Oct 7, 2019 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
“Our nation was founded on the idea that our rights do not come from government, but from God,” said Donald Trump, before the United Nations September 23, 2019. “Regrettably, the freedom enjoyed in America is rare in the world.” He explained that 80% of the world do not have freedom of religion and instead face religious persecution. “Today, with one clear voice, the U.S. calls on the nations of the world to end religious persecution,” Trump said. “As President, protecting religious freedom is one of my highest priorities, and always has been.
It was the strongest, indeed the only, real defense of religious freedom given by a U.S. president before this world body. It merits the accolades of all people.
“The United States of America calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution, to stop the crimes against prisoners of faith, to release prisoners of conscience,” Trump continued. “Too often people in positions of power preach diversity while silencing, shunning, or censoring the faithful,” Trump said. “True tolerance means respecting the right of all people to express their deeply held religious beliefs. I ask all nations to join us in this urgent moral duty.”
This was not a surprise to the religious community. Before the event, the White House issued a statement, “The President is working to broaden international support for ongoing efforts to protect religious freedom in the wake of increasing persecution of people on the basis of their beliefs and a growing number of attacks on and destruction of houses of worship by state and non-state actors.”
How serious is the danger to Christianity, said to be “by far the most persecuted” faith on the earth in an April 2019 study commissioned by the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office? Dede Laugesen, executive director of Save the Persecuted Christians (STPC) coalition, recently said, “More Christians have died for their faith over the last 100 years than in all prior centuries since Jesus’ time” (Troy Anderson, “A Dangerous Time to be a Christian,” New American, June 3, 2019).
He continued, “The main impact of such genocidal acts against Christians is exodus. Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped out in parts of the Middle East where its roots go back furthest. In Palestine, Christians number below 1.5 percent; in Syria the Christian population has declined from 1.7 million in 2011 to below 450,000 and in Iraq, Christian numbers have slumped from 1.5 million before 2003 to below 120,000 today.”
Open Doors, the lead organization assisting persecuted believers around the world, reported: The persecution of Christians includes being “beaten, tortured, beheaded, crucified, raped, imprisoned or enslaved.” Believers also face “losing their livelihoods, homes, and assets as a result of their faith.” They publish an annual World Watch List ranking the 50 countries “where it’s most dangerous to follow Jesus” and invite help in bringing religious oppression to a halt (Obtain report at Open Doors.Com).
Such is intensifying in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Indeed “each month, on average, 345 Christians are killed for faith-related reasons, 105 churches and Christian buildings are burned or attacked, and 219 Christians are detained without trial, arrested, sentenced, or imprisoned.”
Again, how serious is the danger to christianity, “Today, nearly a quarter billion Christians experience high levels of persecution in the countries on Open Door’s World Watch List.” This translates to “one in nine Christians experiences high levels of persecution.”
Religious oppression is not always government sponsored but when it is, oppression is amplified. Ironically a competing world religion, radical Islam, is credited with fueling much of the persecution. North Korea, a socialist atheist state with an estimated 50,000 Christians, is Open Door’s most oppressive nation followed in order by eight radical Islamic states: Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen and Iran. Such explains their “intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence.” Number ten is India with its Hindu nationalists, ironically another and competing world religion.
China, another socialist and primarily atheist state, has approximately 90 million Christians and is ranked 27 in the World Watch List. A vast majority of America’s Christmas trees, lights and decorations come from Chinese prison labor. China does not use these symbols. Christians already face required registration of their churches, and endure the jailing of their pastors and the closing and demolishing of their churches. The government now wants cameras in and outside their churches and are attempting to pre-“approve the theology and sermons of pastors.”
Thanks to Google, Chinese Christians face restrictions not yet in place in other countries, such as facial recognition and the government’s social credit score technologies. The latter “rates a person’s trustworthiness” [loyalty] from the collection of a person’s “finances [records], social-media activities, credit history, online purchases, health records, legal matters, tax payments, and the people they associate with—information gleaned from the nation’s hundreds of millions of surveillance cameras.” Higher scores give people privileges and lower scores the opposite. Christianity, considered a threat to socialism, is a detriment.
Sadly most Americans will never know of the Trump fight in the United Nations for religious liberty for the nations of the earth. Seemingly none of the many good things he does are covered by the establishment press. If this story is new to you, you should consider changing news sources.
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 30, 2019 | Economy, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Under the traditional definition of socialism that requires government ownership and distribution of the means of production, the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are not socialist as Democratic presidential contenders insist.
All are free market economies. None have government mandated minimum wage laws. These are set by unions. The Fraser Institute which ranks countries of the world on economic freedom based upon limited government, property rights, and sound money value, not socialist attributes, ranked Denmark 14, Finland 20, Norway 26 and Sweden 19. The United States was12. Socialist countries normally take the bottom of the 180 countries ranked (Economic Freedom of the World Index).
As to rankings with respect to the ease of doing business, all four countries ranked in the top 17 countries out of 191on the planet: (Denmark 3, Norway 7, Sweden 12 and Finland 17). The United States is ranked 8 (The World Bank, DoingBusiness Measuring Business Regulations). Socialist countries do not rank high on this index either.
Yes these countries, after becoming comparatively wealthy through the free market system at the end of the 19th Century and most of the 20th, did become welfare states in the 1970’s. As Nima Sanandaji, the Swedish author of Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism, wrote in 2015: “Many of the desirable features of Scandinavian societies, such as low income inequality, low levels of poverty and high levels of economic growth predated the development of the welfare state. These and other indicators began to deteriorate after the expansion of the welfare state and the increase in taxes to fund it” (Jim Geraghty, “Ten Reasons We Can’t, and Shouldn’t, Be Nordic,” National Review, March 12, 2018).
By the definition above defining socialism, it may be possible to be a welfare country without the government ownership of the means of production—the Nordic Model. But if they gather the wealth through confiscatory taxes and redistribute it through gift-giving to those who had not created the wealth, how can they escape the charge of socialism?
In the seventies the Swedish government “instituted a scheme to confiscate corporate profits and hand them over to labor union.” The socialist “golden years” of the next two decades “weren’t so golden for economic performance. Entrepreneurship plummeted. Job creation and wages sputtered” (Rich Lowry, “Sorry, Bernie — Scandinavia is no socialist paradise after all,” New York Post, Oct. 19, 2015). The Nordic model crushed startups and the growth of new companies. As of 2000, Johan Norberg wrote: “just one of the 50 biggest Swedish companies had been founded after 1970” (“Ten Reasons We Can’t, and Shouldn’t, Be Nordic”).
The Scandinavian story since the late eighties “has been a turn against socialism. Taxes have fallen and markets liberalized.” A backlash “against welfare dependency in Denmark” followed (“Sorry, Bernie — Scandinavia is no socialist paradise after all”).
In countries which already have wealth because of a free market philosophy, evidence of which is the existence of a the middle class which spawns economic equality for all who choose to work for it. They can afford the free college, healthcare, welfare and etc. so long as immigration, also wanting everything for free, is very limited.
These four countries, because of the presence of the free market socialists seek to destroy, apparently could afford to expanded their “free” offerings. Because they did, and entitlements and free stuff is a favorite lure for reeling in the industrialized world, made rich through the capitalist philosophy, socialists world-wide look to the “Nordic Model” to emulate. But socialists ignore how they got their wealth. This did not happen by nationalizing industries (like General Motors) and subsidizing favored ones (like Solyndra) as we did under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. So the lessons of the Scandinavian countries is to keep the government out of managing the economy—thus away from socialism.
While Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are pushing America to embrace socialism these four countries are pulling back from the free stuff philosophy. In the 1990’s Sweden adopted a universal school choice system “allowing families to use public funds, in the form of vouchers, to finance their child’s education at a private school, including schools run by the dreaded for-profit corporation” (Corey Iacono, “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism,” Foundation for Economic Education, February 25, 2016).
Nima Sanandaji, observed: “In recent years, they’ve tempered the damage of their big-government policies by scaling back their welfare states and setting limits on their fiscal burdens. Their governments have adopted more work incentives, lowered taxes and allowed for more flexibility when hiring and firing workers. They’ve opened their public schools and health care to more competition, and Sweden partially privatized its pension system. They may not be free market quite yet, but they’re no socialist—or even liberal—utopia, either” (Veronique De Rugy, “Does Socialism Work for Sweden? That’s the Wrong Question,” Reason, Sept. 1, 2016).
The welfare state is not sustainable over time, in any country in any time. Inevitably it will attract immigrants who also want the free stuff without having contributed to the foundation that made this possible before implemented, as had the Scandinavians. It is impossible to have open borders and a welfare state without eventually impoverishing all. This is what all the leading democratic presidential contenders offer in the election of 2020.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Sep 23, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph, D.
While many on the left are presently tripping over themselves to advance socialism in the United States, it might be well to remember that this philosophy has been responsible for more death than any other in world history. What are the numbers? It is hard to really know. Socialist and liberal organizations never disclose such and never support any objective research to know as it undermines their hope of “advancing” socialism in the United States.
Democratic Congressman Larry McDonald of Georgia entered into the Congressional Record April 2, 1979, p. E 1458, the numbers as reported by Figaro magazine Nov. 1978, as 143 million lives lost since 1917. It broke this number into categories. The human cost of communism in USSR, 1917 to 1959, under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin was 66,700,000, that of the USSR from 1959 to 1978 was 3,000,000 minimum, and that of China 1949 to 1978 at 63,784,000, all but two years under Mao Tse-tung. Another 2,923,700 Germans civilians were killed during expulsions of 1945 and1946.
Following World War II “freedom fighters” rose in resistance to socialism in East Berlin, Prague, Budapest and the Baltic states between 1945 and 1975 but the price was very heavy; 500,000 were slaughtered by the socialists. Death by socialism was experienced in communist aggression in Greece, Malaysia, Burma, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa and Latin America. The report attributed 3,500,000 deaths in these areas combined.
But the highest per capita deaths occurred in Cambodia where 2,500,000 of a total population of 7,000,000 were executed by socialist leader Pol Pot between 1975-1978. One of every three people did not have the right to live and died in the “killing fields,” their bones scattered throughout Cambodia.
Chairman Mao Tse-tung, a favorite of the American left, exterminated 1,176,000 his first year. Death by socialism did not let up after initial enemies were destroyed. “Fourteen million Chinese were eliminated in the first five years of Maoism.” He came to power in 1949 and died in 1976. He was the greatest mass murderer in human history at 63,000,000 followed, in order, by Joseph Stalin between 40,000,000 and 60,000,000, Adolf Hitler at 6,000,000 Jews and 5,000,000 other undesirables, 11 million Germans total, Nikita Khrushchev at 11,000,000 (starving his own Ukrainian people), Pol Pot at 2,500,000 and Vladimir Lenin at 1,861,568—all socialists. Perhaps Ghengis Khan could compete for third place. He is credited with 40 million but real documentation as to numbers is impossible to verify 800 years back.
These numbers, consistent with others at the time, vary as to how personally involved each dictator was in the killings. Hitler did not kill anyone but his policies resulted in the death of millions. Khrushchev’s 11 million are not attributed to him but to Stalin as he was working under his direction. Comparatively, Fidel Castro only killed 15,000 but most of these were firing squads at his direction.
Socialists and liberals prefer lower numbers and make the issue about accuracy of the numbers rather than socialism’s horrific death history. To appease them let us cut this horrifying number, 143 million murders due to socialism, in half. It remains horrific.
That Congressman Larry McDonald would share the numbers provided in Figaro magazine is interesting as he himself was also killed by socialism in the Korean 007 Airliner crash of 1983. All 269 passengers and crew were killed. Some believe socialist dictator Mikhail Gorbachev responsible. McDonald and Senator Jesse Helms, the two leading opponents of socialism in Congress at the time, were traveling together on the same plane from New York to Anchorage, Alaska to Seoul, Korea—a tempting soviet target. Finding a friend in Anchorage, Helms decided to take a second plane to Seoul leaving thereafter. He sent an aid to get McDonald, napping on the plane, to switch also but the aid decided not to awaken the Congressman leaving him to be yet another socialist casualty.
These figures do not cover death due to socialism the last 41 years mostly because of two factors. The first, the more violent nature of socialism has been rejected by most of the world as expressed by the fall of the Berlin Wall, and thereafter the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Still, there have been violent socialists revolutions in Nicaragua led by Daniel Ortega in the 1980’s, Ethiopia, Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990’s and more recently Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. Each have led to extreme economic hardship—even the people eating out of garbage cans—tyranny and death. Over 101,000 died in Bosnia, mainly Bosniaks, in the first example of ethnic cleansing since World War II.
The second, the United States maintains over 800 military bases throughout the world sufficient to deter any would be mass murders as seen in the 20th Century. We are the world’s policemen.
Tyranny lies at the heart of socialism ready to spring forth without warning to its most violent form. The Constitution, when followed, protects us from socialism. It recognizes natural law and individual rights and places limits on the government. Under socialism no such protection from total government exists. Once a society believes that the wealth of their neighbor belongs to them, it will never be expunged. We are close. If the United States falls to socialism who will protect us and the world from it? No one!!!
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
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.
