By Steve Byas

William L. Shirer wrote in his monumental Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: "Not many Germans lost much sleep over the arrests of a few thousand pastors and priests . . . and even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany."

Shirer said what really "aroused" the German people was the prosperity of the nation under the Nazis. "A people who had so lightly given up their political and cultural and economic freedoms were not, except for a relatively few, going to die or even risk imprisonment to preserve freedom of worship."

What is sad to me is when so few understand the principle of liberty. If we truly believe in the concept of liberty, we believe in it for those we do not agree with, those we dislike, and those who are quite unpopular.

Such is the case with Al Gerhart, the leader of the so-called Sooner Tea Party, who now faces criminal charges. If there are other members of the Sooner Tea Party besides Gerhart, I have never heard of them, and I have never heard one single human being who is a friend of the man.

He probably has other members of his "Tea Party" group, and he surely has some friends, but even if he does not, he has as much right to the protections afforded under the First Amendment as the most popular person in society.

What is most distressing to me is that some of those who place themselves in the "liberty movement" seem to have little to no concern over the criminal charges brought against Gerhart. After all, Gerhart is unpopular for his behavior toward supporters of Ron Paul. Many Ron Paul supporters believe Gerhart caused serious damage to the Ron Paul effort in Oklahoma. I guess that merits jail time?

The criminal charges evolved from his statements made in reaction to the decision of State Senator Cliff Branan to not hear a bill in the Oklahoma Legislature which proposed to prohibit any local government in the state from adopting or implementing policy recommendations established by the United Nations' Agenda 21 sustainable development action plan. The bill had passed the House of Representatives by a veto-proof margin, but Branan simply refused to hear the bill in his state Senate committee.

Gerhart needs to read Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People, because he has a tendency to castigate anyone who disagrees with him on the slightest of differences.

In the case of Branan, Gerhart sent the senator an e-mail which said, "Get that bill heard or I will make sure you regret not doing it. I will make you the laughingstock of the Senate if I don't hear that this bill will be heard and passed. We will dig into your past, your family, your associates, and once we start on you there will be no end to it."

Harsh words, no doubt. Not what I would have written or said. Despicable even.

But District Attorney David Prater opted to file felony blackmail charges against Gerhart. Felony means a crime for which you can be sent to prison. Isn't that something? Some of the same folks who express great concern that we send far too many to prison in this state, support sending Gerhart to Big Mac for threatening a politician, saying this is a criminal act, called blackmail.

The state blackmail law describes it as a written communication that threatens to expose information about someone "which would in any way subject such person to the ridicule or contempt of society." That is, if the intent is "to extort or gain any thing of value from another or to compel another to do an act against his or her will."

If Prater's interpretation of the law is correct, then perhaps we need to change the law. It conflicts with the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. In Section 3, it reads, "The people have the right to assemble for their own good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition, address, or remonstrance." Remonstrance means to protest or object. Gerhart certainly was protesting and objecting to Branan's inaction. The Constitution, in Section 22, adds that, "Every person may freely speak, write, or publish his sentiment on all subjects." I would contend that all would include telling an elected public official that he intends to make his life miserable if he took an action on a public issue of which Gerhart did not approve.

How far would Prater, Branan, et al, carry this "blackmail principle?" If one were to tell his legislator, "If you vote for this bill, I will beat you at the polls!," is that blackmail? After all, the person is threatening the legislator to do something against his will, or he will take action to get the legislator defeated.

As the editor of the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper, which has published the Oklahoma Conservative Index for over thirty years, I wonder if the use of the Conservative Index is blackmail. I have been told that legislators have been "persuaded" to change a vote after being told the vote would appear on the Conservative Index. Is that blackmail?

If there is something in Senator Branan's life that he, Branan, does not want revealed, and Gerhart threatens to expose it if he doesn't change his vote, is that blackmail? Let us say, Branan had responded, Go ahead and expose it, and Gerhart had, is that worthy of a prison sentence? Let us say that Gerhart just made something up, maliciously, false and scandalous about Branan. We have civil courts. Branan could hire a lawyer and sue Gerhart. I would support that, if Gerhart made up some horrible thing about Branan.

But I would not send someone to prison for such things.

Many legislators seem to believe they are a special class, above the rest of us. A few years ago, there was even an effort to criminalize libel, and throw someone in jail, if a person published a false voting record of the law-maker. Of course, this would not help a challenger for office, only the 149 special people sitting in chairs in the chambers of the Oklahoma House and Senate.

When I was lied about in a political campaign, I sued the guy, and won. But, I would be the first to stand up and oppose sending someone to prison for political speech.

When a labor union threatens to go on strike, unless they get better wages or what have you, is that blackmail? Where does this end?

One statement pretty much sums up what this is all about. Some folks just do not believe in liberty if the person exercising that liberty is an unpopular figure like Gerhart. Gerhart has blasted almost every person in public life in Oklahoma, including me. I recently read a comment about this case, where someone sarcastically wrote that this couldn't happen to a nicer guy (than Gerhart). In other words, since Gerhart is not a nice guy, the reasoning goes, he should be prosecuted for his nasty comments.

He should go to prison? Amazing. Send someone to prison for political speech? Now, that is despicable.

This is how we lose our liberties, with precedents established in cases like this.

Little school children are murdered in their class rooms in Connecticut, so law-abiding citizens should have their rights to defend themselves stripped away.

We face threats by fanatical terrorists, so we all should lose our rights to due process of law.

More money can be made by a local government by tearing down granny's house and replacing it with a tax-producing business, so we wink at the 5th Amendment and similar restrictions on eminent domain found in our own state Constitution. After all, what is granny's home, compared to more tax revenue for the coffers of the government.

We don't like what another state is doing on some issue, so who cares about the 10th Amendment and the idea of federalism? We may even say, as a Republican candidate for president did in 2012, the 10th Amendment has "run amok."

If we don't believe in liberty for those who we do not like, we do not believe in liberty.

Steve Byas is editor of the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper. He may be contacted at: byassteve@yahoo.com