Nov 11, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In listening to the 2020 Democratic Presidential debates or President Donald Trump’s many addresses to the American people, you would not know that we have exceeded 23 trillion dollars in debt and that to liquidate this debt $186,577 per taxpayer is due immediately (see, https://www.usdebtclock.org/). America cannot pay its existing bills.
Four trillion of this debt is from eight years of George W. Bush and nine from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone doubled the national debt and accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together. The major reason is government gifting to buy elections. Each election year more freebies are offered.
In the second democratic presidential debate held in Miami, June 28, 2019, Free healthcare . In other words, anyone in the world who comes to this continent and crosses our border, although it is against the law to do so, will be given free healthcare thereafter paid for by the American taxpayer. This one freebie, by itself, would bankrupt America, let alone free college and all the rest they have promised.
In late October, 2019, presidential front-runner Elizabeth Warren, released her Medicare For All plan. Its cost, 52 trillion dollars over ten years No such assets exist.
Democrats want everything free or subsidized— healthcare, housing, food, even free college. They can’t give away enough. Where will all that money come from?
So what is a trillion dollars? To begin with a trillion is the number one followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.
One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon . If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $9 trillion, would reach the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $23 trillion in debt today would take you to the moon and back almost four times (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009).
Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (Ibid).
I ask students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” “Go without!!!?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their share to liquidate this debt is $186,577 per taxpayer —due immediately. (see USDebtClock.org), they get angry. Someone should have told them that government handouts are not free.
The 13th Amendment ending slavery has been rescinded, they are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children to have them. Worse, the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in U.S. History?
The favored method to deal with this problem is print more fiat money. But expanding the money supply just reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My Camaro bought new in 1968 cost $ 2,700. Had I instead put the money under a mattress and tried to purchase a Camaro today it would cost more than ten times that much. In this instance money has lost 90% of its value since 1968 Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as if a thief had lifted their wallet or purse. Those on pensions cannot receive a raise to compensate for the value loss caused by their own government.
The last president to fully pay for his government was Warren G. Harding in 1922. Thereafter all presidents added to the debt by spending more than they received. Deficits from Ronald Reagan on exceeded a trillion or more (US Debt by President by Dollar and Percentage Who Increased the U.S. Debt the Most? Depends on How You Measure It. By Kimberly Amadeo Updated November 04, 2019).
We print whatever money we want to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we have imposed upon our children and grandchildren. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked atop one another can go to the moon and back almost four times, or that pensions loose their value, or that we haven’t fully paid our debts in 98 years, so long as the government fills our stomachs and the new slaves pay for it.
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.
Nov 4, 2019 | Healthcare, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Last January 2019, Americans were stunned when they heard Virginia Lt. Governor Ralph Northam (D-Va.) ex-physician casually infer infanticide after a botched abortion. After birth, he said, "the infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.” Until that moment few thought abortion could degenerate to infanticide.
But infanticide is back on the front lines in the weeks-long trial of pro-life journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). They are charged with filming casual conversations of Planned Parenthood practicers in the Summer of 2015, without their permission, regarding the selling of aborted body parts. In it the desire to have the baby born with a heart beating is preferred. The two face 15 felony counts which, if convicted, could result in up to ten years in prison. Sadly, this story is mostly ignored by the national presses but LibertyUnderFire views it as a giant sign of national moral decay when a population is willing to accept infanticide at all. Many believe the wrong people are on trial.
Daleiden and Merritt argue that “California’s penal code, enacted under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, excludes any conversation that can be reasonably overheard or recorded.” (Brandon Showalter, “Daleiden hearing: Planned Parenthood staffer admits to supplying aborted body parts to broker,” Sept. 5, 2019) They also site Section 633.5 which “allows the covert taping of confidential information when collecting evidence of violent crimes.” To them abortion is a violent crime to the one being killed, more especially, babies with heartbeats outside the womb.
When fetuses are known to be for sale, measures are taken to preserve them in the best sellable condition possible. In one audio clip an “abortion consultant is heard saying that abortionists will dilate the cervix to get an intact baby if they know a researcher wants a whole body.” Another “shows a former medical director for Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles flippantly talking about prices of fetal remains while sipping wine and joking about wanting a ‘Lamborghini.’ She also spoke about adjusting abortion procedure technique to make it less ‘crunchy,’ therefore keeping baby body parts better intact” (Deborah Bunting, “Abortionist Testifies That Babies Likely Born Alive in Abortion to Harvest Their Body Parts for Sale,” Sept. 20, 2019).
But the most damning testimony came from Dr. Forrest Smith, an obstetrician gynecologist, admitting having performed at least 50,000 abortions over 25 years of practice. Called by the defense as an expert on the subject, he said that “not only did Daleiden's and Merritt's now-famous videos expose the gruesome truth about the abortion industry's trade in fetal body parts, but that things are even worse than they knew.”
Smith told the San Francisco court that “it is almost certain that some of the abortionists featured in the undercover videos deliberately altered abortion procedures in a way that both led to the birth of living babies with beating hearts, and put women at risk. The goal in these cases would be to obtain fresher, more intact organs.” Adding: “There’s no question in my mind that at least some of these fetuses were live births.”
One reason for such certainty was that the safest normal way to abort was to get in and out as quickly as possible. Changing procedures is risky to the mother. Normally one uses digoxin to stop the babies heart before abortion as that defines death. “The baby’s heart will continue to beat for six-and-a-half to seven minutes.” Most abortionists want to ensure that the baby is fully dead before extraction. Intentionally failing to use digoxin signals that they want the baby born live. Another is the over use of misoprostol which shortens delivery from three days to one by the enlargement of the cervix. This apparently is what Planned Parenthood was doing which is sometimes referred to as fetus falling or fetus expulsion—this often live.
Smith testified that “the proper standard of care for babies born alive during an abortion was to institute promptly all resuscitative care.” Adding, “If this was not done, the fetus dies by neglect.”
Dr. Therese Deisher, confirmed Smith’s testimony. “They want those babies coming out with beating hearts,” she said, adding that Smith’s testimony made it “very clear that this is intentional” (“Abortionist testifies at Daleiden hearing: ‘No question…some of these fetuses were live births,’” Sept. 18, 2019). Fetus expulsion is the easiest way to get a whole body intact and alive.
Why the importance of a beating heart to researchers? “The babies' hearts have to be harvested while still beating … as otherwise the organ would have no research value because once in ‘contracture,’ the heart's cells would no longer be capable of regenerative growth.” Institutions receiving beating hearts, like Stanford University, must immediately place them on a Langendorff perfusion machine to insure their continued beating ((Stephen Wynne, “Daleiden, Merritt trial reveals beating hearts cut from abortion survivors,” Oct. 11, 2019).
The trial is expected to continue through mid-November and the issue is not getting the coverage a “civilized” nation deserves. One thing is clear. Infanticide for profit, now more common place than imagined, would never have been tolerated by any generation in American history prior to our own.
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.
Oct 28, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Fallout from President Donald Trump’s pullout of 28 soldiers from Syria has brought globalist of both political parties to the front in opposition. Turkey used the pullout as an excuse to invade Syria in a centuries-old conflict between themselves and the Kurds who were paid heavily by the American taxpayer to help the United States round up the last remaining fragments of ISIS. With that done the rational for staying in Syria vaporized. Globalist networks did site as rational for withdrawal, Trump’s fulfilling a campaign promise to bring home American troops, but all networks, including Fox, failed to share the military industrial complex part of the story. This we share.
What Trump is about is the most massive change in American foreign policy in a hundred years. We will no longer fight, be wounded, die, and fund endless wars where we have little or no defensive interest. We will no longer serve as the policemen of the world or of the world governing United Nations. Globalists and globalism are out of power—at least in the Trump Administration.
This is the real reason for the three-year-long never-ending multiple impeachment attempts, started even before Trump’s inauguration. Why? Because this is the only president that could not be purchased, controlled, or at least managed, by Wall Street’s globalist special interest group, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
If this is new to readers, hundreds, including previous columns of this columnist, have documented this organization’s globalist aspirations and the power it has had in all elections and administrations since its founding in 1921. The extent of one’s ignorance of this organization demonstrates the power this largely secret combination has had over education, all national medias and government.
So what did the globalist establishment medias omit from the news? That war industries profit from war, thus love war—the same message that President Dwight D. Eisenhower shared in his final address as president, January 17, 1961, warning of the dangers of the military industrial complex.
Globalists, often called the establishment or the deep state, prefer world-wide open borders, the eventual transfer of all political power to international levels, and eventually world government. National sovereignty is their enemy—thus their hatred of Trump’s America first policy. Patriots prefer freedom from excessive government, independence from any governing entity other than Congress, patriotism, and today, the Constitution as written. The choice is uncannily similar to the that of Americans in 1776 — liberty.
Trump told reporters who slammed him “for abandoning the Kurds” by removing 28 soldiers manning the border between they and the Turks. “We don’t have to fight these endless wars. Were bringing them back home. That is what I won on.”
Then he identified the real issue, “Some people—whether you call it the military industrial complex—or beyond… would like me to stay …They want me to fight forever. They do very well [financially] fighting. That is what they want to do, fight. A lot of companies want to fight because they make their weapons based on fighting—not based on peace—and they take care of [employ] a lot of people.”
Trump explained, “I want to bring our soldiers back home. We are not a police force, we are a fighting force. We are the greatest fighting force ever. I spent 2 1/2 trillion dollars over the last almost three years rebuilding our military. When I took it over it was an absolute mess. It was totally depleted.” Now, he adds, “We have the most powerful nuclear base by far in the world. We have things that we never had before.”
Continuing, “We have a great modern military but that does not mean that we are going to waste it. It does not mean that we are going to deplete it like we did before with these crazy endless wars. So, Turkey and Syria will hopefully work it out between themselves. Hopefully ISIS [prisoners] will be guarded” because “Russia, Iran, Syria, and, to maybe a slightly lesser extent, Turkey, they all hate ISIS as much as we do. And, it is their part of the world. We are seven thousand miles away (emphasis added)” (MSNBC Press Release with Italian President Sergio Mattarella. October 16, 2019).
On the same day in a subsequent press conference Trump added more, “We were supposed to be there for 30 days. We stayed for 10 years and it is time for us to come home. We are not a policing agent and it is time for us to come home .… The plan is to get out of endless wars to bring our soldiers back home. They are not to be policing agents all over the world.”
Russia and China do not have troops in other countries he argued. How many countries have American troops? “We are in 90 countries all over the world policing. And frankly many of those countries, they don’t respect what we are doing. They don’t even like what we are doing and they don’t like us.” By not having a military presence in 90 countries we will save tremendous amounts of money, manpower, and lives.
Trump is returning American sovereignty to America and all globalists hate him for it. They will do anything to destroy him. This is what the globalist media outlets have not shared. This omission was intentional.
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.
Oct 21, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease Ph. D
The Constitution is presently used by both major political parties defending or opposing the House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump. Both argue their loyalty to it.
It reads: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5). The people place a president in power and their representatives—the House—alone initiates and formulates the charges for his possible removal. The “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” So one indicts, the other tries. Simple enough.
But formulating the charges does require a favorable vote of the FULL House,-not just a committee. Therein lies the rub. The House Intelligence Committee charged with finding a crime hasn’t yet found bribery, treason or any high crime, —the only impeachable offenses— but it “knows” one exists somewhere. During three years of a dozen or more attempts to impeach Trump charges crumbled from lack of documentation.
Probably the most profound statement made regarding impeachment was made by Democrat Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, presently engaged in impeaching Trump: “The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions” (144 Cong. Rec. HI 1786 daily ed. Dec. 18, 1998). This Nadler argued during the impeachment proceedings of Bill Clinton.
Using Nadler’s criteria Donald Trump does not pose a “dire threat” to our system of government or constitutional liberties, there is no “overwhelming consensus,” and only the Democratic Party is working for his removal. Most Americans oppose impeachment.
The Constitution give the House sole power to create the charges against a president. Additional authority is housed under past practice which in time effectively adds to the Constitution unless found to conflict with an original part of the document.
Only Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton have been indicted. House past practice in each has been based upon fairness. In each a vote of the full House was required to initiate an impeachment inquiry, for Nixon the vote was 410-4 and for Clinton 258-176 (See H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. 1974 and H. Res. 581, 105th Cong. 1998). The full House participated in defining the scope of impeachment and established its rules and procedure. After the vote was taken to form an impeachment inquiry both the chair of the inquiring committee and the ranking member of the opposing party had co-equal subpoena powers to call witnesses subject to a vote of the full committee upon the request of either.
The indicted president’s council participated. It exercised the right to attend all hearings and depositions, to present evidence, to object to the admittance of evidence, to cross-examine witnesses and to recommend a witness list.
Thus far Nancy Pelosi has opposed a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry as was established in previous impeachments nor has the full House been given input in “defining the scope, rules and procedures” as before. The Committee Report accompanying H. Res. 581 developed in the Clinton impeachment stated: “The full House of representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment.”
One serious constitutional provision yet remains in our consideration of the attempt to impeach Trump—due process. This is housed in several places in the Constitution especially Amendments 5, 6, and 14. Democrat Jerrold Nadler referenced them when Bill Clinton was impeached, “the power of impeachment demands a rigorous level of due process … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses and to have the assistance of counsel” (Hearing before the Subcom on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary 105th Cong. 17, 1998). These have not been extended to Trump.
As Trump’s council recently wrote. “These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations…[even] impeachment proceedings” (Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President White House, October 8, 2019).
Thus far none of the above established practices have been followed in the case of the proposed impeachment of President Trump, especially due process. No House vote and no formation of an impeachment inquiry committee after the vote. Pelosi simply asked the House Intelligence Committee, led by Adam Schiff, to assume the responsibilities and he is behaving as though his committee will do it alone including the trial constitutionally reserved to the U.S. Senate. Moreover, Schiff has been holding secret hearings of witnesses denying House Republican observers of other committees. He forcibly removed colleague Matt Gaetez .
Clearly, respecting impeachment, Democrats are sloppy with the Constitution.
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
Oct 14, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Constitutional instructions for impeaching a president of the United States are very specific. Actually, reading the Constitution should easily put to rest the proposed impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. His enemies obviously have not done so.
Impeachment means tried by the U.S. Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors whether found guilty and removed or acquitted and remain in office. It begins in the House of Representatives who formulate the alleged charges then passes to the Senate for trial.
In the case of Trump the Democrats called for his impeachment before he took the oath of office, before he made a single decision as president, or nominated a single cabinet member. Enemies began immediately searching for a crime. All other impeachment proceedings began first with a specific crime—Trump’s was being elected.
The “crime” for Andrew Johnson was his violation of the Tenure of Office Act which Congress had just passed requiring him to first get their permission before removing a cabinet member. To test the constitutionality of what is now common practice, Johnson fired Edward Stanton as Secretary of War. Johnson was accused by the House but spared conviction in the Senate. So, the impeached (tried) president remained in office.
Richard Nixon was never impeached because, although accused by the House, he was never tried by the Senate. He resigned the presidency before the charges of the House could be hand delivered to the Senate for trial. The“crime” hinged on his alleged cover up of the break-in of the Democratic Party national headquarters at Watergate. These would have included obstructing justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress. But he was never tried, thus not impeached.
For Bill Clinton the “crime” was "high crimes and misdemeanors.” The specific charges were lying under oath (perjury), abuse of power, and obstruction of justice; charges that stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. The senate did not come to the necessary 2/3 majority, so he was acquitted (Art I, Sec. 3, Cla. 6). Tried (impeached), like Johnson, but not removed from office.
Who formulates impeachment charges? The Constitution reads: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5). The people placed him in power and their representatives—the House—alone initiates and formulates the charges for his possible removal. But formulating the charges does require a favorable vote of the full House.
Who tries the charges? “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath…” [to support the Constitution and tell the truth].
Who presides at the trial? “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice [presently John Roberts} shall preside.” (Ibid. Sec. 3, Cla. 6).
But a president can be removed for only four reasons. “The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Art. II Section 4). Can we remove a president we simply do not like? Only in the next election.
What are the charges against Trump? His enemies first tried treason, “he’s a Russian spy.” That failed! What about bribery? That’s hard when he gives to charity his monthly salary. Then collusion and obstruction of justice under “high crimes,” those failed too. How about adultery with Stormy Daniels and others? But that was before his election and John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton did adultery as presidents in office, Clinton even with an intern in the Oval Office, and that was not enough to call for his office. Adultery effectively erased less serious charges essentially removing from the Constitution misdemeanors as impeachable offenses.
Enemies then tried the 25th Amendment, containing a provision that allows for the forceful removal of a sitting president who cannot physically continue to serve. They tried, he’s crazy therefor unfit for office, Rod Rosenstein offering to wear a wire to entrap the president. They could not find a cabinet member to so state. About 15 different accusations, all backfired—even the The Mueller Report. For three years our hostile establishment and Democratic news outlets never let up. Within weeks, the Russian Hoax was replaced with the “Ukrainian Hoax” but the promised Quick Pro Quo could not be found. Still no impeachable offenses.
If the intelligence community went rogue with a coup to undo the 2016 presidential election, which we have documented in previous columns, it is Trump’s absolute duty to take this story to its original source, in the Ukraine in 2016, for complete exposure so it never happens again for any president of either party. The Constitution requires it. “He shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Art.II, Sec. 4). As does his oath of office: ”I do solemnly swear…that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cla. 8).
So impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office as Johnson and Clinton finished their terms. Nor will it for Trump. He will be acquitted for the same reason as Clinton—partisan politics—and likely will be reelected as no crime has been established.
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
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
