Category Archives: politics

American Catholic Bishops Inconsistent On Liberty and Marriage

By Bai Macfarlane

The US Bishops on April 12 issued a call to action to defend religious liberty and urge the laity to work to protect the First Freedom of the Bill of Rights – religious freedom.

In the USCCB’s press release, the first concern listed that prompted their call is the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate forcing all employers, including religious organizations, to provide and pay for coverage of employees’ contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs even when they have moral objections to them.

The Bishops don’t want the Church to be forced to pay for services or provide services to their employees that the Church knows are immoral. But sadly, the U.S. Bishops have been silent when tens of thousands of Catholic parents have been forced to pay for services and provide ‘care’ for their own children when the parents knew the services were immoral.

Every time a Catholic parent is the defendant in a no-fault divorce, and the civil court orders that parent to forcibly stop having daily access to his or her children, that parent is being forced to give ‘care’ to their own children that the parent knows is immoral. Every time the government forces that parent to pay financial support for a second separate household in which that parent is not even allowed to live, the government is ordering the parent to follow unjust laws.

By natural law, canon law (and one could even argue that by constitutional law), anyone with a Catholic marriage has the rights and obligations that both spouses agreed to accept when they married. When anyone marries in the Rite of Catholic marriage, they agree to follow the laws of Christ and His Church. Both spouses have the right and obligation to maintain a common household with their spouse and children unless there is a fault-based reason for separation of spouses (canon 1151-1155).

Neither can file for a divorce without the permission of their bishop and they cannot seek divorce orders contrary to divine law (canon 1692). But unjust laws inflict immoral separations on Catholic families every day whenever one of the spouses, for any reasons whatsoever, feels like reneging on their marital promises and files for no-fault divorce. The government’s divorce courts will coerce and force separation and divorce decrees, contrary to divine law, on the innocent spouse and children.

If the USCCB is going to be consistent with their call to action to defend our religious liberty, they will raise a unified voice against no-fault divorce practices, which are blatantly unjust. After all, the Bishops said, “It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law. An unjust law cannot be obeyed.”

This article was originally published in Spero New’s Religion Forum, April 12, 2012. Bai Macfarlane is founder of Mary’s Advocates.

Jailing Americans for Profit: The Rise of the Prison Industrial Complex

By John W. Whitehead

In an age when freedom is fast becoming the exception rather than the rule, imprisoning Americans in private prisons run by mega-corporations has turned into a cash cow for big business. At one time, the American penal system operated under the idea that dangerous criminals needed to be put under lock and key in order to protect society. Today, as states attempt to save money by outsourcing prisons to private corporations, the flawed yet retributive American “system of justice” is being replaced by an even more flawed and insidious form of mass punishment based upon profit and expediency.

As author Adam Gopnik reports for the New Yorker:

[A] growing number of American prisons are now contracted out as for-profit businesses to for-profit companies. The companies are paid by the state, and their profit depends on spending as little as possible on the prisoners and the prisons. It’s hard to imagine any greater disconnect between public good and private profit: the interest of private prisons lies not in the obvious social good of having the minimum necessary number of inmates but in having as many as possible, housed as cheaply as possible.

Consider this: despite the fact that violent crime in America has been on the decline, the nation’s incarceration rate has tripled since 1980. Approximately 13 million people are introduced to American jails in any given year. Incredibly, more than six million people are under “correctional supervision” in America, meaning that one in fifty Americans are working their way through the prison system, either as inmates, or while on parole or probation. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the majority of those being held in federal prisons are convicted of drug offenses—namely, marijuana. Presently, one out of every 100 Americans is serving time behind bars.

Little wonder, then, that public prisons are overcrowded. Yet while providing security, housing, food, medical care, etc., for six million Americans is a hardship for cash-strapped states, to profit-hungry corporations such as Corrections Corp of America (CCA) and GEO Group, the leaders in the partnership corrections industry, it’s a $70 billion gold mine. Thus, with an eye toward increasing its bottom line, CCA has floated a proposal to prison officials in 48 states offering to buy and manage public prisons at a substantial cost savings to the states. In exchange, and here’s the kicker, the prisons would have to contain at least 1,000 beds and states would have agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.

The problem with this scenario, as Roger Werholtz, former Kansas secretary of corrections, recognizes is that while states may be tempted by the quick infusion of cash, they “would be obligated to maintain these (occupancy) rates and subtle pressure would be applied to make sentencing laws more severe with a clear intent to drive up the population.” Unfortunately, that’s exactly what has happened. Among the laws aimed at increasing the prison population and growing the profit margins of special interest corporations like CCA are three-strike laws (mandating sentences of 25 years to life for multiple felony convictions) and “truth-in-sentencing” legislation (mandating that those sentenced to prison serve most or all of their time).

“And this is where it gets creepy,” observes reporter Joe Weisenthal for Business Insider, “because as an investor you’re pulling for scenarios where more people are put in jail.” In making its pitch to potential investors, CCA points out that private prisons comprise a unique, recession-resistant investment opportunity, with more than 90% of the market up for grabs, little competition, high recidivism among prisoners, and the potential for “accelerated growth in inmate populations following the recession.” In other words, caging humans for profit is a sure bet, because the U.S. population is growing dramatically and the prison population will grow proportionally as well, and more prisoners equal more profits.

However, while a flourishing privatized prison system is a financial windfall for corporate investors, it bodes ill for any measures aimed at reforming prisoners and reducing crime. CCA understands this. As it has warned investors, efforts to decriminalize certain activities, such as drug use (principally possession of marijuana), could cut into their profits. So too would measures aimed at reducing the prison system’s disproportionately racist impact on minorities, given that the incarceration rate for blacks is seven times that of whites. Immigrants are also heavily impacted, with roughly 2.5 million people having been through the immigration detention system since 2003. As private prisons begin to dominate, the many troubling characteristics of our so-called criminal justice system today—racism, economic inequality, inadequate access to legal representation, lack of due process, etc.—will only become more acute.

Doubtless, a system already riddled by corruption will inevitably become more corrupt, as well. For example, consider the “kids for cash” scandal which rocked Luzerne County, Penn., in 2009. For ten years, the Mid Atlantic Youth Service Corporation, which specializes in private prisons for juvenile offenders, paid two judges to jail youths and send them to private prison facilities. The judges, who made over $2.6 million in the scam, had more than 5,000 kids come through their courtrooms and sent many of them to prison for petty crimes such as stealing DVDs from Wal-Mart and trespassing in vacant buildings. When the scheme finally came to light, one judge was sentenced to 17.5 years in prison and the other received 28 years, but not before thousands of young lives had been ruined.

No matter what the politicians or corporate heads might say, prison privatization is neither fiscally responsible nor in keeping with principles of justice. It simply encourages incarceration for the sake of profits, while causing millions of Americans, most of them minor, nonviolent criminals, to be handed over to corporations for lengthy prison sentences which do nothing to protect society or prevent recidivism. This perverse notion of how prisons should be run, that they should be full at all times, and full of minor criminals, is evil.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Resurrection, Relationships, and America

By Daniel Downs

Jesus is risen!

Today, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, the Jew. The celebrants rejoice in his victory over the consequences of sin, which is death. For first century Christians, this fact was cause for hope for eternal life, and it is still cause for the same hope now.

But, what is life? Surely, it is more than bodily functions such as breathing, thinking, going here and there… In the book of Acts, the author recounts a forty-day period during which time Jesus renewed his relationships with disciples, family and others. Acts also presents an eyewitness account of Jesus’ ascension to heaven. His resurrection and ascension depicts the ultimate restoration of Jesus relationship with God.

Being redemptive, Easter is a celebration of the restoration of our relationship with God through Christ Jesus.

The first chapters of Genesis show us that a human relationship with God was the divine intention of the Creator. Because humans were created in the likeness of God, we have the capacity such a relationship. Genesis goes to depict the reason for human existence. In sum, we exist to serve the Creator by overseeing nature, which implies partnerships with other humans. When natural and holy, these relationships accomplish God’s purposes. For example, the family serves the need its members, establishes and perpetuated human society, and thus fulfills part of the divine plan. Economy and education actually are both natural products of inter- and intra-family relations. However, the complexity of the web of societal institutions creates the artificial need for governmental services beyond the basics. Government is composed of representatives of all related families of a given society, and those representatives serve to fulfill common need of all families. The common and basic needs include protecting the lives and property of those served.

A paternal government cannot exist when families are fulfilling their created functions and roles. Oppressive governments exist as a result of the death of moral relationships. Divorce is the result of moral crimes, and moral crime ends in alienation and death. The artificiality of modern institutionalized society is a major contributor to the alienation and death in society, its families, and the moral decline that produces it. Mutually beneficial godly relationships are the essence life now and forever.

America certainly needs a resurrection that only God and Jesus can perform.

Good Friday 2012: When the Line Is Crossed

By Daniel Downs

An excellent editorial was published in yesterday’s edition of the Guardian, a U.K. newspaper. The editor shows how the short story Christ in Concrete relates the Good Friday story to past and present sacrifice of individuals that altered human history. The story was a thinly veiled account of the life and death of Italian-American writer Pietro di Danato’s father Geremio, who was an underpaid brick layer. Peitro likened his father life and work-related death on Good Friday to the Via Delarosa of Christ and his selfless suffering as a result of mindless capitalism. Christ in Concrete shifted the American mood, and Geremio’s death counts among those that have, to one extent or another, altered history.

The editor also mentioned the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc who burned himself to death protesting against the South Vietnamese government’s terrible treatment of fellow Buddhists. His death sparked a movement among the South Vietnamese people that resulted in the fall of the Ngo Dinh Diem’s government.

The editor is right the sacrifices of those men and of men like Jan Palach in Czechoslovokia in 1969 or Mohamed Bouazizzi in Tunisia in 2010 cannot be compared to the sacrifices of lives in Jihad.

They cannot even be compared to the sacrifices farmers, parents, spouses who sacrificed their lives so that their loved ones would survive the end of their life of farming. In the 1980s, Federal Reserve induced inflation caused many rural bank defaults and interest rates of agricultural loans to skyrocket. Farm loans encouraged by rural farm lenders has to be called in. Of course, most farmers couldn’t pay, resulting in bankruptcy. What urban bankers, investors and politicians didn’t realize was that farming is life to generational farm families. The end of farming meant the end of life. As a result, many unusual accidents occurred killing the head of the bankrupt farms. The benefit was the large insurance claims were be paid to their surviving spouses and children.

“The insecure economic world in which Geremio lived – and died – is back with us again, after a half century during which we thought we had made its return impossible. Our leaders, and those who influence them, are not malign. But they are inept, and they seem often to be uncaring.”

What the editor failed to mentioned is that Jesus Christ lived in a world dominated by the same kind of leaders who produced economic conditions that impoverished masses in Israel, Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world they controlled. The difference between Jesus’ death and those mentioned in the editorial is this: The sacrifice of the lives mentioned in editorial produced freedom and justice in their nations for a season, but Jesus’ sacrifice secured life for all people in all nations forever. The death and resurrection of Christ is source of the freedom enjoyed by West still today.

We fail to return to the source of our freedom at our own peril.

(The eidtorial can be read at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/06/good-friday-when-line-is-crossed.

Passover – An Inalienable American Value

By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Passover, and especially the legacy of Moses and the Exodus, has been part of the American story since the seventeenth century, inspiring the American pursuit of liberty, justice and morality.

The special role played by Passover – and the Bible – in shaping the American state of mind constitutes the foundation of the unique relations between the American People and the Jewish State. As important as are the current mutual threats and interests between the US and Israel, the bedrock of the unbreakable US-Israel alliance are permanent values, principles and legacies, such as Passover.

In 1620 and 1630, William Bradford and John Winthrop delivered sermons on the “Mayflower” and “Arbella,” referring to the deliverance from “modern day Egypt and Pharaoh,” to “the crossing of the modern day Red Sea” and to New Zion/Canaan as the destination of the Pilgrims on board.

In 1776, Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense (which cemented public support for the revolution), referred to King George as the “hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh.” Upon declaration of independence, Benjamin Franklin, the most secular Founding Father, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the second third American Presidents, proposed a Passover theme for the official US seal: the Pillar of Fire leading Moses and the Israelites through the Red Sea, while Pharaoh’s chariots drown in the Sea. The inscription on the seal was supposed to be: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,” framing the rebellion against the British monarchy as principle-driven. The lessons of the Jewish deliverance from Egyptian bondage reverberated thunderously among the Rebels, who considered the thirteen colonies to be “the modern day Twelve Tribes.”

The 19th century Abolitionists, and the Civil Rights movement from the 1940s to the 1970s, were inspired by the ethos of the Exodus and by the Bible’s opposition to slavery. In the 1830s, the Liberty Bell, an icon of American independence, was adopted by the Abolitionists, due to its Exodus-inspired inscription: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10). Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852), and her husband, Calvin Ellis Stowe (“The Little Rabbi”) were scholars of the Bible and the Exodus. Harriet Tubman, who escaped slavery in 1849 and freed Black slaves on the Underground Railroad, earned the name “Moses.” The 1879/80 Black slaves who ran away to Kansas were called “the Exodusters.” The most famous spiritual, “Go Down, Moses” was considered the National Anthem of Black slaves.

In 1865, following the murder of President Lincoln, most eulogies compared him to Moses. Just like Moses, Lincoln liberated slaves, but was stopped short of the Promised Land. France paid tribute to the martyred Lincoln by erecting the Statue of Liberty, featuring rays of sun and a tablet, just like the glaring Moses descending from Mount Sinai with the Two Tablets of the Ten Commandments.

In 1954, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. compared the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to desegregate public schools to the parting of the Red Sea. In 1964, upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. King proclaimed: “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself. The Bible tells the thrilling story of how Moses stood in Pharaoh’s court centuries ago and cried, ‘Let my people go.’”

President Reagan mentioned (Reagan at Westminster, 2010) Exodus as the first incident in a long line of Western resistance to tyranny: “Since the exodus from Egypt, historians have written of those who sacrificed and struggled for freedom – the stand at Thermopylae, the revolt of Spartacus, the storming of the Bastille, the Warsaw uprising in World War II.”

In July, 2003, President Bush stated, in Senegal, that “in America, enslaved Africans learned the story of the exodus from Egypt, and set their own hearts on a promised land of freedom.”

In March, 2007, President Obama said in Selma, Alabama that the civil rights pioneers were the “Moses generation” and he was part of the “Joshua generation” that would “find our way across the river.”

In 2012, the statue of Moses stares at the Speaker of the House, another statue of Moses towers above the seats of the Supreme Court Justices, a Ten Commandment monument sits on the ground of the Texas State Capitol and a similar monument will be shortly erected on the ground of the Oklahoma State Capitol.

In 2012, the leader of the Free World and its sole soul ally in the Middle East, Israel, are facing the most lethal threat to liberty since 1945 – conventional and non-conventional Islamic terrorism. Adherence to the legacy of Passover, marshaling the conviction-driven leadership of Moses, and demonstrating the Joshua and Caleb courage and defiance of odds, will once again facilitate the victory of liberty over tyranny.

Yoram Ettinmger was Israeli Ambassador to U.S. state governments. He is current the executive director of a U.S-Israel Initiative called Second Thoughts. This article was originally published in the Israeli newletter Hayom Israel on March 30, 2012.

What We Can Learn from Slavery, Person or Property?

Dr. Patrick Johnson, Personhood Ohio

The history of our nation is rich with the tradition of states nullifying tyrannical law. When federal power violates the Constitution or violates God’s law, states have successfully resisted.

For example, when the Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that runaway slave Dred Scott was “property” not a “person”, and when the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act demanded that runaway slaves be turned over to their masters, did you know that many states resisted and freed slaves?

In 1851, a U.S. Senator, a former New York governor, and 24 New Yorkers were arrested for hiding runaway slave William Henry. Under their direction, he finally made it to Canada to freedom. A jury practically “nullified” federal law by refusing to convict all but one of the 26 citizens who helped William Henry.

Wisconsin went even further and in 1854 officially declared the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional. Within five years, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, and Kansas followed Wisconsin’s lead and passed legislation to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

The rescue of the slave Joshua Glover is one of the most inspiring examples of the people nullifying immoral federal law. Glover escaped his Missouri master and, with the help of the Underground Railroad, made his way north to Wisconsin. Unfortunately, his master, B.S. Garland, eventually caught up with him.

With the help of two U.S. Marshals and a bloody wooden club, they arrested Glover and threw him in a Milwaukee jail. About 100 men who opposed slavery landed by boat in Milwaukee, furious. Their crowd grew dramatically in size as they marched toward the jail. The men convinced a local judge that the runaway slave was entitled to at least two things: a writ of habeas corpus and a trial by jury. The judge delivered the writ to the U.S. Marshals at the jail.

Not surprisingly, the federal officers rejected the validity of the writ.

However, the citizens of Wisconsin did not respect this “mischief framed by a law.” In courageous defiance, they broke down the doors of the jail and freed Joshua Glover! Then the sheriff arrested Glover’s former slave master and the two U.S. Marshals, charging them with assault! Take that, tyrants! In the meantime, the Underground Railroad assisted Joshua Glover as he crossed the border into Canada to freedom.

Ohio soon joined the ranks of northern states who refused to bow to the federal judiciary when the judges violated the Constitution and God’s law. Did you know that approximately half of the activists in the Underground Railroad were Ohioans? Ohio has a strong tradition of “nullifying” tyrannical federal law, and never has it been more necessary than now, when the federal government’s gavel results in the slaughter of 25,000 innocent preborn Ohioans every year.

The Emancipation Proclamation is credited with ending slavery, but godly Americans and sovereign states were ending slavery long before Lincoln ever thought of it. When the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe, was asked who ended slavery, she answered, “John Rankin and his sons.”

Who is John Rankin? A pastor in Ripley, Ohio, who defied federal tyranny and hid runaway slaves from the federal government. Was he a hero or a villain? Of course, a hero.

We will never have a Lincoln until we have a hundred Rankins. Ohio desperately needs more men and women like Reverend Rankin, who will love these children as they love themselves, who will work to pass state laws to protect these innocent babies from the federal government’s bloody gavel. Will you be one?

Anti-Semiticism At the United Nations?

According to Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, the United Nations Human Rights Council is number one opponent of Israel. By implication, this makes the UN a most anti-semitic institutions in the world. The following is the indictment proposed by Ambassador Ettinger.

On Friday, the HRC will conclude a month long deliberation by submitting four more resolutions condemning Israel.

The HRC heard testimony from a representative of the Assad regime, in formulating one of the resolutions, which denounces Israel for, alleged, violations of human rights on the Golan Heights. At the same time, the Assad regime has already murdered 8,000 Syrian dissidents and rebels, causing tens of thousands of refugees, some seeking asylum in Israel’s Golan Heights.

The HRC was privy to testimonies from Palestinian representatives, while an increasing number of Palestinians attempt to relocate to Jerusalem, in order to avoid the ruthless rule of the Palestinian Authority. The HRC never discussed intra-Palestinian violence, which has caused substantially more fatalities than those produced during Israel’s confrontation with Palestinian terrorism. It failed to act against the PLO/Hamas-led hate-education, brainwashing Palestinian children to become suicide bombers; rewarding Palestinian mothers for raising suicide bombers; executing rival Palestinians by throwing them off high-rise buildings; spraying them with bullets from the waist down; torturing, maiming and executing Palestinian opponents; abusing Palestinian civilians as human shields; physically abusing critical Palestinian journalists; suppressing Palestinian civil liberties; and systematically and deliberately targeting Israeli civilians for terrorism, missile launching and mortar shelling.

The HRC welcomed a report by Professor Richard Falk – who accused the US Administration for complicity and cover up in the September 11terrorism – on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” Prof. Falk – a Hamas sympathizer, justifying suicide bombing as a legitimate struggle – was appointed in 2008 to a six-year term as UN Special Rapporteur. Falk succeeded Professor John Dugard, who shares his worldview.

The HRC is assisted by an advisory committee, chaired by Morocco’s Halima Warzazi, who, in 1988, blocked a UN initiative to condemn Saddam Hussein’s chemical warfare against Iraq’s Kurds. The vice-chair is Switzerland’s Jean Ziegler, who co-established the “Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights” and authored books accusing the USA of being responsible for global malaise. Another advisor is Nicaragua’s Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, former President of the UN General Assembly, an admirer of Ahmadinejad, a defender of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, a friend of Fidel Castro and self-hating Americans such as Ramsey Clark and Noam Chomsky.

Since June 2007, Israel has been the only country to be listed on the HRC’s permanent agenda. Out of the ten permanent items on the HRC agenda, eight are organizational and procedural, one deals with global human rights and “item seven” – “the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories” – is the only one that is country-specific. The outcome of the investigation is prejudged, not subject to review. Israel – the only Middle Eastern democracy – is the only UN member to be ostracized annually, while its enemies are exempt from scrutiny.

According to former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, “there are permanent members of the Security Council and non-permanent members, but Israel is the only permanent non-member.”

80% of all 2010 UN resolutions criticizing specific countries for human rights violations were directed at Israel. Only six other UN members faced human rights criticism at all, one of which was the United States. The HRC subjected the USA to harsh criticism – by Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Russia – for, supposed, human rights violations. The HRC criticized the elimination of Bin-Laden and Israel’s defense against PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.

Simultaneously, the HRC has ignored Islamic terrorism, which has afflicted Asia, Africa, Europe and the USA. No emergency sessions and inquiries were held and no resolutions were adopted.

55% of the HRC members are Muslim countries, which contribute little to the UN budget, but dominate policy-making. The HRC is formally the guardian of human rights, but its members – e.g., Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Cuba, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uganda, Djibouti, Senegal, Mauritania, Malaysia, Russia and China – deny their peoples fundamental civil liberties.

Of course, Arab ethnicity originates from the same ancient gene pool as the Jews. Although discrimination against Arabs is usually called Islamaphobia or injustice to Muslims or prejudice against Arabs, anti-Semiticism has been associated historically with the Jews. Because Jews make up a majority Israel’s population, the best label for the anti-Israel stance of the United Nations is anti-Semiticism.

Is U.N. anti-semiticsm to be explained merely as the result of a majority of Muslim nations represented on the UN Security Council? Another factor may be that Israel has yet to bow to the Arab/Muslim demand to submit to their rule of all Palestine or get out of the land. The two-state solution seems a useful tool to that end. Why else would Israel’s previous efforts to give back the land in accordance with UN Resolutions 181 & 242 have been thrown in the dust by Palestinian and Arab leaders when Israel made its reasonable demands to ensure the safety and prosperity of its citizens?

US Bullying Angers Developing World and Leads to US Defeat at UN

By Timothy Herrmann and Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(NEW YORK C-FAM) Negotiations for a final document at the UN Commission on the Status of Women were supposed to end more than a week ago. However, they dragged on for another several days and resulted in a stinging defeat for the Obama administration and anger on the part of the developing world.

The US was trying to impose its sexual and reproductive rights agenda and in a dramatic showdown, delegations scuttled a final document rather than accept the US proposal.

Delegations openly resented the US emphasis on sexual and reproductive rights, and were particularly offended at being strong-armed by the US during negotiations for the resolution on maternal mortality. However, the US was able to push that resolution through without toning down their sexual and reproductive rights emphasis.

In the maternal mortality resolution, the US delegation insisted on new language that delegations feared could advance a right to abortion. Delegates were also concerned about references to “age appropriate sexual education” that did not acknowledge the role of parents, as well as dubious references to “gender.”

Negotiations on the final document, called “agreed conclusions,” were extended a week longer than expected because consensus could not be reached. Delegations carried negotiations well into the early hours of last Thursday, when the commission concluded its session, but the US would not budge, causing the negotiations to fail.

Michelle Bachelette, the head of UN Women, spoke to the delegates at the closing of CSW. She was disappointed by the commission’s “inability to reach consensus.” Several delegations voiced their frustration with the ideological rigidity of the US and other delegations in the reproductive rights camp.

The delegate from Zimbabwe, speaking for the African Group, complained about the position of “only one delegation” that had caused the process to falter. She also clarified that the African Group believed the use of the word “gender” referred to male and female, as outlined in previous international documents, and emphasized the sovereign prerogative of African nations to do so.

The Iranian delegation made a statement lamenting that a “tender bridge (consensus) collapsed last night at around 1:00am…only because of the intransigence, hardball playing and lack of flexibility on the part of one side of the room over issues that were not germane to the text.” Iran reproached these parties for coming to the negotiating table with “a mindset of achieving all they want, with no flexibility.”

On the opposite side of the negotiating table was the ambassador from Norway, who bluntly criticized nations for not abandoning “moral values” or accepting radical versions of gender equality: “[W]e have seen how moral values have been evoked to deprive women of their human rights, their opportunities – and ultimately, for some – their lives! This is the real moral hazard of our time!” She later added that “Many will have to let go of some traditional convictions, also when they are based on religious belief or culture…That’s what’s called development.”

Timothy Hermann is a U.N. Representative of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) and Stefano Gennarini is writer for C-FAM as well. The above new article first appeared in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.”

One Ring Government to Rule Us All?

By Cameron Smith

In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, the protagonist is charged with destroying a ring of immense power. Throughout the novel, characters with the best and worst of intentions strive to possess and thereby control the power of the ring. The more they use that power, the more warped and twisted they become.

While The Lord of the Rings has made its way onto summer reading lists for generations, this work of fiction bears a strong resemblance to what Americans have come to expect of their federal and state governments.

The power of government is unparalleled in America. Combined state and federal government expenditures account for 35.4% of America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Government’s spending influence is augmented by expansive regulation and social mandates.

In their zeal to wield such power, even for the noblest of ends, many American politicians have expanded government’s reach even further. Because the cost of securing control of government grows proportionally to government’s size, politicians who possess the power of government face the temptation to use it in a manner to perpetuate that control.

According to a recent Rasmussen report, almost 40% of Americans believe that the United States engages in crony capitalism where business success depends largely on favorable treatment from the government. Businesses benefitting from such practices have strong incentives to support “friendly” politicians when they come up for reelection. When the government’s role in the economy and society is reduced, so are the opportunities for cronyism.

But the struggle to reduce government’s role has been largely abandoned. The most aggressive political ideas for curtailing the size of government in Washington suggest “controlling” spending at about 18% of GDP. According to a Real Clear Markets article by Dean Kalahar, “for the first 130 years of [America’s] existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%.”

Instead of reining in government, political characters continue to wrangle over the “correct” way to swing the cudgel of American government.

America’s founding fathers recognized the appeal of expansive government power and the dangers associated with it. As a result, they instituted constitutional limits on the accumulation of that power. But they also knew the system would only succeed so long as it had the consent and active support of the people it governed. When asked at the close of the Constitutional Convention what the founding fathers had produced, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A Republic, if you can keep it!”

Regrettably, Americans have not kept the Republic because they have failed to demand America’s founding principle of limited government be maintained. Unless America elects men and women willing to set aside the ring of government power and enforce the Constitution, government will be, as Barry Goldwater noted, a “monolith of power…bounded only by the will of those who sit in high places.”

Tolkien probably could not have said it any better.

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Policy Director for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Overturning Wickard Key to Ending Obamacare, All Other Unconstitutional Uses of the Comm

By Daniel Downs

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare. In many ways, the Court will decide the future of American liberty. The Justices will determine whether federal bureaucrats can dictate the purchase of consumer services and goods. The Court will also determine whether Congress and the President can continue increasing government programs and ever-increasing debt burden on American workers, business, investors, and families. In a recent program, Glen Beck compared the number of new agencies created by FDR’s New Deal to the astronomical increase of federal agencies created under Obamacare (see Beck’s video). Liberty Legal Foundation is challenging this issue and related tax code and debt escalation that will incur to the American people. More importantly, the Foundation will attempt to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the source of the problem. That problem is Wickard v Filburn that essentially handed Congress unfettered powers to enlarge federal authority over all aspects of our individual and corporate lives under the Commerce Clause as well as to ever increase the national debt.

As you can see in the chart below, the Wickard ruling opened the floodgates to federal regulations, new federal agencies, astronomical increases of new federal tax codes, federal spending, and federal debt.

The options to force Congress to limit its continued bureaucratic growth are few. One is get Congress to pass law regulating its own creation of debt producing regulations. However, the long debated balance budget legislation and tax reform along the lines of the Fair Tax or flat tax proposal have consistently been voted down. Even if Congress forced itself to balance the budget, its unaccountable growth of power and spending would merely be slowed. Congress still would not have to seek the approval of the citizens its members supposedly represent, which leads to the unlikely passage of an amendment to the Constitution to make Congress seek voter approval for debt increasing legislation. The best solution to reigning in Congress’s seemingly uncontrollable efforts to regulate our daily lives and spending too much of our money is to change how the Congress, the Executive branch and the Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause.

Let’s hope and pray that the argument to be presented by Liberty Legal Foundation lawyers convince the Supreme Court to overturn Wickard.

To learn more about Liberty Legal Foundation’s suit against Obamacare, go to http://libertylegalfoundation.org.