Feb 27, 2020 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Voters might be confused by the difference between a caucus and a primary, each state offering one or the other to find the right contenders for the general election in November. We treat both.
In a caucus state such as Utah there is protection from the “drive-by” voter. Neighbors gather and select from themselves those who have earned their respect. These spend whatever time is necessary at candidate activities, visiting with candidates and reading their literature to decipher between the candidates before voting. Citizens accept that all voters cannot devote such time and energy in the effort. Each of 2,235 precincts in Utah choose from one to five state delegates to differentiate between state candidates and thousands more to do the same for county candidates. Thousands of state delegates, at their own expense, meet in the Salt Lake City area and county delegates somewhere in their county the following month.
In that 30-day time period before a vote is cast candidates seek to impress these selected delegates with their credentials for the office wanted and delegates can meet with and ask probing questions. This is a far better vetting process than voting based on sound-bytes and hunches.
With respect to issues, caucus delegate voters are far more informed than the general public because the public selected them to probe. There exists no public acclaim for delegates. They have to take off work with no compensation for meals and/or travel for a weekend. They do it to ensure liberty.
In a primary state the overriding principle is that everyone should vote regardless of how informed or ill-informed one is. Candidates get on the ballot by collecting signatures. Television is the major—often the only—source of information for older voters and social media for younger voters. On the ballot candidates can submit a word statement, often a paragraph, promoting themselves, but rarely is enough given for voters to make an intelligent choice. This is the only free coverage allowed a candidate. Candidates seeking the office of judge rarely leave any information on the ballot from which to evaluate them. Many voters just guess.
In a primary voting choice may be but a whim. There exists nothing to protect us from the uninformed. One giving only 10 seconds of forethought may erase the vote of someone spending six months studying an issue or candidate. The whole system is an ignorance paradise.
In a primary the candidate “buys” the office. Serious candidates know that they must hire a campaign manager who develops campaign strategies, never gives specifics (if the campaign slogan cannot fit on a postage stamp it is too complex) and spends tens of thousands of dollars on media ads mostly defining the opponent as unfit. Of course, those who give large contributions expect access to the winner after the election so he/she mostly represents them.
In primary elections it is not a matter of how well informed, experienced or qualified one is. What is absolutely critical to winning is whom you hire to promote you. Money, not knowledge, is most important. The rest of the campaign you become a professional beggar asking everyone, always and endlessly to contribute to your campaign. Today candidates deliver their messages to special interest groups who can deliver votes and money. Far more time is spent asking for money than explaining views. Regular voters only know of a candidate by way of television, print or social media.
The following is representative. In the greater Bakersfield, CA area where I once resided, manager Mark Abernathy was the “king maker.” In a conversation with him he named virtually everyone holding public office in the area as his and boasted of his winning at least 90% of all elections the previous ten years. He usually ran several candidates for different offices simultaneously. Those he brought to power were expected to endorse his future candidates. Rarely did anyone beat the “Abernathy machine.” He is certainly a pleasant fellow, dedicated to his philosophy, and skilled and ruthless in the art of getting someone elected but at a hefty price. In a phone conversation with me he said, “I perceive that you do not have money,” meaning $100,000 or more. I agreed and he selected another candidate to support. Thus in 2010, I failed to secure a seat in the California State Legislature before a single vote was cast.
In a caucus no one “buys” the office as in primaries. Since candidates do not have to appeal to the less informed, only to delegates, much more interested in details over generalities, they normally do not have the vast expenditures of money needed in a primary election. A candidate with modest means can compete for any state or federal office, which is far more democratic than in a state utilizing the primary system for selecting candidates. The representatives of the people choose their leaders rather than “king makers” as in primaries. Candidates can put priority on issues rather than on fund raising and appealing to the moneyed class.
Unfortunately many seek to replace the caucus with a “drive- by” California-type primary bypassing the caucus and getting on the ballot by signatures. If your state is fortunate enough to have one do not sign any petition to place any candidate on a ballot. It destroys the caucus.
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 25, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most hold that since Richard M. Nixon resigned from office as President before the full House of Representatives could vote on the articles of impeachment, he therefore was not impeached. But they omit the House vote 12 days after he resigned.
There were two votes on impeachment by the full House of Representatives. The first on February 6, 1974, was a vote 410 for and 4 against, authorizing impeachment proceedings against Nixon which allowed the House Judiciary Committee to begin the formal inquiry. Talk of such had preceded this vote for several months. Thereafter, following six months of House inquiry that did not go well for Nixon, he resigned August 8, 1974 before the full House voted to actually impeach him based on the findings of their Judiciary Committee. So technically Nixon was not impeached. Although accused, which is what impeachment is, in the public mind there was no reason to proceed as removal from office was accomplished by Nixon’s resignation
But wait, that was not the view of the House of Representatives as a second vote was cast TO GIVE FINALITY TO THE LONG INQUIRY PROCESS. It followed twelve days later complete with a 528-paged report. Wikipedia reports: “On August 20, the House voted to accept the final Judiciary Committee report by a vote of 412 to 3, with Republican Earl Landgrebe, plus Democrats Otto Passman and Sonny Montgomery casting the only no votes. The 528‐page report, published on August 22, laid out in detail what it called the “clear and convincing evidence” against Nixon. It also contained a statement from the committee’s Republican members who had originally opposed impeachment, stating for the record that Nixon had not been ‘hounded from office’ but rather had destroyed his own presidency through his patterns of deceit.”
The second vote occurred after the months-long House inquiry and was the final vote of the House of Representatives—no different than any other House vote on impeachment except that Nixon had already resigned. So Richard Nixon was impeached, meaning charged, just as Andrew Johnson before him and those after.
Donald Trump, was not impeached by the House for a month after their vote as they refused to give finality to their work by passing their demand for a trial to the Senate. They had, in effect, dropped the charges. This, of course, subsequently changed when House Managers took their charges to the Senate and Trump, now impeached by the House, was acquitted by the Senate.
With Nixon they had not finished their work because the full House had not voted, that happened August 20, 1974 after his resignation. In this case, there was no need to try Nixon on the accusations in the Senate as he had already accomplished what a Senate conviction would, his removal from office.
So why are so many still ignorant of the Nixon impeachment vote—even college professors? Primarily because with Nixon removing himself the issue went away and the nation, so hurt by the Watergate Scandal, wanted to forget. Consequently The New York Times covered (buried) this previously headlined story on page 22.
It read: “Without a trace of fanfare or drama and without a word of debate, the impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives formally ended today. It ended as it had begun 10 months ago. First, there was a private agreement among leaders of both parties about how to proceed. Then, the action was taken in the tried and true parliamentary language that the House uses day after day to conduct routine business.
“At 1:50 P.M., Representative Peter W. Rodino Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rose on the House floor and announced, ‘Mr. Speaker, I submit a privileged report pursuant to House Resolution 803.’ That resolution had given the committee the right to act as an agent of the House, with all of the House’s constitutional authority, in investigating whether. former, President Richard M. Nixon should be impeached. The Speaker of the House, Representative Carl Albert, responded in the same words and the same barely audible voice that he has used hundreds of other times when committee chairmen filed routine reports….
“But this report is not routine,” The NY Times continued, “Running about 200,000 words, it sets out the evidence that the Judiciary Committee found warranted Mr. Nixon’s impeachment, and removal from office. Had Mr. Nixon not resigned, this document would have formed the basis for the first House impeachment debate in more than a century….
“It is Important,” Representative Robert W. Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, a ranking Democrat on the committee, said afterward, and this is a major point, that “the impeachment matter not seem unresolved. Representative Thomas P. O’Neill Jr. of Massachusetts, the Democratic leader, offered a resolution commending the judiciary committee for its work and accepting its report.
“Representative John J. Rhodes of Arizona, the, Republican leader, took the necessary parliamentary step of demanding a second, and, without debate, the resolution was approved by a vote of 412 to 3” (House Formally Concludes Inquiry Into Impeachment,” by David E. Rosenbaum, New York Times,Aug. 21, 1974, p. 22).
So Nixon was impeached by a vote of 412 to 3. The populous can be excused for their ignorance but college professors, facts checking services, news reporters, journalists and historians cannot.
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 17, 2020 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
For over a century and a half, until 1934, the Indian account of George Washington’s divine protection in the Battle of Monongahela in the French and Indian War was standard in our history textbooks until removed, presumably by those skeptical or dismissive of God’s intervention in the affairs of man. Today few Americans know of it as those in the above category and the enemies of the Republic seek to belittle our Founders. We celebrate the birthday of George Washington February 22, by returning our attention to this miraculous event.
In the French and Indian War 1,400 British troops marched over the Appalachian Mountains to seize French Fort Duquesne, near present-day Pittsburgh. Col. George Washington, then 23, took the rear of General Edward Braddock’s army mostly because he considered American soldiers inferior. Problem was, the European style of warfare was to march into a clearing facing an opponent who did the same: stop, load and fire never breaking rank—the British in bright red uniforms, made perfect targets. Hiding behind trees or rocks was considered cowardly.
Both Indians and Americans considered this warfare style suicidal but Washington, who had warned the general of this, had to obey orders. On July 9, 1755, the Battle of Monongahela began when Braddock passed through a ravine and an army half his size, hiding behind boulders and trees, annihilated him. Officers were mounted targets. Washington rode back and forth on the line through a hail storm of musket balls delivering Braddock’s orders as he was the only officer still on horseback. He could not take command until the wounded Braddock was carried from the field. Unfortunately the three-hour ambush left 976 casualties before Washington could save what was left. A British soldier recorded, “I expected every moment to see him fall. Nothing but the superintending care of Providence could have saved him” (David Barton The Bulletproof George Washington, WallBuilders Press, 2003).
Surrounded by slaughter, the British Regulars “broke and run as Sheep pursued by dogs,” Washington later wrote. His Virginia Militia continued to die attempting to aid the fleeing British. The pursuing Indians were slowed only by their thirst for battlefield scalps and booty. Of his approximately 100 volunteers “their is scarce 30 Men left alive.” Washington was angry, “the dastardly behaviour of thos⟨e⟩ they call regular’s, exposd all other’s that were inclind to do their duty to almost certain death.”
The first miracle of the battle was that Washington was everywhere in it although extremely ill. “I was scarcely able to do, as I was not half recovered from a violent illness that had, confin’d me to my Bed, and a Waggon, for about 10 Days; I am still in a weak and Feeble condn,” he later wrote his mother Mary telling her that he needed another two or three days to recover a “little Strength” just to start his journey home but expected many weeks yet to recuperate fully (Mackellar maps in Pargellis, Military Affairs in North America, pp. 114–15).
When safely at Fort Cumberland, Washington wrote his younger brother John Augustine Washington, July 18, 1755, “By the All-Powerful Dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!” Washington wrote the same to his mother Mary Ball Washington.
Fifteen years later, Washington and Dr. Craik, a personal physician and close friend, were traveling through those same woods near the Ohio river and Great Kanawha river. They were met by an old Indian chief, who addressed Washington through an interpreter with the following story.
“I am a chief and ruler over my tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the great lakes and to the far blue mountains. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. It was on the day when the white man’s blood mixed with the streams of our forests that I first beheld this Chief. I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe – he hath an Indian’s wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do – himself alone exposed. Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss – `twas all in vain, a power mightier far than we, shielded you.” One warrior declared: “I had seventeen fair fires at him with my rifle and after all could not bring him to the ground! Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you.”
Then his prophecy: “I am old and soon shall be gathered to the great council fire of my fathers in the land of shades, but ere I go, there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy: Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man and guides his destinies – he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle” (“The man who could not be killed,” George Washington Parke Curtis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington, Philadelphia, J.W. Bradley, 1859).
The Chief’s prophecy came true. Perhaps it is time to be less dismissive and more inclusive of the hand of God in the affairs of this nation.
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 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.
