Category Archives: politics

The obamanation about the jobs

Posted on October 9, 2012 by | Leave a comment

by Daniel Downs

Last week, the media prophets of the left attempted to make the Obamanable economy look better than it actually is. They used the opening paragraph of the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s monthly jobs situation report out of context. Like all proof-texting, they lifted the “good news” out-of-context in order to proclaim Obama’s stimulating policies were at last working.

Here is the opening statement of the BLS jobs report:

“The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000.”

The unemployment rate in August was 8.1 percent resulting in a 0.3% decrease, and number of unemployed persons decreased 456,000 to 12.1 million. The number job losers and persons unemployed more than 5 months also decreased.

All good news for the economy, right?

Well, let’s look at the above total nonfarm employment increase figure of 114,000. The BLS jobs report showed job creation declined 41% from July to August. New jobs were added at a modest rated of 7% between August and September. The opposite was the case for government jobs. From July to August, the growth of government jobs increased 250 percent, but the rated decreased to 78% from August to September.

The Obamaites might have reason to celebrate the growth jobs, especially government jobs.

However, their rejoicing will not last long.

The problem is with part-time jobs. Part-time employment increased by 7 percent, the same rate as new private sector jobs.

Although employment is growing some, job growth under the Obamaite administration is still not all that great.

Leave a comment

Posted in commentary, economy, news, politics

Tagged

UN Human Rights Council Affirms Traditional Values

Posted on October 8, 2012 by | Leave a comment

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(GENEVA – C-FAM) Delegations from European Countries and the United States suffered a setback last week when the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution affirming a positive link between traditional values and human rights. The European and U.S. delegations view traditional values as threats to women, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual persons.

This is the third resolution on traditional values to pass since 2009. Russia successfully pressed the resolution forward despite attempts by other UN member states to stifle their initiative.

The current resolution, tabled by Russia and co-authored by more than 60 states (not all members of the Council), affirms that traditional values common to all humanity have a positive role in the promotion and protection of human rights. It states that “a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values shared by all humanity and embodied in universal human rights instruments contribute to promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide.”

Echoing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it stresses “that human rights derive from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person” and recognizes the positive role of the family, community and educational institutions in promoting human rights, calling on states to “strengthen this role through appropriate positive measures.”

European countries and the United States voiced opposition to the concept of traditional values when a resolution under that title was first proposed by Russia in 2009. They also voted against a resolution requesting a report on the interconnectedness of traditional values and human rights from the Advisory Committee of the Council in March last year. When that measure passed, they took control of the Advisory Committee’s efforts to produce a report that was contrary to the intention of the resolution.

The European and U.S. delegations repeatedly complained that “traditional values” is a vague concept used to justify violence and discrimination against women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) persons. But having failed to sway enough countries with that argument, they sought to halt the resolution by asking the Council to wait for the report from the Advisory Committee, the same one they originally opposed.

Russia tabled the resolution anyway, confident that it would have the necessary votes. The resolution was adopted with 25 in favor, 15 against, and 7 abstentions.

Upon its adoption, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement declaring “The Russian Federation, together with the opinion allies, will continue promoting the idea of [the] inseparable connection of human rights and traditional moral values in the Human Rights Council.”

Noting that “there were states that voted against the draft (in particular, the USA and European Union)” Russia lamented that “(the) negative position of these countries, their unwillingness to work at the text and fanciful arguments against the resolution draft cause regret.”

Last year President Obama ordered all federal agencies dealing with U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance to promote LGBT rights. Support for traditional values is deeply troublesome to LGBT groups, as the Gay Star News reports. They are worried it will be used to defend the natural family, and fear they will be unable to de-criminalize homosexuality worldwide.

Stefano Gennarini is Director of the Center for Legal Studies at the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) located in both New York City and Washington, D.C. Gennarini’s article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , , , , , ,

Ohio Lawyers and Judges Agree on Issue 2

Posted on October 4, 2012 by | Leave a comment

This fall, Ohioans will be asked to consider a constitutional amendment to change the way the state draws legislative and congressional district maps. Because of the amendment’s direct impact on the Ohio judiciary, the Ohio State Bar Association opposes passage of the amendment.

Currently, the Ohio Legislature and the Apportionment Board redraw state and congressional district maps every 10 years to reflect population shifts. The proposed measure would create a 12-person citizen commission consisting of registered voters selected and vetted through a panel of appellate court judges. Further, the proposed amendment could force the Supreme Court of Ohio to select a plan should the commission be unable to come to an agreement, and if a court battle ensued over the proposed commission’s plan, the proposal could force the Supreme Court of Ohio to choose between possibly unconstitutional plans.

While the OSBA and OJC take no position on the merits of the proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting (i.e., we take no position on whether the legislature, the Apportionment Board, the commission or any other entity should draw congressional district and state general assembly lines), we have deep concerns about requiring judges of Ohio’s Courts of Appeal to vet and appoint commission members, and the proposed amendment’s attempt to force the Supreme Court of Ohio, or any court, to select a proposed commission plan. The proper role for the judiciary is not to develop any redistricting plan, but rather to review such plans should they be challenged in court.

This proposed amendment:

  • Undermines the important constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers where each of the three co-equal branches undertakes particular responsibilities. This proposal inappropriately takes executive and legislative appointment authority and moves it to the judiciary. This politicizes the judicial branch of government, which must remain independent, fair and impartial;
  • Involves the Chief Justice and the appellate judges in political activity unbefitting their offices because the proposal would not insulate these judges from attempted political influence by interest groups in terms of commission appointments and plan selection; and
  • Places these judges, and Ohio’s judicial branch as a whole, in a potential position of conflict should the proposal become law and should a plan face judicial review.

    • All of this undermines the importance of maintaining a fair, impartial and independent judiciary—a sacred and fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy.

    For these reasons, it is the position of the OSBA (and OJC) that it is inappropriate for the judiciary to be involved in the political process that initiates and proposes political boundaries and that the amendment should not be adopted.

    By directly involving the judicial branch of our Ohio government in the most political of activities, that is, redistricting, the proposed amendment attacks a most fundamental of constitutional safeguards, the separation of powers. Therefore, the OSBA opposes this proposal.

    Leave a comment

    Posted in Ohio, politics

    Tagged , , , , ,

    On State Issue 1

    Posted on October 2, 2012 by | Leave a comment

    Every 20 years the Ohio voters are required to determine whether a Constitutional convention is necessary to revise the state constitution. The language of the Constitution is as follows:

    “At the general election to be held in the year one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, and in each twentieth year thereafter, the question: ‘Shall there be a convention to revise, alter, or amend the constitution[,]’ shall be submitted to the electors of the state; and in case a majority of the electors, voting for and against the calling of a convention, shall decide in favor of a convention, the general assembly, at its next session, shall provide, by law, for the election of delegates, and the assembling of such convention, as is provided in the preceding section; but no amendment of this constitution, agreed upon by any convention assembled in pursuance of this article, shall take effect, until the same shall have been submitted to the electors of the state, and adopted by a majority of those voting thereon.”

    The Ohio Liberty Coalition was asked to provide an analysis of the question: Shall there be a convention to revise, alter, or amend the Ohio Constitution.

    The Ohio Constitution requires this issue to be placed on the ballot every 20 years. The voters of Ohio have said “NO” to this provision every time it has been voted on since 1912. If this provision passes, it will necessitate the nomination and election of nearly 100 delegates to a constitutional convention. The delegates will propose changes to the Ohio Constitution. The proposed changes will then be presented to Ohio voters for their approval or rejection. Voters for nearly century have recognized that such an extreme procedure as a constitutional convention is unwarranted. There are more efficient methods of amending the constitution, for example, through either the popular or legislative initiative process. Further, the constitution will be thoroughly reviewed soon. The Ohio legislature has established a commission, which will meet in November 2012 and offer a report of recommendations to the legislature in January on ways to improve the constitution. Any changes would have to be approved later by voters.

    There are two fundamental questions underlying a voting decision on this issue:

    (1) Is there a need for major reform and revision of the Ohio Constitution?

    (2) Is a constitutional convention the best way to make revisions?

    The answer to both questions is “no.” Our present constitution, though not perfect, well serves the citizens of Ohio. There is no strong popular consensus in favor an expensive, contentious constitutional convention. And there are other less severe ways to make what changes are needed—the initiative process continues to work well and the legislature’s scheduled constitutional review will suffice to consider what changes truly need to be made. There simply is no compelling reason to call a constitutional convention, especially given the existing tight economy and the need for legislative belt-tightening.

    In a letter to Coalition Board President Tom Zawistowskiand, who also is President of Portage Ohio Tea Party, Edward Emsweller, Legal Counsel for the Coalition, further explained why the State Issue 1 is not a good idea.

    Since either “good” or “bad” amendments may be proposed through a constitutional convention, the issue is not the amendments themselves, but rather whether the Article 16, Section 3 (calling of a constitutional convention) method is the best means to effect revisions to the Constitution. The calling of a constitutional convention necessitates a separate election of delegates, requiring an expense not involved in the initiative processes. The expense of this method is its primary negative.

    Moreover, such an expense is unwarranted because of a review of the Constitution to take place later this year. In June 2011, the Ohio legislature established the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission, a bipartisan group of 12 legislative members and 20 non-legislative members who will serve at least two years. The commission is to meet in November and offer the legislature recommendations for improving the constitution. Any changes would have to be approved later by voters.

    If effective, Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission should be able to solve many of the concerns raised by proponents of Issue 1 are problems like correcting conflicting, outdated and unreasonable laws.

    Leave a comment

    Posted in Ohio, politics

    Tagged , , , ,

    Ohio Minimum Wage Workers Get A Raise

    Posted on October 1, 2012 by | Leave a comment

    Ohio’s minimum wage is scheduled to increase on January 1, 2013 to $7.85 per hour for non-tipped employees and to $3.93 per hour for tipped employees, plus tips.

    The 2012 Ohio minimum wage is $7.70 per hour for non-tipped employees and $3.85 for tipped employees, plus tips.

    On January 1, 2013, the increased minimum wage will apply to employees of businesses with annual gross receipts of more than $288,000 per year. The 2012 Ohio minimum wage applies to employees of businesses with annual gross receipts of more than $283,000 per year.

    The Constitutional Amendment passed by Ohio voters in November 2006 states that Ohio’s minimum wage shall increase on January 1 of each year by the rate of inflation. The state minimum wage is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the 12-month period prior to September. This CPI index rose 1.7 percent from September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012. The Amendment also states that the wage rate for non-tipped employees shall be rounded to the nearest five cents.

    How will this raise effect the economic well-being of minimum wage workers? A full-time employee working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year made a whopping $16,016 before taxes. This same Ohioan will make an earth-shaking $312 a year more with the upcoming raise. Let’s assume this same employee is a single parent raising one child.
    Before the proposed raise, this single parent’s after-tax income is $11,797 and with the raise, it will be $12,046. Our single parent has reason to celebrate because he/she will have $249 more spending money. Right? Well, not exactly. Before we can determine how much spending money our single parent actual has, we have to deduct the social security and Medicare deductions. Therefore, our single parent’s yearly take-home pay before the proposed raise actually is $10,564, and after the raise, it will be $10,789. Now, our single only has $225 more for consumption. Just for perspective, the poverty line for our single parent is $15,130. Even if our hypothetical single parent get all income tax dollars back at the end of the year, he or she will still be living in poverty throughout most of the year.

    Consequently, minimum wage is not a minimal living income. It is a pay scale to enhance welfare benefits to a livable standard.

    It only gets worse for employees at smaller companies (with annual gross receipts of $283,000 or less per year in 2012 or $288,000 or less per year after January 1, 2013) and for 14- and 15-year-olds, the state minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. For those employees, the state wage is tied to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour which requires an act of Congress and the President’s signature to change.

    Leave a comment

    Posted in economy, news, Ohio, politics

    Tagged , ,

    Quantitative Easing (QE3): An Analysis

    Posted on September 24, 2012 by | Leave a comment

    By Alabama Policy Institute

    Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy tool employed by central banks in many countries; the Federal Reserve (the Fed) is the central bank of the United States. QE is designed to stimulate the economy by injecting a predetermined amount of cash into the monetary market. Through QE, the Fed electronically creates new money and uses it to purchase financial assets from banks and deposits this new money on the banks’ balance sheets.1 Although many refer to this as “printing money,” new, physical money is rarely created as a result of the Fed’s actions. Because this new virtual money is created by the Federal Reserve, the only approved source of currency in the country, it is accepted as legal tender. However, the responsibility of printing physical money is still in the hands of the Treasury Department.2

    By significantly increasing the volume of available dollars, the Fed anticipates that banks will increase the number of loans they make and consequently move more money into the market, prompting economic growth.

    The Fed has already implemented QE twice since the beginning of the financial collapse in 2007. QE1 lasted from November 2008 to the first quarter of 2010. During this period, the Fed initiated purchases of $1.25 trillion of mortgage-backed securities, and $175 billion of government agency debt.3 In November of 2010, the Fed announced QE2, during which the Fed began the purchase of $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities in addition to continuing to reinvest payments on securities purchased during QE1.4

    The Fed announced on September 13th that it was dissatisfied with the economy’s rate of recovery, specifically the slow rate at which unemployment levels are returning to a more normal range5, and would attempt to remedy the stagnated growth by beginning QE3. In this round of quantitative easing, the Fed will purchase $40 billion a month in Mortgage Backed Securities, as well as continue the program dubbed “Operation Twist,” with the purchase of longer-termed securities.6 QE3 is open-ended. In a press release, the Fed stated that it would continue to purchase securities at this rate until it saw the desired results.7

    Policy Considerations

    Under the right circumstances, increasing the supply of money can spur economic growth, but it can also introduce the risk of devaluation of the currency8. QE can mean higher commodity prices and higher inflation. Esther George, president of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, has raised concerns that QE3 has “the potential for igniting inflation.”9 Inflation essentially makes each dollar worth less, and in an economy where wage rates are stagnant, the consequences could be dire10.

    Another concern is that the intended goal of QE to increase the amount of money available to lenders and, ultimately, the marketplace has not been entirely successful. The reason may lie, at least partially, in another program implemented by the Fed. In October 2008, in an effort to deter the fears of depositors, the Fed began paying interest to banks for the funds they keep in reserves.11 While all banks within the Federal Reserve System are required to maintain a certain level of reserves available for depositors who may want to withdraw their cash, they are deterred from keeping excess reserves by other market forces. Absent the Fed paying them interest on all reserves, including excess reserves, banks would be more inclined to loan money in order to increase income from interest payments. The rate of interest paid on bank reserves is currently 0.25 percent.12 That may not sound like much, but the daily federal funds rate has been held between 0 and 0.25 percent for the last several years13. When accounting for inflation, real interest rates are hovering near zero14, so a risk-free 0.25 percent return is actually a bargain for banks. As of August 2012, banks that deposit with the Fed are holding nearly $1.5 trillion in excess reserves, up from close to zero historically.15

    In short, the Fed is incentivizing banks to keep the excess money they receive from QE programs in their reserves in order to collect the interest paid by the Fed. While mortgage rates did decline after QEs 1 and 2, even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan calculated that, as of July 2012, there was “very little impact on the economy”, adding that he was “very surprised at the data.”16 Former Chairman Greenspan also commented that the effect of the untold trillions of government and Fed spending actually may have had a negative impact on the health of the economy. He posits that the rash of deficit spending and manipulation of the interest rate is crowding out private investments.17

    Conclusion

    If the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has doubts that quantitative easing efforts have brought about the promised economic stimulus, why is the Fed proceeding with the same old bag of economic tricks? As API has discussed before, there are multiple places where the Fed’s missions and actions are in direct conflict with one another; attempting to push “created” money into the marketplace while simultaneously incentivizing banks not to lend money is yet another conflict that must be seriously reevaluated.

    1 Quantitative Easing, FINANCIAL TIMES LEXICON, http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=quantitative-easing
    2 Kimberly Amadeo, Federal Reserve is Printing Money, http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Federal-Reserve-Printing-Money.htm.
    3 Polyana da Costa, QE1: financial crisis timeline, http://www.bankrate.com/finance/federal-reserve/qe1-financial-crisistimeline.aspx.
    4 Polyana da Costa, QE2: financial crisis timeline, http://www.bankrate.com/finance/federal-reserve/qe2-financial-crisistimeline.aspx.
    5 Press Release, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, (September 13, 2012) http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm.
    6 Id.
    7 Id.
    8 Jeffry Rubin, Quantitative Easing is Just Devaluation, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-rubin/quantitative-easing-isju_b_777970.html.
    9 Don Mecoy, Federal Reserve Official Disagrees with Monetary Policy Decisions, (September 19, 2012), http://newsok.com/federal-reserve-officialdisagrees-with-monetary-policy-decisions/article/3710981.
    10 Wage Growth in the U.S. Will Feel Effects of Great Recession for Years to Come, (April 26, 2012), http://www.conferenceboard.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4466.
    11 Press Release, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, (October 6th, 2008) http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081006a.htm.
    12 Interest on Balances Maintained to Satisfy Reserve Balance Requirements and Excess Balances, THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, http://www.frbservices.org/files/reserves/pdf/calculating_required_reserve_balances_and_excess_balances.pdf
    13 Federal Funds Data Historical Search, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, (July 1, 2010-July 31,2012), http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/omo/dmm/historical/fedfunds/ff.cfm.
    14 Rodney Sullivan, Negative Real Interest Rates: The Conundrum for Investment and Spending Policies, http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2012/07/03/negativereal-
    interest-rates-the-conundrum-for-investment-and-spending-policies/.
    15 Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS.
    16 Bruno J. Navarro, Alan Greenspan Sees ‘Two Separate Economies’, (July 12,2012), http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alan-greenspan-sees-two-separate-161122638.html.
    17 Id.

    Leave a comment

    Posted in economy, politics

    Tagged , ,

    US Experts Testify on Dangers of Disabilities Treaty

    Posted on September 14, 2012 by | Leave a comment

    By Lisa Correnti

    (WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) A panel of experts warned U.S. lawmakers this week that the UN Disabilities treaty could threaten the rights of parents and advance abortion rights.

    “This treaty… would allow unelected bureaucrats in Switzerland to determine the meaning of the words ‘disability’ and ‘sexual reproductive health,’ said Congressman Jeff Duncan following a briefing to the House Sovereignty Caucus. “Such ambiguity could lead to frivolous litigation and advancing abortion as a ‘human right.’”

    The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) passed the Senate Foreign Affairs subcommittee in July. An amendment by Senator Marco Rubio clarifying that the treaty cannot be used to advance abortion was supported by all Republicans senators but was defeated when all Democratic senators voted against it.

    Dr. Susan Yoshihara explained to the Caucus how “sexual and reproductive health” was inserted in the treaty despite a lack of consensus. The Director of the International Organizations Research Group at C-FAM participated in the UN negotiations on CRPD.

    “In order to get this term into the Disabilities Treaty, proponents had to circumvent the objections of 23 nations, resorting to such tactics as secret meetings and venues where not all delegations were allowed” she said.

    Some U.S. senators support the treaty on the belief that pro-life protections exist since the term “reproductive health” is mentioned as a category of non-discrimination and not as a right. Dr. Yoshihara cautioned against this false sense of security.

    “This should not allay the fears of pro-life lawmakers or make them think that this treaty will not be used to advance a right to abortion,” she said. “The Women’s Convention, CEDAW, never mentions abortion or ‘reproductive health’ nor does ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], but their committees have pressured more than 90 countries over 120 times to liberalize abortion.”

    Treaty proponents say “reservations” agreed to by the U.S. Senate will protect against any problems. The experts, however, called reservations inadequate. Dr. Yoshihara recalled a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Roper) in which the court “cited a portion of the ICCPR that the United States had specifically rejected in a reservation.”

    Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, warned that the CRPD threatens the rights of parents of special needs children. “Government agents, and not parents, are being given the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children.”

    “Signing the treaty is an empty gesture” said Steven Groves with the Heritage Foundation. “Current U.S. law meets or exceeds the provisions of the Convention, and mere membership in the Convention will not convince the international community that America protects the rights of its disabled citizens,” he continued.

    Concerns about the CRPD were expressed by the Holy See delegation when the UN adopted it in 2006. Explaining why they could not support it, the delegation stated, “It is surely tragic that…the same Convention created to protect persons with disabilities from all discrimination in the exercise of their rights, may be used to deny the very basic right to life of disabled unborn persons.”

    The U.S. does not need to ratify the treaty to gain moral authority, noted Rep. Duncan and his co-chair of the Sovereignty Caucus Rep. Doug Lamborn. “America is already one of the world’s leaders in advancing the cause of those with disabilities,” said Lamborn.

    Resistance to the treaty is growing. A letter from congressmen urging senators to reject the CRPD now has 49 signatures.

    Lisa Correnti is Director of Operations at C-FAM. Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/).

    Leave a comment

    Posted in family, health, news, politics

    Tagged , , , , ,

    It’s Time to Vote! An Evening with Wallbuilders

    Posted on September 13, 2012 by | Leave a comment

    Some of you may be familiar with David Barton and his organization, Wallbuilders. They have been working for the past 20 years to preserve the original documents and principles on which this country was founded.

    Some of you saw the video series Building on the American Heritage Series; included in the videos were David Barton and Rick Green.

    The Dayton Tea Party (DTP) is bringing Rick Green to Dayton to talk about our country’s founding, God’s role in our country’s success, and the necessity for us to fulfill our obligation to VOTE.

    This event will be held on Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM. at Crestview Baptist Church, 6600 Salem Avenue (near Union Road). The seating capacity is limited so we will be issuing tickets to ensure we have enough room. The suggested donation amount is $10.00, which you can add below in the sign-up area.

    Plan now to attend. This event is an excellent primer for your children, grandchildren, yourself, your other family members, neighbors – in short, anyone who is concerned about our nation. Mark the date on your calendar and talk to your family/friends.

    Leave a comment

    Posted in events, politics

    Tagged , ,

    Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws to Silence Dissenters

    Posted on September 12, 2012 by | Leave a comment

    By John W. Whitehead

    What happened to 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub—who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys—has happened many times throughout history in totalitarian regimes.

    As Pulitzer Prize-winning author Anne Applebaum observes in Gulag: A History: “The exile of prisoners to a distant place, where they can ‘pay their debt to society,’ make themselves useful, and not contaminate others with their ideas or their criminal acts, is a practice as old as civilization itself.”

    The advent of psychiatry eliminated the need to exile political prisoners, allowing governments instead to declare such dissidents mentally ill and unfit for society. For example, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union often used psychiatric hospitals as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally through the use of electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures.

    In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, Russian officials also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers. Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

    The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is “prejudicial to public order” or “incompatible with public tranquility,” he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years. Administrative exile–which required no trial and no sentencing procedure–was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.

    Sound familiar? This age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by declaring them mentally ill and locking them up in psychiatric wards for extended periods of time is a common practice in present-day China. What is particularly unnerving, however, is that this practice of making individuals disappear is happening with increasing frequency in America. Indeed, Raub’s case exposes the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.

    It’s no coincidence that within days of Raub being seized at his Virginia home on August 16, 2012, and forcibly held in a VA psych ward, news reports started surfacing of other veterans having similar experiences. These incidents are merely the realization of various U.S. government initiatives dating back to 2009, including one dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention.

    One tactic being used to deal with so-called “mentally ill suspects who also happen to be trained in modern warfare” is through the use of civil commitment laws, found in all states and employed throughout American history to not only silence but cause dissidents to disappear. For example, in 2006, NSA officials attempted to label former employee Russ Tice, who was willing to testify in Congress about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, as “mentally unbalanced” based upon two psychiatric evaluations ordered by his superiors. In 2009, NYPD Officer Adrian Schoolcraft had his home raided, and he was handcuffed to a gurney and taken into emergency custody for an alleged psychiatric episode. It was later discovered by way of an internal investigation that his superiors were retaliating against him for reporting police misconduct.

    Most recently, of course, Virginia’s civil commitment law was used to justify arresting and detaining Marine Brandon Raub in a psychiatric ward. On Thursday, August 16, 2012, a swarm of local police, Secret Service and FBI agents arrived at Raub’s home, asking to speak with him about posts he had made on his Facebook page made up of song lyrics, political opinions and dialogue used in a virtual card game. In a hearing on August 20, government officials pointed to Raub’s Facebook posts as the sole reason for their concern and for his continued incarceration. Ignoring Raub’s explanations about the fact that the Facebook posts were being read out of context, Raub was sentenced to up to 30 days’ further confinement in a psychiatric ward.

    On August 23, Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett declared the government’s case to be lacking in factual allegations and ordered Raub immediately released. However, for the tens of thousands of individuals detained—wrongfully or otherwise—under civil commitment laws every year, regaining their freedom is nearly impossible, predicated as it is on a bureaucratic legal and judicial system. The problem, of course, is that the diagnosis of mental illness, while a legitimate concern for some Americans, has over time become a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors.

    Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced or declared unfit for society. Governmental authorities at all levels have made it abundantly clear that they want no one questioning their authority. And for those who do take to the streets to express their opinions and beliefs, rows of riot police, clad in jackboots, military vests, and helmets, holding batons, stun guns, assault rifles, and sometimes even grenade launchers, are there to keep them in line.

    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.

    Leave a comment

    Posted in commentary, politics

    Tagged , , ,

    DNC, Ideology, and 9/11

    Posted on September 12, 2012 by | Leave a comment

    In a recent email article, Paul Eidelberg commented about the Democrats efforts to remove God from their party platform before its 2012 National Convention held last week. He not only states the obvious when identifying the Democratioc Party as the party of atheism but he also sees its as representative of elimating the Declaration of Independence and Jews as well.

    The following are excerpts:

    “[T]he brouhaha at the DNC was not simply the God issue but also the inseparable Jew issue. One may arrive at this conclusion by noting the unholy alliance of Islam and the Left lurking at the Democratic Convention, which surfaced by the omission of God and Jerusalem from the initial draft of the DNC party program.

    “Erasing God from the DNC party program is tantamount to erasing God from the Declaration. Since the God of the Declaration is the God of the Jewish Bible, the Democrats came close to symbolically erasing the Jews. It was as if Ahmadinejad was drafting the DNC program!

    “Although the Democratic Party reversed itself on the God-issue, the motive was political, not theological. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the American Democratic Party is the party of atheism. The forthcoming November election will be the first election in American history in which the paramount issue—whether muted or not—is theological. America is approaching a climax of world-historical magnitude.”

    Eidelberg goes to attribute the liberalism of the left as one of the main causes of anti-Semitism in Europe and America:

    “The Left was weaned on Jew-hatred, as may be seen in Marx’s anti-Semitic diatribe, “On the Jewish Question.” Marx was a historical relativist. His relativism underlies Carl Becker’s book on the Declaration of Independence, and Charles Beard’s economic interpretation of the American Constitution. These two books were published in 1913. Beard’s book took academe by storm. Its Marxist-type relativism has not abated to this day; indeed, it’s well-entrenched in the White House!”

    So what does the athiestic Democratic Party and the predominance of liberalism have to do with 9-11? Journalists have investigated numerous aspects of 9/11. One journalist delved into the background of the lead terrorist Mohammad Atta, who was born and raised in Egypt. The journalist discovered Atta was not religious at all. He was already a pilot before coming to America. He was fluent in many languages other than Arabic. He was well connected to government and security contractors. He even cursed God while partying. The point is he was not a devout religious jihadist. He lived like a moral relativist liberal.

    One might infer from the above that motivation behind 9/11 was rooted in liberalism and its opposition to the moral and religious foundations of the American empire.

    Leave a comment

    Posted in commentary, politics, religion