For many years there has been a bipartisan consensus that the implementation of “no-excuse” mail-in voting on a large scale would open the door to massive electoral fraud. In 2005 a bipartisan commission co-chaired by Jimmy Carter found that what it called absentee ballots were a potential disaster. “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud,” was the conclusion.
In 2012, a Miami–Dade County Grand Jury issued a public report on the subject: “Once that ballot is out of the hands of the elector, we have no idea what happens to it. The possibilities are numerous and scary.”
In California in 2016, after absentee ballot laws were enacted, a San Pedro couple found more than 80 unused ballots on top of their apartment-building mailbox. All had different names but were addressed to an 89-year-old neighbor who lived alone in their building. Apparently, the ballots were to be picked up by someone, but the couple had intercepted them first. In the same election, a Gardena, California woman told the local paper that her husband, an illegal alien, had
received a mail-in ballot even though he had not registered to vote.
In 2012 a University of South Alabama study stated the obvious, that it was “fundamentally more difficult to ensure the validity” of vote by mail ballots. The study further noted that voting by mail was “susceptible to widespread fraud” and that measures like signature verification were imprecise and likely to fail. The study noted that "The Florida Department of Law Enforcement had even referred to absentee ballots as “the tool of choice for those inclined to commit voter fraud." http://iiisci.org/Journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/HPA468KX.pdf
In short, no one interested in the integrity of the electoral process thought the idea of mailing out a huge number of ballots into the ether and hoping that what came back could be relied upon to be free of contamination and manipulation was a good idea. Everybody understood the implications. The mass use of mail-in ballots would mean the end of free and fair elections.
Nevertheless, last year the Republican-controlled legislature in Pennsylvania adopted Act 77 and moved the state away from a system grounded on the principle of in-person voting to one that permitted “no-excuse” mail-in voting. Pandora’s
Box had been opened. The predictable result followed. An election was conducted, whose result cannot possibly be trusted.
In the wake of this debacle, a great many Pennsylvanians are demanding the immediate repeal of Act 77 and a return to a system under which voters, other than those who qualify for narrowly defined absentee ballots, will appear in person, use hard copy ballots, and show proof of their identity. Some members of the legislature appear to want to move quickly on this issue. Far too many, however, are opting for business as usual. These legislators assure us the problem will be studied. Then, at some point, probably much later, a report will be issued. Maybe some minor changes will be made. Maybe not.
We have seen this movie before. This is theater. We are expected to accept bland assurances, lose interest and walk away. Not this time. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to study electoral reform that is fine. First, they need to repeal Act 77, return us to in-person voting, require as Georgia has that voters show ID, and establish a secure foundation on which we can move forward.
Then, the legislature can take all the time it wants to ponder next steps, but not before. Passing Act 77 was a mistake. Not immediately repealing it will be an even bigger one.
Pike County Second Amendment Sanctuary was started by us in March of 2019 when Governor Wolf was talking about implementing a gun registry and other unconstitutional gun laws. From there we made petitions and set them up in most of the gun stores in Pike County and took it to the streets of Milford to get to know people, let them understand what we are doing, answer questions and collect signatures.
We are a true grassroots movement. We do not do online signatures on the petition as it could end up in the wrong hands or even within the Right to Know Act and become public, putting people who sign at risk for a registry. To date we have over three thousand signatures and growing by the day. Now even more Second Amendment Sanctuaries are popping up all over the PA and the US in an effort to protect our rights against the Biden Administration’s unconstitutional gun grab policy.
We currently have four townships in Pike County whose supervisors have stood up for their citizens and passed the Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution within the County. Those townships are Blooming Grove, Shohola, Greene and Palmyra. We are working on getting this passed in the rest of the townships and then Pike County itself. Covid has put a damper on getting into the township meetings to present this to the elected officials as most have closed meetings. When we do present in townships, we need to be present and we need to have supporters with us to show the township officials that there is huge support behind this. But we are still working hard in the background to get this mission accomplished. We have even joined in the fight to get new people elected in townships and keep the grassroots movement going, starting at the local level.
Our Facebook page, Pike County Second Amendment Sanctuary, has really taken off lately and the amount of reach we are getting is great. People are coming from all over to ask for help on how to get the movement started in their townships. We currently assisted the Supervisor of Dyberry Township (Wayne County) with information and a draft Resolution and they passed it on April 12, 2021. One other township in Wayne County and two townships in Potter County have also reached out to us in an effort to get it passed there as well. We are always happy to help anyone who wants to protect our Second Amendment rights and give them the information and the guidance they need to get the resolution passed. The resolution essentially states that the township will not use their taxpayer dollars against its citizens to enforce any new state or federal laws with regard to gun control. So, they will not use any money, manpower, facilities or equipment to enforce new gun laws. Of course, if the State or Federal authorities want to come in and do something, they will, but the township will not help them in any way by disallowing them to use township property, equipment, the clerk/secretary to gain information, etc. They will have to use all their own resources and personnel should that happen. It is protecting the citizens of the township from
their tax dollars being used against them.
One area that has shown to be an issue through this mission is with Township Solicitors (town lawyers). We have gotten push back from solicitors on this who don't want to do it (usually because they are anti-gun). Some say it is unconstitutional, which is unsubstantiated—we have yet to have one tell us WHY. Fifteen counties in Pennsylvania now have Second Amendment Resolutions passed and probably close to 25 townships have passed them across PA. The counties in PA that have passed resolutions are: Union, Bradford, Cambria, Huntingdon, Sullivan, Washington, Beaver, Greene, Fayette, Bedford, Armstrong, Westmoreland, Montour, Blair and Somerset. So, the precedent is set across PA and the number of counties and townships will continue to grow as it is across the United States as well.
I left my home country, Venezuela, to immigrate to the United States in my early twenties. Leaving behind Venezuela and everything I loved was not an easy task. In 2002, my parents, siblings, friends, and everyone who knew I was moving to the US thought I was crazy. You see, I had won three gold medals at the South American Games in Brazil in the disciplines of air pistol and sport pistol. I was an Olympic hopeful for Athens 2004. I was one of the favorites to win a medal at the 2002 Central American Games in El Salvador. I know many wondered how someone at the pinnacle of their career could leave everything behind. But my mind was clear, I was seeking true freedom.
By 2002, socialist Hugo Chavez had already reformed the Venezuelan Constitution. He changed our country’s official name from the Republic of Venezuela to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. He confiscated hundreds of private businesses, seeded hate between classes, enacted laws to redistribute privately owned land, and controlled goods’ prices. That is a small list of his presidency’s first four years. In short, Hugo Chavez and his socialist allies put Venezuela or our people last.
Despite being a young woman, I understood that socialists were making Venezuelans a conformist society that would become more dependent on the government. Little by little, they changed our economy, the education system, and views about success and wealth. Unfortunately, only a few of us listened to the warning of Cubans living in the country. They knew there was no turning back.
Hugo Chavez imposed strict regulations that eliminated the firearms industry, forcing the closure of private gun shops and ranges. Ammunition to practice my sport, such as pellets and .22 caliber, became hard to find. Concealed carry permits became a lot more expensive and harder to obtain. In short, Venezuelans found themselves disarmed against armed criminals the government could not and did not want to control.
The truth is that there is no such thing as “a little bit of socialism” or “some gun control.” The Biden Administration’s plan shows that its ultimate goal is to
transform our country as we know it. They want to implement the socialist Green New Deal to radically change our society, including higher taxes and drastic government mandates. They firmly believe in gun control and diverting funds from police departments, AKA “defunding the police.” I mean, how can anyone, in their right mind, believe anything good can result from more gun control and less policing? I can tell you with certainty that such a combination of ideas is catastrophic and will only serve criminals. As we can see, there will always be politicians who will swear they will protect you, but, slowly, they will destroy our country and our way of life.
I am a proud American. I love this country more than anyone would ever know because here, I found true freedom. For that reason, I actively engage in the political arena to help preserve our country, freedom, and way of life. I hope we I count on you too!
Now, after over a year, fact can be separated from fiction. Let’s begin to do this for the health and wellness of ourselves, our families and our fellow citizens. This is a time where confusing and inaccurate information is being spread. Unfortunately, what we can see now is the COVID-19 pandemic has been engineered utilizing a plethora of false theories. It has been powered and promoted by political power and unscrupulous greed.
However, now after over a year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the facts are becoming clear, which can replace many false theories. We need to truly address our health with a genuine and serious effort to separate fact from conjured fiction. What we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic is politics, power and money mixed together to provide a terrible result for people in America and throughout the world. The reality is what we have experienced in this last year is just a
concentration of a conflict that has gone on for the last century. This is core conflict of the Pharmaceutical Model vs Integrative Healing model. This can be reviewed in future articles.
One positive thing is that for many, the lockdowns slowed us down to pay attention to our health, our families and our relationship with God. It is a time of self- reflection and repentance as individuals. families, communities and our nation. Fear driven hysteria is not good. Now we need to take action to protect our future.
May of 2020 the CDC ran a clear analysis that masks provide no significant reduction in transmission. How did we ever get to the craziness of forced mask wearing and even today, over a year later, politicians from the presidency to governor to local mayor are demanding mask wearing.
From CDC report in May 2020 Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020 “In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19- 0994_article
Dr. Jim Mehan, MD is a surgeon who has performed more than 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. Also he is a former editor of a medical journal and has studied several 100 studies on masks. “I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science.” “Although the public health ‘authorities’ flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19.”
Did you trust the “authorities” about masks? Don’t you think you it is wise to do some serious research before you trust them to tell you to take the vaccine? We have been experiencing is an upheaval in most of our lives. Information given has not been accurate. Now the fear generated from the false information is driving people to take an ineffective and unproven vaccine. We will cover this is future articles. However for the time being please do your research. For more articles on Covid-19 go to https://www.qcmedicine.com/covid- perspective
I have said repeatedly that it is a fundamental necessity that the American people keep and bear arms. And to “bear arms” means carrying a firearm with you wherever you go. America’s most recent mass shootings serve as additional
exclamation points behind that statement.
As an author, columnist, radio talk show host and pastor who is outspoken in my support of the Second Amendment, I often receive inquiries from people asking for my personal preferences regarding firearms. This column is devoted to answering some of those inquiries.
I’m sure this column will not provide anything new for the firearms aficionados out there. However, we are living in a violence-prone society, and more and more people (especially ladies) who never paid much attention to guns before are
sensing the need to arm themselves but often don’t know where to start. I hope this column helps these folks.
First, let me emphasize that I am not a firearms expert. And I strongly urge you to receive as much instruction and training from a firearms professional as possible. Second, when it comes to a discussion of which firearms are preferable, the suggestions are as varied as the people who proffer them. Most people who are armed nowadays are carrying concealed. Disgustingly, some states do not allow people to legally carry open. Fortunately, that is not true here in Montana where I live, and I often carry open—as do many people in this great State. However, most of the time, I am carrying concealed, as I think it better that the bad guy not know who among his intended victims is able to shoot back.
If you are planning to carry a concealed firearm, you will need to carefully consider the kind of clothing you are wearing and how the firearm will fit in with your attire. For most people, concealed carry requires firearms that are—to one degree or another—somewhat diminutive. My personal preference for a self-defense handgun is a Glock pistol. Glock pistols are almost as simple as revolvers to operate, reliable and practically indestructible. Plus, they provide increased magazine capacity and are safe. They are also very easy to disassemble and clean. And most importantly, they go "bang" when you pull the trigger. Some ladies might find the Glock grips to be a little bulky for their hands—except for the Glock 42 and 43, which most ladies should find quite comfortable. But most women should be able to safely and confidently shoot the majority of Glock 9mm pistols.
Popular options in Glock pistols include the Glock 42 in .380 ACP; Glock 17, 19, 19X, 26, 43 and 43X in 9mm Luger (also called 9mm Parabellum or 9x19); the Glock 22, 23 and 27 in .40 Smith & Wesson; the Glock 21, 30, 30S, 36 and 41 in .45 ACP; and the Glock 20 and 29 in 10mm Auto.
When I am carrying concealed, I’m usually carrying the Glock 43X. (The older I’ve gotten the lighter my side arms have gotten. Ha. Ha.) But I also sometimes carry the Glock 19 or the Glock 30S. In my younger days, I carried the Colt Combat Commander in .45 ACP, and I still carry one (or a Kimber) when the mood strikes me. (Springfield Armory also makes good 1911s.) Who doesn’t love a 1911? However, I don’t recommend 1911 pistols for beginners.
My wife prefers to carry a Smith &Wesson .38 Special revolver in the snub-nose, J-frame configuration. This is primarily due to the reduced weight and size of these weapons for carry purposes. Plus, she just prefers a revolver over a semi-auto. And, yes, I sometimes carry a snub-nose as well. Snub-nose revolvers generally have a poor reputation for accuracy due to their very short barrels. And the reduced 5-shot capacity turns off some people. However, 70% of self-defense fights take place at a distance of 2 yards. As such, a snub-nose is very adequate for the task. In addition, most self-defense fights are settled with 3 shots being fired, so, statistically speaking, 5 shots are normally enough to defend oneself.
I sometimes carry a Glock 42 in .380 ACP (6 shots) as a backup. When I do carry a snub-nose revolver, it is usually a Smith & Wesson 340 M&P or a Ruger LCR, which are built for the .357 Magnum and .38 Special cartridges. And when carrying the snub-nose, I’m usually loaded with .38s. The .38 Special and 9mm Luger are comparable in power.
But, honestly, the best snub-nose revolver on the market these days might be the Kimber K6s. The trigger is sweet (like Smith &Wesson triggers used to be), and it holds 6 rounds instead of 5. The K6s is an all-steel revolver and is, therefore, a little heavier than most snub-nose handguns (23 ounces empty). But the extra weight of the K6s makes shooting the .357 magnum round more comfortable than the lighter weight versions. And shooting the .38 round in the K6s is downright pleasant.
And, yes, for some people, a revolver might still be the preferred handgun. It has no external magazine to worry about losing; it is very dependable and reliable; it is easy to clean; and it is simple to operate. NYPD expert Frank McGee says the typical police gunfight conforms to a “rule of three”: 3 rounds, 3 yards and 3 seconds. So in most real-life situations, the increased firepower of a high-capacity magazine doesn't even come into play. Of course, if confronted with multiple attackers or a heavily armed would-be mass shooter, those extended magazines in Glock and similar pistols would be much appreciated.
The most important factor in choosing a self-defense handgun is finding the one that you carry and shoot well. I shoot Glock pistols very well; and I find them comfortable to carry, which is why I usually carry them. Find the handgun that YOU shoot well. The caliber is not nearly as important as your ability to put the bullet where you want it to go.
Since I live in dangerous game territory, I will mention the need to defend oneself against a brown bear. In dangerous game territory, you will need the power of a 10mm Auto, .357 Magnum, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, .45 ACP, .45 Long Colt or even a .454 Casull. These calibers are not for the limp-wristed, but when one is facing a brown bear, it is what one will need to survive. (Bear spray is a joke.) Plus, when your life's on the line, you’ll never feel the recoil. When I’m in the woods hiking or hunting, I’m usually carrying a Glock 20 in 10mm or a Smith & Wesson 629 in .44 Magnum with a 3” barrel and the Kimber K6s in .357 Magnum as a backup. But, truthfully, I would hate to face a brown bear (which includes the Grizzly and Kodiak) with a handgun of any caliber. These creatures are the fiercest and most formidable animals on the North American Continent (along with the Polar Bear, of course). Against a brown bear, I would hope I had a .45-70 Government rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun handy. But I spoke with a man recently who, sadly, has had to kill several Grizzlies in his line of work, and he swears by the .357 Magnum. So there you go.
But, folks, make no mistake about this: Except against brown bears, semi- automatic rifles are the most essential tool for self-defense, which is why totalitarians in government want to ban them. For a semiautomatic rifle, I suggest an AR-15 or Ruger Mini-14 in 5.56 NATO (they also fire the .223 Remington cartridge) or a Springfield M1A or AR-10 in .308 Winchester. My personal choice here is the AR-15. Daniel Defense makes some of the best AR rifles in the world, but they are quite pricey. Other good AR brands include Armalite, Bushmaster, Colt, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Windham Weaponry and several others. Most ladies will find that the low recoil of an AR-15 or Mini-14 will make the rifle very pleasant to shoot. No home should be without one of these rifles. I repeat: NO HOME SHOULD BE WITHOUT ONE—OR MORE—OF THESE RIFLES.
Of course, a 12-gauge shotgun is the premier close-range weapon. Nothing equals it. In a pump shotgun, I prefer a Winchester Model 1300, which is not made anymore. So, you’ll probably have to choose between Mossberg and Remington. In the semi-auto configuration, I prefer Mossberg shotguns. And don’t discount 20- gauge shotguns. The 20-gauge has less recoil than a 12-gauge, and at “bad breath” range (where a shotgun shines anyway), the 20-gauge is just as lethal as a 12- gauge. And for home defense, don’t overlook the double barrel shotgun. And while I often use a .410 gauge shotgun for hunting small game, I do not recommend it for self-defense.
It is also critical that no matter which firearm you decide to purchase to be sure and practice with it. The firearm you purchase is no better or worse than your ability to handle it. And be sure to stock up on ammunition (when you can find it). A gun without ammo is reduced to being either an expensive club or a cumbersome paperweight. And always be sure to follow all of the safety rules for your firearm. The last thing any of us wants is an accidental discharge of a firearm that results in the injury or death of a loved one or friend. So, always remember that safety is job one. And rule number one is NEVER point a gun at anyone unless you are doing so in an act of self-defense. And rule number two is ALWAYS assume that a gun is loaded, which takes you back to rule number one. Plus, guns should always be kept away
from children before they have been properly taught how to safely handle a firearm—which should be done as soon as possible.
I realize that there are many pastors and Christians who try to impugn the necessity of owning a firearm. These people are famous for saying things such as “God will take care of you; no one needs a gun.” Of course, these same people quickly embrace the idea that police officers should carry guns for self-defense. And should these irresponsible pastors and Christians ever find themselves facing a violent predator, they would quickly call 911 (if they had the chance) and would expect an ARMED policeman to come protect them. I guess they never thought through the inconsistency of their belief that it’s wrong for them to provide for their own armed defense, but it’s not wrong to pay someone else (a policeman) to rush to their house and provide armed defense for them. And they are also doubtless unaware that under both Natural Law and U.S. jurisprudence, it is NOT the responsibility of policemen to protect the citizenry; it is the responsibility of the citizenry to protect itself. Plus, I never understood why it is that Christians who are not policemen are supposed to “trust God” to take care of them and not arm themselves, but Christian police officers are somehow exempt from this same spiritual notion. Beyond that, many pastors teach that Christians are obligated to obey civil authorities who demand that we surrender our firearms. They even try and quote Scripture to prove this preposterous position—Romans 13 most commonly. Of course, Romans 13 does NOT teach that Christians must submit to a governing authority that would strip from us our means of Natural self-defense. That would be like pastors and Christians submitting to a governing authority that would tell them to cancel their worship services. Oops!
As you know, Joe Biden and his Stalinesque stooges in Congress are RIGHT NOW proposing legislation to outlaw hundreds of firearms. And this is only the beginning. Their real goal is to completely disarm the American people. For these reasons, my constitutional attorney son and I collaborated on a book that takes the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) to prove that self-defense is not just a right under our Constitution; it is a moral obligation given us by our Creator. In the book, we show that Christians who are unwilling to defend themselves, their families and their communities have actually denied the Christian faith. We show that the Bible nowhere teaches God’s people to remain defenseless or to surrender their means of self-defense to any civil authority.
In the book, we examine the Scriptures that the “no gun” preachers use to support their lunacy and show how unbiblical these positions are. We go through both Testaments and show that our Creator has given us the obligation to defend the life He has given us. We also put to rest many of the distortions of Scripture that anti- gun preachers use to turn Christian men and women—who are created to be providers and protectors—into sheepish slaves of the state and helpless prey for human predators.
The title of our book is To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns. It is not only important to be armed; it is even more important to understand the moral and spiritual underpinnings of WHY we should be armed. And that is exactly what our book attempts to explain. Christians need to know that keeping and bearing arms is a spiritual DUTY. We disobey Holy Scripture when we neglect our responsibility to be always prepared to defend ourselves, family and community. The Second Amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms; it merely protects the right and duty to keep and bear arms that is given to us by the Natural laws of our Creator. Defending oneself, family and community is as spiritual as praying or reading the Bible or any other spiritual exercise. From the lives of Abraham and Moses to the Books of Judges and Esther to the lives of Samuel, David, Elijah and Elisha to the teaching of Christ in the New Testament, the Bible is replete with examples and admonitions that God’s people must NEVER surrender their means of self-defense, which in the modern world points to the AR-15 style-rifle and Glock-style handgun.
Jesus considered keeping and bearing arms to be so important that one of the last things He told his disciples before going to the Cross was for them to sell their clothes if they had to and purchase those arms. (Luke 22:36) Yes, Jesus placed a higher priority on defensive arms than he did on clothing. So should we. My DVD-message series entitled Natural Law, Liberty & Government includes a message titled Christ’s Law Of The Sword in which I specifically address what Jesus meant when He told Simon Peter to “put up thy sword” in the Garden of Gethsemane. And I can tell you now that it has absolutely nothing to do with being disarmed.
The defensive firearm is an absolute necessity to the maintenance of a free society. Thomas Jefferson rightly opined:
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
And, as did our Founding Fathers, we must not let would-be tyrants such as Joe Biden and his gaggle of goose-stepping goons in Congress take them from us. WE MUST NOT, AND WE WILL NOT!
P.S. To order our book To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns, click this link.
This question limits the Governor’s powers to extend emergency/disaster declarations indefinitely and allows the General Assembly to end such declarations with a simple majority vote.
Please Vote YES on Ballot Question #1 means a majority of PA state lawmakers, elected by the people, can vote to end emergency declarations and restrictions on citizens. This preserves the power of the people and their elected representatives.
This would limit the emergency/disaster declaration by the Governor to 21 days (currently it is 90 days) and would only allow an extension of the declaration with the approval of the General Assembly.
Please Vote YES on Ballot Question #2 means emergency declarations would be limited to 21 days unless the General Assembly, elected by the people, approves longer. This limits the Governor without the approval of the people’s representatives.
STATEWIDE REFERENDUM – ACT 2020-91
MAKING MUNICIPAL FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANIES ELIGIBLE FOR LOANS
This would allow municipal fire and emergency services to borrow from the state for updating their equipment. This is presently limited to volunteer fire and emergency groups.
The funding allocation is limited to $100,000,000 regardless of who is awarded the loan.
Municipal organizations can use taxes, local bond issues and commercial loans for such expansion. Volunteer organizations do not have those options. Volunteer organization must rely on fund raisers, most of which were crippled by COVID-19 restrictions.
There is no justification for this referendum. This writer must consider that the mismanagement of many municipalities, e.g. Philadelphia, have reduced their ability to raise funds through bonds and commercial loans because of their risk profiles.
Please vote “No” to protect our volunteer organizations and require municipal organizations to use their local funding options in order to upgrade.
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – ARTICLE I
PROHIBITION AGAINST DENIAL OR ABRIDGEMENT OF EQUALITY OF RIGHTS BECAUSE OF RACE OR ETHNICITY
Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended by adding a new section providing that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of an individual’s race or ethnicity?
This proposed amendment seems harmless and reasonable. The intent is beneficial, but it might be misused.
Current Human Rights sections in the Constitution include:
Section 1: Inherent rights of mankind.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
Section 3: Religious freedom.
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.
Section 26: No discrimination by Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.
(May 16, 1967, P.L.1035, J.R.1)
Section 28: Prohibition against denial or abridgment of equality of rights because of sex.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual.
(May 18, 1971, P.L.767, J.R.2)
While Section 28 might be justifiable to avoid confusion with the use of “men” in Section 1, there can be no confusion as to the meaning of “All” in the same section. Since most of the rights enumerated in the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania mimic those in the US Constitution, one should question the advisability of adding a ‘race or ethnicity’ clause to the PA Constitution as a similar proposed amendment to the US Constitution failed. Why did the proposed US amendment fail? The states were concerned that, by listing only race and ethnicity, the human rights protections of the US Constitution might be limited unnecessarily. That is to say that if sex, race and ethnicity are specifically listed, then other human characteristics might be grounds for discrimination. For example, intelligence is not a factor in sex, race or ethnicity, so people of ‘different’ intelligence levels might be discriminated against lawfully. Either the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania protects the rights of ALL persons, or it does not.
Please vote “No” on this proposed amendment to preserve the unity of the people of the Commonwealth and avoid emotionally segregating us.