two names Senator Paul was asking Schiff about was the whistle-leaker. Since everyone already knew Shawn Misdo as a Schiff employee, then Eric Ciaramella is the man most responsible for the impeachment of Trump and the name forbidden by the Democratic Party media machine to name.
No other name is mentioned as being the infamous whistle leaker. The Internet is full of references to him some more credible than others. Real Clear Investigations observes that Ciaramella’s name has been an open secret in Washington D.C. His lawyers Mark S. Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj refuse to confirm or deny that he is. According to The Washington Post, the whistleblower is still working at the CIA, but has been provided security. Q followers identified him last September. He has been named by Rush Limbaugh, Eric Trump, and Rand Paul.
The Washington Examiner established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the NSC at the White House during the Obama administration working as point man on Ukraine issues with Vice President Joe Biden traveling with him to Ukraine on Air Force Two at least one of the six visits Biden made to Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked under leaker James Clapper.
It is time to reveal the name outside the DC beltway, of the one person that started the most recent of several impeachment parades, Eric Ciaramella. We insist that he be investigated thoroughly as an accomplice in the Biden Quid Pro Quo and as an accomplice with Adam Schiff in the Ukranian Hoax Coup to replace a president of the United States.
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.
Feb 3, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Although no president has been removed from office through impeachment conviction what would happen were Donald J. Trump the first? The Constitution is clear. He would be removed from office immediately and forbidden “to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” again. As a private citizen, without privilege due to executive office, he would be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.” If the crime were serious enough he could go to prison like anyone else.
Vice President Mike Pence would be sworn into office as the 46th president. He would finish the Trump term and run for president in 2020. He would need to move fast. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution requires him to nominate a new vice president “who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.”
Should Pence die, through natural causes or otherwise, prior to this confirmation vote, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would be sworn into office as the 47th president of the United States and she would finish the Trump/Pence term and run for president in 2020. She would also immediately nominate a new vice president who would take office when confirmed by the majority in both Houses. The Democrats would have retrieved the White House without a popular or Electoral College vote.
Why is Adam Schiff, and others, allowed to lie without consequence? Yes, Schiff has a real problem with the truth. The Constitution is designed to protect him with good reason. If he is removed his congressional district is denied their choice of voice in the House of Representatives. Excepting “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace” (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1), he and all Congressmen and Senators, are “privileged from Arrest during Attendance in the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same,” and, this is important, “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Be grateful for this. It works both ways. Our lawmakers are free to express themselves without fear of any government retaliation, all information is free to get out.
That said, it is also true that most tire quickly of the lies or offensive behavior of those who cannot restrain themselves and cease empowering them with their support—notice the lack of interest in the impeachment proceedings. In an informed and vibrant elective such is challenged in the next election and a better option forwarded to take his place. The Constitutional process cleans out such. Granted in some districts constituents are not informed or vibrant and such remain in office forever. Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi districts come to mind in addition to Adam Schiff.
But the Constitution deals with that too when extreme. “Each House may …. punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” The Constitution did not anticipate political parties and far too many vote by party, regardless of what their candidates do or say. As a result this check on lying or inappropriate behavior is largely tolerated because of political party.
So why shouldn’t the Senate have ANY additional witnesses beyond the 18 that already testified? (Yes 18! Schiff refuses to release the transcript of Michael Adkinson # 18, presumably it defends Trump.) Because it severely muddies the Constitution which is very clear that the House investigates and the Senate evaluates. The House, is supposed to fully investigate and cite the impeachable offenses BEFORE they vote. The Senate is not to do the work of the House as both bodies would do the same thing. It cannot call new witnesses but it could recall a witness previously called by the House if some point in their previous testimony needed clarification or having Adkinson testify again. Their call for new witnesses strongly suggests that they are still looking for a crime. Nor can the Senate add a new impeachable offense should a new witness, such as John Bolton, give them such.
The Mitt Romney’s in the Senate and the Democrats insisting upon additional witnesses would create a precedent for doing the work of the other body and forever searching for a crime that does not exist. The present clarity of the Constitution would be undermined. Both groups demonstrate constitutional illiteracy.
Why aren’t Obstruction of Justice and Obstruction of Congress impeachable offenses? Four reasons: 1) both are too vague therefore subject to varied interpretation and varied application, 2) most previous presidents did both, 3) neither is a crime, and 4) neither is in the class of High Crimes such as Treason or bribery. Even Quid-Pro-Quo, if proved, is not a crime or an impeachable offense. Actually obstruction of Congress is a legitimate separation of powers function of the Executive Branch.
The Constitution is non-partisan. The bar for impeachable offenses was made high and uncommon so that presidents had some immunity from mere disagreements. If Trump is removed from office for anything presently cited by the House, it would weaken future presidents to the point that they would not dare oppose or offend the majority in the House lest they have to spend most of their time warding off frivolous and multiple impeachment inquiries.
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.
Jan 27, 2020 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We just signed phase one of a trade deal with China but perhaps we should not have. China is an enemy to freedom and religion.
In China religion is a competing ideology which the government does not tolerate because they see it as a threat to their socialism. We shared in a recent column what their solution has been for the Falun Gong and house Christians (those worshiping in their own homes without required government permission and supervision). Strong documentation show these as being held in detention and killed on demand for body parts primarily for Chinas elite and the Western world. The world has noticed that in Australia it may take up to seven years to get a kidney, in China two weeks. This has to be the most vile human rights practice on earth.
What they do to their Muslim population is as bad, perhaps worse. Muslims in China are known as Uighurs (pronounced we-goors) and are also routinely incarcerated indefinitely (forever) for their faith, but there is a big difference. Their wives become fair game and reward to communist single men.
For decades China has limited family size to one child. Most couples preferred a male child because they are likely to get better financial support in their old age, thus aborting female fetuses are far more common than males. This has, over time, resulted in hundreds of thousands of males having no hope of a wife.
Enter the Chinese “Muslim problem,” if up to a million and a half Muslim husbands are incarcerated indefinitely why not make their wives a reward for loyalty to Communist males without hope of a wife because women are disproportionally fewer than men? They call their new program, “Pair Up and Become Family.”
Imagine your husband being arrested by the government for his religious beliefs, incarcerated indefinitely in a far-a-way concentration camp subject to harsh torture and constant brainwashing in opposition to his religious beliefs. You are left alone or with one child to fend for yourself, presumably for life, and constantly monitored for forbidden expressions of religious thought or activity as well. That government forces you to accept potentially one of your husband’s captors to live with you against your will sharing your own bed. Is there any governmental practice more demonic?
This is what is happening to perhaps-more than a million Uighur wives in China today. This prevents any intimate combinations with other Uighur men and effectively, over a single generation, destroys the Muslim religion in China.
The program requires Uighur wives to “invite” the government into their home to monitor them , to provide the government “information about their lives and political views, and comply with political indoctrination” (Chris Baynes, “Muslim women ‘forced to share beds’ with male Chinese officials after husbands detained in internment camps,” The Independent, Nov. 5, 2019). According to Radio Free Asia (RFA) these spies spend one week of every two months working, eating, and otherwise living with the family, including bedding with the wife. They “talk to them about life, during which time they develop feeling for one another,” reported one Communist party officer to RFA. These spies are called by the government “relatives.”
Of course, the socialist government first denied any live-in program existed with the wives of incarcerated husbands but after the evidence was too compelling to rebuff, they admitted, but denied any wrong doing on these visits. Still, these women are not given any other option. To whom would she report her rape? “When asked whether any families have spoken out against male officials staying at their homes,” replacing the husband they incarcerated, an official said that on the contrary, “they are very keen, and offer them whatever they have.” No evidence suggests that these women can refuse these forced live-in relationships.
Reports from afflicted families “suggest that Uighurs who protest hosting ‘relatives’ as part of the Pair Up and Become Family program, or refuse to take part in study sessions or other activities with the officials in their homes, are subject to additional restrictions or could face detention in the camp system” (Radio Free Asia, Oct. 31, 2019).
The Associated Press interviewed Uighurs living abroad who reported that their relatives in China were constantly “on edge in their own homes, knowing that any misstep – a misplaced Quran, a careless word” an item of religious clothing or symbol picked up by the government spies living with them “could lead to detention or worse” (Adam Withnall, “Around 1 million Uighurs are being held in secretive internment camps across the Xinjiang province,” The Independent, Nov. 30, 1018). Often the “relative” brings “alcohol and meat that includes pork, and expect family members to consume them, against the principles of ‘halal’ that govern what Muslims can eat and drink” (RFA, Oct. 10,2019). They feel forced to partake so that something worse does not happen to them.
Providing organs on demand from religious groups and incarcerating the husband and encouraging their captors, the loyal socialist males, to sleep with their wives has to be the most demonic governing policies known to civilized society. We must lead the nations of the world in cutting off trade with this evil empire so long as they continue these practices. Again China is the enemy of freedom and religion.
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.
Jan 20, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We live under two political systems: one centered on foreign affairs, the other primarily domestic. It’s called Federalism—the two share power. Neither subservient or above the other and each with separate duties. Like a good marriage, a team.
Thomas Jefferson explained, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
The Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure the fire does not spread and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire contained. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which lists all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. The states who created the federal government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” at the turn of the century because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States look to sister states for models and borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? We would have had “brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed federal government refrained from its natural inclination to take more power, healthcare reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area of healthcare. Instead, they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all and called it Obamacare.
Since healthcare was, and is not yet, a listed authority of the federal government it necessitates an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring ratification by “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60% of the people did not want this, the Constitution would have protected us from what we know now was unsustainable.
To protect Federalism the Founders did two things. First, Senators were to be selected by state legislatures so the U. S. Senate would be protective of state concerns. All law required the approval of the House of Representatives—the peoples’ representatives—and the Senate—the states’ representatives. That is why we have two branches of government to make law—two perspectives. The Seventeenth Amendment, mandating that the people, rather than the state legislators, elect U. S. Senators, destroyed this protection. Senators are today simply glorified House members. State issues thereafter were left mostly unrepresented—thus unprotected—on the federal level.
Second, the structure of the U. S. Constitution listed and defined federal power Article I, Section 8, leaving all power not specifically listed with the states as per the 10th Amendment. “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.”
The Progressive (socialist) Movement of the early 20th Century wrecked havoc on Federalism. The 16th Amendment, removing the previous constitutional taxing requirements based upon “apportionment among the several States “ and “census or enumeration,” to simply incomes, which could be raised arbitrarily at will. This left the federal government with unlimited resources to spend and expand—feeding its natural tendency to grow.
It used this excess to bribe states, counties, and cities to perform functions not listed in the Constitution, like the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit of the Ford and Carter Administrations, which funding later could be denied if states refused to comply. Consequently states became addicted to federal money making it near impossible for them to “just say no” to federal takeover in their domestic dominion. A third of their resources come from the federal government.
Federal courts have amplified federal law by a twisted interpretation of the poorly constructed Amendment 14, also to the detriment of Federalism. Amendment 18, repealed by Amendment 21, openly invited the federal government to decide approved beverages for us and then from there to approved drugs; all matters constitutionally left entirely to state jurisdiction.
Failure to preserve Federalism has cost us much liberty, most notably limited government. Lawmakers totally ignore both the listed areas of government (Article I, Sec. 8) and Amendment 10. State legislators have no influence in the U.S. Senate, once designed to protect them. States are bribed into compliance and now are addicted to federal handouts. They have become mostly administrative agents of the federal government without immunity to federal intrusion nor will to use nullification to block unconstitutional law. And we are excessively taxed.
We do not need an Article V constitutional convention to restore Federalism, just more lawmakers who understand the Constitution as written and will adhere to it, especially in the areas specified above. Now is the time to find and elevate them.
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.
Jan 13, 2020 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Most understand that socialism conquered its first country, Russia, in 1917 under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin and has always been a revolutionary doctrine never content to allow any people to choose another way. Eighteen months later it was organized to do the same in America. Yes, colluding with Russia has been a part of our history for over 100 years but it has been the Socialists who colluded. We see three times in the 20th Century when its imprint was most evident: after World War I, after World War II and during theVietnam War. Space permits only a brief summation of each.
“It was in 1919 that a majority of the membership of the Socialist Party of the United States voted to join the Comintern, established by the Bolsheviks.” It was August 31, that splinter socialist groups formed the Communist Labor Party of America under the leadership of John Reed and Benjamin Gitlow. They quickly attached themselves to labor unions especially the International Workers of the World (IWW) famous for its use of sabotage and violence in protesting World War I.
Allegiance to The 21 Conditions of the Russian Comintern was required for membership so those joining were loyal to the Bolshevik Revolution and its ideology above our own government. One of these 21 conditions read: “Every party wishing to belong to the Communist International must systematically and persistently develop a Communist agitation within the trade unions.” Iron discipline and periodic cleansing rid them of the less revolutionary.
Any enemy of the Soviet Republic was their enemy. They understood that propaganda was their main weapon and it was to be used in spreading the communist ideology and eventually overthrowing the U.S. government (Steve Byas, “Communist Part USA Is 100 Year Old This Year,” New American, May 20, 2019).
When Lenin encouraged world revolution in 1919, loyal Communists went to work everywhere. In America they called for labor union strikes across the nation “urging the workers to rise up against the government of the United States.” Some 2,600 strikes resulted with over 6,000 arrested. These were accompanied by a wave of bombings, some 36 bombs mailed to prominent politicians in April 1919 alone (“Send Death Bombs to 36 U.S. Leaders” Chicago Tribune, May 1, 1919). In June another 8 bombs, of 25 pounds of dynamite each, was sent to mostly prominent government officials (Wreck Judge Nott’s Home, The New York Times, June 3, 1919). In 1920 “a wagonload of explosives was detonated on Wall Street, killing 38 people and injuring 200 others” (Byas). Attorney General Mitchell Palmer’s own home was bombed twice.
Most history textbooks undermine these events and villainize Palmer omitting that the raids were conducted under the authority of numerous states as well as the federal government. The Constitution defines treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemy which does allow the death sentence. In kindness many found guilty were offered one-way transportation to Russia on the Buford, the ship nicknamed the “Soviet Ark.” Many chose to go there. The only death sentences given for the sabotage and violence of the Red Scare was to radicals Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti and that for the murders of Frederick Parmenter and Alessandro Berardelli.—not for their political affiliation.
The Great Depression brought the nation to its knees and the Socialist’s, modeling the Russian led USSR, openly planned conquest. William Z. Foster, head of the Communist Party USA, in his book “Toward Soviet America” wrote of what “the American Soviet government” would look like. It would nationalize education, “The studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxist dialectical materialism, internationalism.” All religious schools and churches would be abolished. God would be banished and all property collectivized (Byas). So much of what he advocated then has been implemented under socialism and liberalism.
With a philosophy mirroring Socialist Russia, America was awash with spies for the Kremlin. Benjamin Gitlow, who defected from the Communist Labor Party of America he co-founded, confided, “The Communist Party of the United States is proud of the spies it has supplied to the Soviet government out of its own ranks” (Byas). Remember it was socialists Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who passed atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union for which they were executed in 1953. Communist State Department, wonder boy, Alger Hiss, also passed atomic secrets to Russia, played a major role in communist victories under Franklin Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference, and became acting secretary-general of the UN in 1945, among other things.
The third major attempt to communize, thus overthrow our system of government, was during the Vietnam War. I have in my possession hundreds of Senate and House Hearings of American socialists colluding with Russia. So prevalent was the problem that U.S. News and World Report published “Communism and the New Left,” in 1970 with chapters on how Socialists exploited war, blacks, disorder, youth, and labor. A favorite chapter is “Spying for Russia.” We lost the Vietnam War primarily because of the Socialist enemy within America. Consequently
South Vietnam and Cambodia were turned over to the communists.
Also in my possession is at least a hundred books about U.S. Socialists colluding with Russia. It is a very old story.
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.
Jan 6, 2020 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Four years ago Newsweek reported in a powerful article “CHINA FORCES ITS POLITICAL PRISONERS TO SELL BODY PARTS,” but little has been printed in American news outlets since. So what did they report and can it still be confirmed?
They reported, “Dozens of highly respected investigators, scholars and government officials around the world claim the Chinese government is harvesting organs from groups considered to be political or cultural enemies of the regime currently in power.” It identified “members of Christian house churches, Tibetans and especially followers of Falun Gong, an outlawed peaceful Chinese religious movement created in 1992” as being “forced into “organ harvesting since the 1990’s.” These groups, already incarcerated, have become the government’s secret source “to fill the growing demand for organs and to provide ‘organ tourists’ from Western nations with potentially life-saving treatments.”
Newsweek reported that the practice on death row prisoners was widely known, practiced, and admitted to by Chinese authorities but it has since escalated. “Sometimes the ‘donor’ has still been alive during this process—the organ-removal process is what actually kills them.” The victims are merely prisoners of conscience taken mostly from religious groups. The Chinese government in December 2014 announced its discontinuance, unfortunately, “data show organ donations in China have actually increased, which seems extremely unlikely if the practice has truly ceased,” Newsweek reported Feb. 1, 2016.
Most of what Newsweek boldly printed had been confirmed September 12, 2012 by the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2012 in their “Chinese Communist Party Organ Harvesting of Religious and Political Dissidents” Hearing. Such was also confirmed by the European Parliament in 2013,
Then issue silence for almost four years; finally the Australian paper, The Sydney Morning Herald broke the silence Nov. 9, 2019, with an article, “Crimes against humanity: is China killing political prisoners for their organs?” by Tim Elliott. It documented the creation of the China Tribunal in London by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China. This body headed by a seven-person panel and chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice investigated the stream of documentation flowing out of China.
Its exhaustive 12 month inquiry “examined thousands of pages of submissions, including previous investigations and academic papers, internal Chinese medical records, and reports from Amnesty International, independent watchdog group Freedom House and the United Nations Committee Against Torture. It reviewed undercover video footage taken inside Chinese hospitals, covert telephone recordings with Chinese transplant surgeons, and heard from 50 witnesses, some of whom appeared in person and others via video link, from France, Canada, the US, Japan, Australia, Turkey and Korea.”
It confirmed, in its 60 page summary report released June 2019, everything that Newsweek, The House Committee and the European Union had shared, but instead of ending in 2014, as the Chinese government promised, it vastly accelerated. “It found that official transplant statistics in China are routinely falsified, and that instead of performing 10,000 operations as claimed, the real figure is between 60,000 and 90,000 a year. It found that the main source of these organs were Falun Gong, but that Uighurs, a mostly Muslim minority – up to 1.5 million of whom are incarcerated in China – were at risk of becoming the next ‘organ bank’.”
It also established “that illicit organ transplants had become a lucrative industry in China, directed by the state and enabled by the military.” The China Tribunal “accused the People’s Republic of China of having committed mass murder, and warned that governments or any other bodies that engaged with it in any substantial way ‘should now recognize that they are interacting with a criminal state’.”
One highly disturbing new finding from Tribunal testimony was the concept of “incomplete executed” prisoners. This “often via a gunshot to the right side of the chest, is not uncommon, the purpose being to maintain blood circulation to the organs,” presumably to enhance viability of healthy extraction. Some witnesses “recounted how they had been told by guards that they would be killed for their organs; how guards referred to Falun Gong prisoners as “merchandise”; and that they were “being kept as spare goods”.
The China Tribunal Report, as summarized by The Sidney Morning Herald, revealed that China did not have a volunteer organ donor program until 2013, largely because the “Chinese people have a cultural aversion to organ donation, owing to a traditional belief that the body must be buried intact.” The Red Cross in Beijing in 2015, “didn’t even have a donor office and hadn’t arranged a single case of organ donation.” Yet, “there seemed to be an endless supply of organs.”
The Report wrote about the difficulty in free countries of voluntarily obtaining the volume of organs needed. “In the UK, the average waiting time for a liver transplant is 135 days. In Australia, people needing a kidney can wait between five and seven years. Waiting times in China, meanwhile, can be as little as two weeks” says Fiatarone Singh from the University of Sydney. “Booking in a transplant … is impossible in a normal, voluntary organ donor system,….There is only one way you can do this, and that is where you have an organ bank – a large group of people who are being held in detention and killed on demand.”
The documentation confirms that Communist China offers organ replacement on demand and uses unfavored religious groups as its donor bank—a crime against humanity.
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.
