Author Archives: admin

Perspectives on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling: Blind Governance, the New Roe, and Hellish Socialism

Posted on June 29, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Daniel Downs

Several commentators provide additional perspective on the several problems inherent in Obamacare and the Supreme Court’s ruling on its constitutionality. The first commentator is David Zanotti, who is the President/CEO of the American Roundtable and author of the blog “For the Common Good” where the follow commentary was published. In his port, Mr. Zanotti points why the democrat’d healthcare reform law known as Obamacare is bad law unrepresentative of the American people.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Governing in the Dark

At least we know it now. The pain is real but at least we can face it without mystery. We know Congress did not read the 2700 page health care bill. We know the Administration did not. Now we know that at least several of the Supreme Court Justices did not read the legislation either. In yesterday’s oral arguments, Justice Breyer admitted, “And I haven’t read every word of that, I promise…” (pg 23 at line 3). Chief Justice Roberts admitted much the same, but haltingly on page 40 at line 21. Justice Scalia even likened reading the legislation to the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment (pg 38 at line 7). (View the transcript from Wednesday morning’s hearing.)

So the cycle is complete. Congress didn’t read the bill. The President didn’t read the bill. The Justices of the Supreme Court (at least several who were honest about it) didn’t read the bill. Where does that leave us?

As a point of principle, is it ever right to pass a law that Congress has not read and fully debated? As a matter of common sense, how can we establish a system of health care delivery that touches every American if most in authority never had time to read or debate the enabling legislation?

Just for the sake of honesty, what is wrong with all of us that we are in a position of having to ask these questions in the first place?

—————————————————————————————————————–

Lila Rose, President of Live Action, made the following comments about the Supreme Court’s favorable ruling of Obamacare:

“The Supreme Court ruling strikes at the heart of both Life and Liberty. Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry expect to make a killing off of Obamacare’s unconstitutional, socialized medicine scheme.”

She continued, “The Supreme Court has upheld nothing more than a Ponzi scheme to expand the abortion business. If this legislation is not overturned by the next administration, Obamacare’s socialist-style diktats will be used, not to provide better or more affordable health care, but to expand Planned Parenthood’s abortion empire across the backs of American taxpayers and people of conscience – and at the expense of our religious freedoms.

“In light of the ruling, Americans will greet Independence Day with prayer, sacrifice, and renewed energy to continue our opposition to this mandate. We must also recommit ourselves to restoring full constitutional protections of Life and Liberty to the most vulnerable in our society: unborn children.”

—————————————————————————————————————–

If none of our public officials read the bill, one has to question the agenda of the democrats who wrote the bill, the President who signed it into law, and the Supreme Court who ruled it constitutional. Ms. Rose provided with one plausible agenda and another is the efforts of the left to make America a socialist nation.
Public education is the first government institution based on principles of socialism. It is also provides the premier method of indoctrinating citizens. Now, the health care system is by force of law another institution of socialism. In order to create subservient institutions of socialism, the ruling parties in government must have developed governmental socialism. Those same people had to convince a lot of citizens that socialism is the means to happiness and liberty. (Thank you FDR and media followers.) If aware of it, I imagine Marx, Lenin, and Krushev are all singing hallelujah and dancing in hell. I wonder how dark it is there?

Leave a comment

Posted in health care, politics

Tagged , , , , , ,

SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling Endangers Freedom

Posted on June 29, 2012 | Leave a comment

By David E. Smith

As you know by now, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled yesterday to uphold the core provisions of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC). By their decision, we now face an egregious threat to American liberty.

This federal legislation contains a highly controversial and unpopular Individual Mandate, which, if not repealed, will force Americans to “buy” federally approved or sponsored healthcare plans or pay a penalty for non-compliance. Contrary to their promises to Congress as well as to the general public, proponents of the PPAC have succeeded in arguing to the Supreme Court that the Individual Mandate will function as a federal tax. We are very concerned that this will set a dangerous precedent for federal mandates.

We believe this law is a threat to personal liberty, religious freedom and family choices. It gives government bureaucrats alarming power over individual citizen’s healthcare decisions and will lead to future conflicts of conscience. Americans will be forced to choose either to comply and abandon their religious beliefs or resist and be fined for exercising their deeply held beliefs.

The PPAC includes provisions for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilizations, and tax dollars will subsidize many types of abortions. By advancing taxpayer funding of abortion, the PPAC is an attack on religious freedom and individual liberty.

We urge our national lawmakers to repeal the PPAC, and rather than rushing through an expansive overhaul, Congress needs to take a reasonable approach to reforming what’s wrong with healthcare. The federal reach into the lives of each and every American citizen is of grave concern. And the accompanying threats to freedom of conscience challenge the very concept of liberty.

We hope and pray that this monumental decision will be the catalyst to awaken and unite American voters – especially people of faith – this November. It should also serve to remind believers that we should be praying for true revival and the spread of the Gospel. As my friend Pastor James McDonald of Morton, Illinois pointed out on his Facebook page, “Do we understand that the One who orchestrates the end, orchestrates the means, and the means He uses is our faithful witness? Rise up, O Church of God!”

And here’s what others are saying:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision will do serious harm to American families. Not only is the individual mandate a profound attack on our liberties, but it is only one section among hundreds of provisions in the law that will force taxpayers to fund abortions, violate their conscience rights, and impose a massive tax and debt burden on American families.

“The Obama administration has created, for the first time in American history, new federal regulations that toss aside the constitutional right to religious freedom by forcing religious institutions and employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs, contraceptives and sterilizations.

“It’s now time to replace those leaders who disregarded the constitutional limitations of their authority and the deeply held religious beliefs of their constituents, voting for the government takeover of healthcare. We must repeal this abortion-funding health care law and restore the Constitution to its rightful place.” Tony Perkins. President of the Family Research Council

”We are outraged to see the Supreme Court ignoring the constitutional limits the Founders put in place to constrain the federal government’s power over us. Shame on them!

With this decision they have given a blank check to the federal government, forever altering the constitutional concept of checks and balances that has been so crucial throughout our history.

We wholeheartedly believe we must strive to make health care more affordable for all Americans. But it is inconceivable to believe we must infringe on our constitutional rights in order to achieve that.

Women will be especially hurt by today’s decision. As we have seen with the contraception mandate, the politicization of so-called women issues by the left leaves the majority of women extremely vulnerable to the exploitation of a few radical groups that exert much political influence in Congress and the White House. ~ Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America

“This is a stunning decision to uphold ObamaCare as a tax. Congress relied upon the Commerce Clause, not the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Court ignored the intent of Congress, which did not intend the mandate to be a tax but rather a penalty. Rulings like this on ObamaCare undermine the confidence of the people in the competency of the Supreme Court to follow the rule of law. Today’s decision damages the image of the Supreme Court and is bad for America.” Mat Staver, Founder and President of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law

“The ‘individual mandate’ was just one problem with the law. Our tax dollars are still being used to subsidize abortion and our Catholic institutions are still being forced to violate our beliefs.

“Congress must act immediately to fix the critical flaws in the health care law and begin to replace them with measured, sensible reforms. At the very least, they should not allow any tax dollars to be used to implement the law while remedies are decided. We encourage them to focus their energy on improving our nation’s health care system in a way that respects all stages of life, protects our consciences, and avoids negatively impacting the economic conditions of Americans.” ~ Matt Smith, President of Catholic Advocate

“It is astonishing that the majority of the justices did not see the bill for what it really is: a blatant violation of the personal freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and perhaps a mortal blow to the concept of federalism… “When a government begins forcing citizens to purchase what it thinks is important or necessary, that government takes a dangerous step away from the freedom-embracing, democratic model.” ~ Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.” ~ U.S. House Speaker John Boehner

“President Obama’s health care law stands as one of the largest tax increases in American history, it will be paid for by young Americans, whose dreams and plans for the future have already been derailed by failed policies that have denied their access to full-time, meaningful jobs in their chosen career paths. Young adults know they will pay the true costs of President Obama’s legislation — over a trillion dollars more in federal spending, more waste and fraud, increased American debt, and the inability to keep or choose healthcare plans that best suit their needs as individuals. Elections have consequences, and young adults will be organizing themselves far more actively than some might assume — they will not settle for leadership that ignores their concerns, limits their freedoms, and continues to bankrupt their futures.” ~Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity, Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Labor

”Today’s Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision upholding the individual mandate in ObamaCare was surprising. The court rejected the Obama Administration’s main argument that the individual mandate was constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. It rejected the administration’s second argument that the mandate was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

“However, five justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion, concluded that the mandate was constitutional under Congress’ power to tax. As Roberts wrote in his opinion, “Simply put, Congress may tax and spend.”

“That’s the problem in Washington, isn’t it? There’s already way too much spending, and ObamaCare won’t help that. And it is a huge tax increase — $500 billion over the next ten years.” Gary Bauer, American Values

[The previous post extolled the Supreme Court ruling as a victory for the health care needs of poor children. It may be presumed that they believe it is a victory for their families too. This is doubtful seeing many proponents for the poor also are proponents of state rights of the child trumps parental rights. In other words, families don’t count. However, the above comments lack any mention of children, only families, the blatant violation of individual liberty, and the undermining of the principles of federalism. I wonder if we can have cherished freedoms and the American dream and government dictating by force of law how we will achieve it. The above author(s) seem to think otherwise.]

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, family, health care, politics

Tagged , , ,

Great Victory For Children: U.S. Supreme Court Upholding Obamacare

Posted on June 29, 2012 | Leave a comment

Eight of the nation’s leading child health and advocacy organizations reacted to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling today to uphold the Affordable Care Act:

“Today, the Supreme Court upheld a law that invests in children’s health from the ground up,” said American Academy of Pediatrics President Robert W. Block, MD, FAAP. “The Academy endorsed the Affordable Care Act because it addresses the same ‘A-B-C’ goals that are entrenched in our mission and in our 82 years of child health advocacy: providing all children in this country with Access to health care services, age-appropriate Benefits to meet their unique needs, and high-quality, affordable health care Coverage.”

“Today’s decision is a clear victory for children of all ages, races and incomes in America,” said Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund. “I am delighted the Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, including the Medicaid expansion, but I am deeply concerned by the limitation of the expansion that could exclude millions of poor parents. Together we need to work until all children and parents and everyone in America are guaranteed access to comprehensive, affordable health coverage.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling means children – especially chronic and complex patients that children’s hospitals specialize in treating – will continue benefitting from Affordable Care Act provisions including those that prohibit annual and lifetime caps on coverage,” said Mark Wietecha, President and CEO of the Children’s Hospital Association. “Children’s hospitals are innovating care delivery for this special-needs population through such models as medical homes with funding from CMMI and through other collaboratives. This care not only improves pediatric outcomes but takes costs out of the system – a goal shared by Congress and the Obama Administration.”

“Today’s ruling is a significant win for kids. State and federal officials can now get on with the urgent business of effectively and assertively implementing the Affordable Care Act so that more kids can have access to the health care they need. We urge policymakers to act quickly and make the right implementation choices so the Affordable Care Act can continue making progress covering uninsured kids, protecting millions of kids and parents from abusive insurance practices, and delivering quality care for kids from head to toe,” said First Focus President Bruce Lesley.

“While today’s decision is great news for our nation’s children and families, we remain concerned that the Court left open the possibility that the lowest income parents and other adults could be left behind. Now the responsibility for ensuring this is indeed a victory for all rests squarely on the shoulders of the states,” said Joan Alker and Jocelyn Guyer, Co-Executive Directors of the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute’s Center for Children and Families.

“This decision represents a landmark victory for pregnant women, infants and families. The Affordable Care Act will extend the benefits of health coverage to millions of women, children and families who would otherwise face every illness as a potential catastrophe. This law will give more pregnant women access to prenatal, maternity and postnatal care; more children the ability to obtain lifesaving vaccines and services to ensure their healthy development; and more families the financial security of knowing that they have adequate insurance. The Affordable Care Act will require that every health plan offer care for maternity coverage, in contrast to today’s individual market, where only 13 percent of plans cover maternity care,” said Jennifer L. Howse, PhD, President of the March of Dimes.

“We’re very pleased the Supreme Court upheld the entire Affordable Care Act,” said National Family Voices Executive Director Sophie Arao-Nguyen. “The law is a great step forward in protecting and improving the health of all children, including children and youth with special health care needs and disabilities. Today’s ruling means these vulnerable children will continue to enjoy the critical protections afforded by the law, such as bans on pre-existing condition exclusions, lifetime limits, and all annual limits on insurance coverage as of 2014. We’re grateful young adults can still be covered under their parents’ insurance plans up to age 26, and also that as of 2014, former foster children will be covered under Medicaid up to age 26. However, we’re disappointed the Court weakened the expansion of Medicaid to cover additional low-income adults. Family Voices will continue to join with our partners in each state to advocate for state coverage of this population.”

“Children have been some of the biggest winners in the health reform law, and now millions of American families can breathe easier knowing that care will be accessible and affordable,” said Bill Bentley, president and CEO of Voices for America’s Children. “With the fate of health reform now clear, every state should proceed with implantation of the law, full speed ahead. A number of states have been dragging their feet when it comes to establishing the new insurance markets for health plans, but now they must start laying the groundwork if the law is to benefit everyone by 2014.”

[Notice, however, how many of the above institutions will further benefit from the federal mandated health care
provision. It’s true many poor children will probably benefit from “taxing” the middle class to pay for the health care for the poor. Nevertheless, government coerced purchasing in the name of taxation without representation is a breach of the fundamental rights of the middle class. It is shame “poor children” are used for such divisive political shenanigans. But, one has to admit the democratic party can get the job done.]

Leave a comment

Posted in health care, politics

Tagged , ,

Govenor Kasich Signs Stricter Human Trafficking Law

Posted on June 28, 2012 | Leave a comment

Yesterday, Gov. John R. Kasich signed House Bill 262 (Fedor) into law. The legislation is a crucial piece of a broad effort to end human trafficking in Ohio. The law not only make human trafficking a first degree felony with mandatory prison term of 10 to 15 years but also will make those convicted of promoting prostitution or sex trafficking as registered sex offenders.

Joining Kasich for the bill signing at the Toledo Area Ministries (TAM) offices was bill sponsor, Rep. Teresa Fedor, Sen. Mark Wagoner, Sen. Capri Cafaro, Rep. Mike Ashford, human trafficking survivor Marlene Carson, and Rev. Stephen Anthony of TAM.

Prior to the signing, Kasich was delivered a report from the Ohio Human Trafficking Task Force, which includes 26 recommendations intended to compliment HB 262 in implementing strategies to help victims and prevent human trafficking.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, Ohio, politics

Tagged , , ,

1982-2012: The Rutherford Institute Celebrates 30 Years in the Fight for Freedom in America

Posted on June 27, 2012 | Leave a comment

“I often believe that John Whitehead is channeling the principles of James Madison, who would be very proud of him.”—Nat Hentoff, nationally syndicated columnist

“The Founding Fathers, reinforced by the famous commentator Alexis de Tocqueville, understood that civic responsibility and civic organizations—these private collections of individuals—were what were to hold the Constitution together. It wasn’t a document just for government officials. And The Rutherford Institute has cultivated the highest level of civic understanding of the Constitution and of the individual responsibility to make the Constitution life and blood in their daily lives and in their professional ambitions. And if The Rutherford Institute is imitated throughout the country, we’re in good stead for the 21st century.”—Bruce Fein, former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. —Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute will celebrate its 30th anniversary on June 29, 2012. Over the course of the past 30 years, The Rutherford Institute has grown into a fighting force for freedom, a national organization that commands both attention and respect, with affiliate attorneys and members stretching across the United States. Institute attorneys have defended the rights of countless individuals in their struggle for freedom and human rights in the face of oppressive regimes, both government and private agencies. This assistance has extended into virtually every area of life, including the schools, home, workplace and state and federal agencies. The Rutherford Institute has been privileged to work alongside and defend great freedom fighters, in addition to arguing and winning cases at virtually every court level in the land, including the United States Supreme Court.

“While it is a milestone in the life of any organization, this anniversary is significant not only because of what was begun years ago but because of the work that continues today,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “If we can continue to safeguard the freedoms cherished by so many generations of Americans, we will have done our part to ensure that this nation remains free.”

Founded in 1982, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. The Rutherford Institute has emerged as one of the nation’s leading advocates of civil liberties and human rights, litigating in the courts and educating the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting individual freedom in the United States and around the world.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , ,

Birthplace of Christ Used in Bid for Palestinian Statehood

Posted on June 27, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Christine Williams

The issue is not genuinely about a two-state solution – as many are fooled into believing. Lethal opposition to the State of Israel remains fierce. This tiny democracy, Israel, which lives by individual freedoms, equal justice under law and respect for universal human rights, is an affront to these autocratic regimes.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), will soon decide whether to honor the Palestinian application to award The Church of the Nativity the designation of a World Heritage Site—a title reserved for locations considered to have outstanding Universal Value.

The World Heritage Committee is now meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia, presumably to decide to whom to award the Church of the Nativity, said to be the birthplace of Christ, as well as the Pilgrimage Route in Bethlehem.

Here is where it gets problematic: although only applicants recognized as having an independent state are eligible for consideration, the Palestinians are being considered even though they do not meet that qualification.

This ambitious move by the Palestinian Authority [PA] started in February 2011; Palestinian Tourism Minister Khulud Daibes was explicit about the motive: “The timing is crucial for us; it is part and parcel of our plan to end the (Israeli) occupation and build the institutions of the state of Palestine.”

The drive to have the Church of the Nativity recognized as a global heritage site is nothing short of offensive. Christians have been driven out of their ancestral lands; Palestinians have shown nothing but hostility to both Christians and Jews. Moreover, Christ himself was a Jew.

Upon the birth of the State of Israel in 1948, Bethlehem had a Christian population of over 80 percent. With the rise of the Muslim population, Christians dwindled in numbers. Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority took over the town in 1995, thanks to the Oslo Accords. Along with the PA, came a tribal political system which caused Bethlehem’s Christian population, already at 15%, to further sink to 2% today. Under this political system Christians are targeted, seen as inferiors, and subjected to threats, violence, discrimination and acts of terrorism.

Upon entering Bethlehem Yasser Arafat was strategic in overtaking the Christian populace. He first expanded municipal boundaries to include 30,000 Muslims living in refugee camps, as well as Muslim Bedouins who lived east of the town.

The first and second intifadas further drove Christians out of their ancestral town as they became trapped in the crossfire between the Palestinians and Israelis. The violent struggle predictably drew international attention, and created the ideal platform for Palestinian sympathizers to levy blame on the so-called Israeli “occupation.”

Israel’s so-called “occupation” and “aggression” were solely based on self defense: both the Palestinian and Hamas Charters call for Israel’s obliteration; Israel’s southern cities is still live under nearly daily attack by hostile Arab States and forces seeking its destruction.

The Muslim aggression on the other hand is based on a conditioned, generational hatred against the Jews (and Christians) evidently determined to see the Jews of the State of Israel, a country the size of Vancouver Island, pushed into the sea, while an Islamic Caliphate is formed to rule the Middle East.

This tiny democracy, Israel, which lives by individual freedoms. equal justice under law, and respect for universal human rights, is an affront to these autocratic regimes.

In mid-June, Palestinian Media Watch identified a program in which children are being indoctrinated to hate Jews and Christians.

Given the plight of beleaguered Christians in Bethlehem, the Palestinian delegation to UNESCO still brazenly included duplicitous high praises for the Christian heritage in its application, while Islamicizing the Christian tradition: “Jesus’ role as Issa,,” it stated,”the divinely inspired prophet in Islamic belief, is equally significant and underscores the sanctity of the place;” and further, that “there is no other site in the world that bears such an exceptional outstanding religious value for more than 2 billion Christians. There is only one site in the world that has the honor of being the birthplace of Jesus.”

As one step closer to the Arab vision of Palestinian statehood, the U.N. General Assembly voted to allow Palestine admission as a full member into UNESCO last October after President Mahmoud Abbas—whose PhD featured Holocaust denial– unilaterally made a case for Palestinian statehood and full U.N. membership.

Many Western nations condemned this unilateral maneuver, and protested that it would be best to allow negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to continue — yet even to begin negotiations, Palestinians should first recognize the fundamental right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, and change the contents of their charters to reflect this change. How can anyone negotiate anything with people who state that you have no right to exist?

The issue is not genuinely about a two-state solution — as many are fooled into believing. In 1947 the United Nations already came up with a two-state solution when it recommended partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab; so there would have been a Palestinian state in 1948. But instead five Arab counties went to war against the new Jewish state to try to obliterate it at birth.

Today, sadly, nothing has changed. Lethal opposition to the existence of Israel remains fierce, including this current, more subtle provocation from a territory now using a Christian holy site — the Church of the Nativity — to try to advance a most un-Christian agenda.

Christine Williams is a federally appointed Director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. She is also a member of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center Task Force Against Anti-semitism. She is a Journalist and nine time, international award-winning talk show Host and Producer at CTS TV in Burlington, Ontario. Her article was originally published by June 26, 2012
Gladestone Institute on June 26, 2012.

Leave a comment

Posted in politics, religion

Tagged , , , , ,

AZ v. US: Supreme Court Declares Criminalizing Illegal Immigrants & Warrantless Arrests Unconstitutional, Lets Stand Police Status Checks

Posted on June 26, 2012 | Leave a comment

WASHINGTON, DC — A divided Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law pertaining to the criminalizing of illegal immigrants (for not possessing their federal registration cards while working, applying for work or soliciting work) and warrantless arrests by police, while unanimously affirming the “show me your papers” part of S.B. 1070 that requires police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they determine might be in the country illegally. The Rutherford Institute had filed an amicus curiae brief in State of Arizona v. United States of America asking the Court to declare S.B. 1070 unconstitutional on the grounds that giving police officers broad authority to stop, search and question individuals—citizen and non-citizen alike—based primarily on appearance, race and the personal, subjective views and prejudices of the police, would move our nation yet one step closer to a “police state.”

“While the criminalizing and warrantless arrest provisions in the Arizona immigration law needed to be struck down, unfortunately, this ruling does little to recognize or counteract the real danger inherent in S.B. 1070, which is the erection of a prototype police state in Arizona,” said John W. Whitehead. “By allowing Arizona police to stop and search people, citizens and immigrants alike, based only on their own subjective suspicions and visual observations, and by failing to address the core issue being debated here—namely, whether Americans have any Fourth Amendment protections anymore—the Court has opened the door to a host of abuses, the least of which will be racial profiling. Without fail, we will be revisiting this issue again.”

In April 2010, Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 in response to a perceived crisis in illegal immigration. The law requires law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if the officer suspects that the person is an unauthorized immigrant. Before such persons may be released, police must determine and verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government. S.B. 1070 also makes it a state crime, punishable by up to 20 days in jail, for an alien legally present in the country not to have in his or her possession an alien registration document. The law also allowed state law enforcement officials to make a warrantless arrest of any person upon probable cause that the person has committed an offense which makes the person removable from the United States under federal immigration laws. The Obama administration challenged the constitutionality of S.B. 1070’s provisions, arguing that they were preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A federal district court in Arizona agreed, forbidding Arizona from enforcing the law, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly affirmed.

In weighing in on the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute argued that enforcement of S.B. 1070 poses a threat to the Fourth Amendment rights of all citizens and others because it authorizes officers to make arrests for misdemeanors constituting “excludable” offenses even though the minor offense was not committed in the officer’s presence. Moreover, the requirement that officers determine the immigration status of detainees would require that detentions extend well beyond what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. S.B. 1070 also poses a threat to rights under the Equal Protection Clause because law enforcement officials will, intentionally or subconsciously, use race as a proxy for decisions about a person’s immigration status, resulting in racial profiling of Hispanics.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , , ,

Sermon on the Mount: The New Currency

Posted on June 24, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Daniel Downs

In the last post on Jesus’ Sermon given from Mount Gerezim, the discussion about its relevance for today was continued. The topic was spiritual food. For those on the journey to the heavenly city, spiritual food is more important than the natural kind. You know the saying: you are what you eat! Those on the journey know they will not get there without still being alive unto God.

For the spiritually poor, consuming and living God’s word is a matter of utter survival. More crucial than society’s socialist welfare program is God’s welfare plan for our lives. It too is a cradle to beyond the grave plan encompassing our material and spiritual needs and rights. The really good part is that God promises to coach us through the challenges and celebrate our successes. Because God is a good provider, the poor do not remain needy.

Maybe that is why Jesus directed his sermon to those who would be blessed of God. (See the links below to the previous four posts.)

In his next sermon point, Jesus’ focus on the divine economy turns to currency. Currency is something of specified value used in the trade of goods and services. In a barter economy, people trade their stuff for other people’s stuff. As in our modern economy, the ancients used money for buying and selling desired goods and services. As you can see, giving and receiving is part of the divine design for humans in this world. What we often overlook is the other type of currency we are expected to use in God’s economy, which is summarized in the following verse:

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”(Matthew 5:7)

All previous parts of Jesus’ sermon focused on a state of being as it relates to God and to a lesser degree to others. Here the emphasis is on a dynamic of giving and receiving.

In the previous four posts, Jesus taught that acknowledging one’s spiritual poverty leads to acquiring personal property in God’s kingdom. This was followed with the assurance that when in the state of mourning for one’s failures God would be there to comfort and to restore. The benefit of sorrow and repentance is the development of a right attitude about oneself. The name for the realization of one’s log-size flaws is called humility. Gentleness towards others is the desired outcome. It is realizing that others deserve as much understanding and compassion as oneself. The practice of this divine virtue is equivalent to a mortgage for earthly property, which property God promises to give. Of course, sowing righteousness or justice produces a harvest of satisfaction. The motivation to do so comes in the state of being hungry for it. This kind of hunger is a combined result of the poverty and guilt, a poverty of right relationships because of sin, pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, and the like.

What is amazing about knowing God is the fact that it is a relationship based on God’s demonstrated mercy, compassion, and loving-kindness. The evidence of our experienced relationship with God is a character formed in the His likeness, that is God being merciful, compassionate, and kind. This also we find in Luke’s version of Jesus sermon:

“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36)

Here the adjective “merciful” describes more than a “state of being” it is a way of acting towards others. To be merciful is to show mercy as God has demonstrated it to oneself.

According to the perspective of Matthew’s gospel, the degree to which our lives exemplify God’s mercy is the degree to which we are perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

The Bible is full of examples of mercy. The model of God’s mercy is the Exodus, which was the eventful emancipation of the Jews from poverty and misery of slavery in Pharaoh’s Egypt, and its capstone is the redemption of the Gentiles from bondage to the evils of sin. The dessert of divine justice for human crime (sin) against the law of God was completely satisfied by the sacrificed life of Jesus. This is the supreme example of God’s mercy mediated through one sinless man, Jesus.

Yet, Jesus demonstrated the kind of mercy God expects the blessed citizens of His kingdom to give. The gospels show Jesus healing the sick, comforting the bereaved, and even feeding the hungry. He was kind towards lepers, prostitutes, and IRS agents of his day. He sought to bring them into the righteousness of God’s kingdom through compassion rather than condemnation. Like the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-36), Jesus went out of his way to bind up the wounded and to facilitate their restoration to physical and spiritual health. The Spirit by which he accomplished it then is the same God who is accomplishing it today.

When Jesus was instructing his audience about the currency of mercy, he may have had in mind more than the biblical canon. He may have had in view some popular extra-canonical texts as well. Consider the following teaching in the Testament of Zebulun:

“And now, my children, I bid you to keep the commands of the Lord, and to show mercy to your neighbors, and to have compassion towards all, not towards men only, but also towards beasts. For all this thing’s sake the Lord blessed me, and when all my brethren were sick, I escaped without sickness, for the Lord knows the purposes of each. Have, therefore, compassion in your hearts, my children, because even as a man doeth to his neighbor, even so also will the Lord do to him. For the sons of my brethren were sickening and were dying on account of Joseph, because they showed no mercy in their hearts; but my sons were preserved without sickness, as ye know. And when I was in the land of Canaan, by the sea-coast, I made a catch of fish for Jacob my father. (5:1-5).

“I was the first to make a boat to sail upon the sea, for the Lord gave me understanding and wisdom therein. And I let down a rudder behind it, and I stretched a sail upon another upright piece of wood in the midst. And I sailed therein along the shores, catching fish for the house of my father until we came to Egypt. And through compassion I shared my catch with every stranger. And if a man were a stranger, or sick, or aged, I boiled the fish, and dressed them well, and offered them to all men, as every man had need, grieving with and having compassion upon them. Wherefore also the Lord satisfied me with abundance of fish when catching fish; for he that shares with his neighbor receives manifold more from the Lord. For five years I caught fish and gave thereof to every man whom I saw, and sufficed for all the house of my father. And in the summer I caught fish, and in the winter I kept sheep with my brethren. (6:1-8)

“I saw a man in distress through nakedness in winter-time, and had compassion upon him, and stole away a garment secretly from my father’s house, and gave it to him who was in distress. Do [the same], my children; from that which God bestows upon you, show compassion and mercy without hesitation to all men, and give to every man with a good heart. And if ye have not the wherewithal to give to him that needs, have compassion for him in bowels of mercy…. Because also in the last days God will send His compassion on the earth, and wherever He finds bowels of mercy He dwells in him. For in the degree in which a man hath compassion upon his neighbors, in the same degree hath the Lord also upon him.” (7:1-4; 8:13).

Another interesting statement is found in an ancient Hebrew work by the title Sirach. There are some significant variations in a number of translations, but the following is one version of the statement:

“He that practices kindness offers fine flour, and he that doeth mercy sacrifices a thank-offering.” (35:2)

This statement seems reminiscent of biblical texts like “I desired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6) or possibly “To do righteousness and justice is desired by the LORD more than sacrifice.” (Proverbs 21:3)

What is certain is that any one person in Jesus’ audience would have recalled one of those statements when Jesus later utters the following quote, “Go learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion and not sacrifice’.” (Matthew. 9:13 & 12:7)

The second part of Jesus’ sermon point under consideration may be put this way: Blessed are those who gain in what they trade. Because they give mercy they also receive mercy. They also receive many other benefits. According to Zebulun, God threw in a health plan and a food distributorship.

More important, God regards giving mercy as an act of spiritual sacrifice, a sacrifice of loyalty and thanksgiving.

It is God himself first gives humanity the currency of mercy, compassion, and loving-kindness. God invests mercy in us so that we can trade it with others. Being a good Father and capitalist, He expects a return on His investment. He also expects us to go and do likewise (Luke 10:37).

Previous Sermon on the Mount posts:

Sermon on the Mount: Any Relevance Today,
From Weeping to Laughing,
Property Rights.
Sermon on the Mount: Spiritual Food

Leave a comment

Posted in Bible, economy, religion

Tagged , , ,

Catholic Church’s Internal Legal System Charged with Unfairness and Partisanship

Posted on June 23, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Bai Macfarlane

A Catholic News Agency (CNA) story from June 4, says Pope Benedict challenges US bishops to revive Christian culture: “The Holy Father spoke of the challenges in marriage, in family life.” Gregory Lynne, a practicing Catholic residing in Virginia, observes that, “in regards to marriage and family, the U.S. Catholic Bishops act schizophrenically in the practices and teachings of their diocesan staff including their tribunals.”

In a recent article, Monsignor Cormac Burke – a canon lawyer who served on the appellate court for internal matters for the Catholic Church (Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota) – said there is a widespread problem in the English-speaking world. Specifically, judges in the tribunal courts in the Catholic Church who rule on canon law affecting Catholic marriages commonly have a mistaken bias toward giving annulment decisions and they treat defendant-respondents unfairly.

An annulment, which in canon law is called a declaration of invalidity, is a decree from the Church tribunal system saying that two people were never really married. Cases start when one party alleges that their marriage is invalid. The other party, the defendant-respondent, has the right to argue that their marriage is valid. The law requires that all marriages shall be presumed valid until proven otherwise.

Schizophrenia, in general use, is a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements. Mr. Lynne’s concern centers on the Catholic Church’s complacency and/or complicity when her own members force upon their spouses and children no-fault divorce. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that divorce is immoral and a grave offense against nature.

Lynne sees further inconsistency when the local Church tribunals easily issue annulment decrees alleging that spouses were never married in the first place. In Lynne’s experience, his wife forced a no-fault divorce on him and his children

Lynne says, “The priest that married us, Fr. Charles Irvin (Lansing, MI Diocese) (himself a canon lawyer) told me the vows he witnessed between us were disposable.”

Lynne vehemently disagrees, citing the marital commandment (1 Cor. 7:10-11), which “tolerates ONLY legal separation and which also enjoins spouses to seek to reconcile. Meanwhile, lax Church clergy concession toward civil divorce (vs. legal separation) has enticed my wife into bigamy, further alienating our mutilated family with a step-father while the validity of our marriage is still putatively, canonically-intact.”

If the U.S. bishops undermine their own Church’s official doctrine and law on marriage, separation, divorce, and annulment, it unlikely that they will have any effect strengthening marriage and family amongst the culture at-large. The Pope is asking them to revive Christian culture, particularly regarding marriage and family.

“Angelicum Review,” the prestigious journal from the Dominical Pontifical University in Rome, published Msgr. Cormac Burke’s article, “Justice and Transparency in Matrimonial Decisions.” Burke has an extensive website where anyone can read case law from the Roman Rota and he corresponds with readers:

“Among other e-mails that my website brings in, a number come from respondents in marriage cases. They inquire about procedural matters, and particularly about how to proceed if, after a first instance Affirmative decision, they wish to appeal to the Roman Rota. Case after case has served to confirm the impression I formed during my years at the Rota (an impression which was common among the judges there) that, especially in the English-speaking countries, quite a number of local tribunals show a lack of due respect for the rights of the respondent, a reluctance to inform him or her of the ways open to them if they oppose a first instance decision and at times, it must be added, even a certain misrepresentation of the difficulties (especially in relation to costs) which may arise from an appeal to the Rota.

“One senses a trace of partisanship here, as if the Judicial Vicar or the judges involved, yielding to a pro-nullity pastoral stance, had lost the impartiality that is a necessary quality of the just judge.”

Msgr. Burke shares excerpts from a current annulment case being tried by a U.S. tribunal court, in which the defendant-respondent was treated unfairly. The identity and diocese of the defendant-respondent are kept secret, but Burke publishes and criticizes direct quotes from the US tribunal judge’s letters to the defendant-respondent.

The U.S. tribunal judge gave the defendant-respondent disinformation about his right to appeal the first ruling that his marriage was invalid. The defendant was erroneously told that in order to appeal to the Vatican, the defendant had to prove to the local judge that the reasons for appeal were serious enough, plus the appeal to Rome was going to cost the defendant-respondent a lot of money. Former Roman Rota Judge, Burke clarified that the local tribunal does not have any discretionary power to stop someone from appealing to Rome to defend the validly of their marriage.

In Burke’s article, he says, “It is quite common for tribunals to suggest to a party thinking of an appeal to Rome, that this is a very expensive practice. This is not true.” In the early 1990’s there was an agreement between Rome and any U.S. diocese. Burke explains:

“If the Tribunal accepts the petition (cf. c. 1505, §1), it is logical that the Petitioner makes a payment towards the expenses of the case. But if the Respondent is opposed to the claim, there would be no logic whatsoever in requiring him or her to share in the expenses of a case initiated by the Petitioner. Taking this a step farther, if after a first instance Affirmative decision, the Respondent pursues his or her right of defense by appealing to the Roman Rota, justice requires that the local Tribunal facilitates this appeal and does not seek to make it more difficult – e.g. by suggesting that the Respondent must pay something in the order of $500 or $850. This would be totally contrary to the terms and spirit of the agreement mentioned above.”

Burke also exposes the unjust practice of withholding from the defendant-respondent a full copy of the final decision. If the petitioner/plaintiff gets a pro-annulment decision from the lower tribunal, the decision or “Sentence” is supposed to describe the law-based rationale that the judges used to conclude that the marriage was invalid. The defendant-respondent is supposed to get a full copy of the Sentence – which they would need as they correspond with an appellate court to describe their objections and observations. The defendant-respondent in Burke’s article was not allowed to get his own copy of the Sentence.

Lynne said that the Tribunal of the Diocese of Richmond Virginia, in 2003, would not provide him his own full copy of their Sentence declaring his marriage was invalid, even though he made multiple requests. Only after Lynne had appealed Richmond’s decision to the Roman Rota did the Richmond court provide him a full copy of their decision.

Deborah Nuzzo, a defendant-respondent in the Tribunal of the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, says that in 2010, the tribunal would not let her have her own full copy of their decision.

In and e-mail interview, Nuzzo said “The director of Brooklyn’s tribunal told me that they never give copies of the Sentence to the parties. He went on to say that there is not a Church tribunal in any of the adjoining states who do. When I pressed him to explain, he glibly answered, ‘someone might put this on their refrigerator.’ This was the second time I received the same answer to my question. It is against canon law to withhold this, plus it treats a serious matter as a joke.”

Nuzzo advises respondent-defendants to learn about their rights and inform the bishop every step along the way if rights are being denied, and to save all written correspondence for future defense to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

Bai Macfarland is founder of Mary’s Advocates, a advocacy work for the advancement of traditional Catholic marriage and family law.

Leave a comment

Posted in marriage, religion

Demystifying “Transaction Costs” When Reforming Public Pensions

Posted on June 22, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Greg Lawson

Meaningful public pension reform requires a transition from existing defined-­?benefit (DB) pension systems to defined-­?contribution (DC) or hybrid (a combina-­?mandated accounting changes resulting from closing a DB plan that then end up as frontloaded costs have often been used as an argument against reform. But Ohio lawmakers should not view transition costs as an insurmountable impediment to comprehensive pension reform. As has been seen in other states, transition costs can be mitigated through smart reforms that correctly interpret several standards set by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The dominant belief until now has been that GASB accounting standards dictate that essentially, this would mean that more taxpayer money is needed upfront in order to the practice used by open DB plans which amortize liabilities more gradually over time. Frontloaded costs due to level dollar amortization can total billions of dollars above baseline spending in the short run; thus, reform can appear costly at a time of already strained state finances.

Chart 1 : Level Dollar vs. Level Percentage Accounting

Source: Laura and John Arnold Foundation

Chart 1 is an illustration of the difference between level dollar (closed DB plan) and level percentage accounting (open DB plan). While both practices amortize identical amounts of liabilities, level dollar practices frontload these payments, creating transitioncosts.

But as new research from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation shows, the supposedly mandated switch from level percentage to level dollar amortization is incorrect. While pension system actuaries claim that closing out a DB plan mandates accelerated costs, GASB Statements 25 and 27 do not mandate a change in funding policy, only a change in financial reporting. A number of reform minded states have made this distinction and have found success in aggressively reforming their pension plans without encountering the burden of high transition costs.

Rhode Island and Utah

In November 2011, Rhode Island converted its DB retirement systems into a DB/DC hybrid. Despite the reduction of the DB plan, GASB accounting standards did not trigger level dollar amortization. Basically, transition costs do not apply. Unfunded liabilities continue to be amortized on a gradual, level percentage basis.

This holds promise for states looking to accomplish similar reforms. Even though a DB plan may be dramatically reduced, keeping a remnant of the plan open allows for a continued usage of level percentage accounting practices.

To close the remaining unfunded liability of the existing DB system, amortization payments are calculated
according to total employee payroll (all members in both the existing DB plan and the newly created hybrid), not just the remaining employees in the DB plan. Utah implemented this strategy in its hybrid reform
package of 2010 and has experienced no accelerated amortization payments.

Full Defined Contribution Plans

While Rhode Island and Utah have shown that transition costs can be avoided through hybrid plans, it is still possible to alleviate transition costs in full DC systems.

This again is made possible by applying amortization payments to all employees participating in the existing DB plan and the new DC plan.

Just as is the case with hybrid systems, GASB provisions do not dictate state funding policy, only financial
disclosure requirements. In the case of DC plans, liability amortization of a closed defined benefit pension
plan must be reported on a level dollar scale to follow GASB reporting requirements, but liabilities can be
funded independently of GASB recommendations. The less frontloaded level percentage amortization schedule can still be utilized as long as all employees are included in calculating the amortization cost.

The entire question of defined benefit pension amortization should be resolved shortly as GASB is scheduled to eliminate provisions of Statements 25 and 27. GASB never was intended to dictate state funding policy and it is now preparing to remove itself from that arena.

Pension reform is a separate issue from liability amortization. Therefore, changes in one do not necessitate variances in the other. The falsely assumed barrier of level dollar accounting practices for closed DB plans has spawned the myth of transition costs and has only served as an impediment for true pension reform for over a decade. When reform is structured correctly with amortization based on total payroll, states can pay down their remaining liabilities at a fiscally sustainable rate and still address their long-­?term fiscal
challenges with defined-­?contribution solutions.

Greg R. Lawson is the Statehouse Liaison and Policy Analyst with the Buckeye Institute where his policy brief was first published.

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, Ohio, politics

Tagged , ,