Category Archives: politics

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

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.]

Govenor Kasich Signs Stricter Human Trafficking Law

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.

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

“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.

Birthplace of Christ Used in Bid for Palestinian Statehood

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.

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

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.

Demystifying “Transaction Costs” When Reforming Public Pensions

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.

Egyptian Election: Islamist Victory or Deceptive Strategy?

By Raymond Ibrahim

Has anyone stopped to ask where the headlines “Muslim Brotherhood Wins Egypt’s Presidential Election!” originate? They come, of course, straight from the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies—particularly the Qatar-based Islamist propaganda machine, Al Jazeera—and were then unquestioningly picked up and spread like wildfire by the Western mainstream media and talking-heads.

Left unquoted by the Western media are the many Egyptian analysts that have a different tale to tell—that the secular candidate, Ahmed Shafiq, has won.

But what does the Muslim Brotherhood have to benefit by claiming victory now, if official results might prove otherwise on June 21, a mere three days from now? Simple: they will be able to scream foul play—and gain the world’s sympathy. For days the world will have been inundated with news that the Brotherhood won, so that, when and if it hears that Shafiq won, it will naturally conclude electoral fraud—which best serves the Islamists’ interests.

Mahmoud Baraka, a Shafiq campaign spokesman, maintains that “their candidate [Shafiq] won the presidency, with 52% of the votes”—precisely the same number the Brotherhood is claiming—adding that the Brotherhood’s claims to victory “are bizarre and unacceptable,” a “big act.”

Likewise, talk show host Tawfik Okasha appeared emphatically saying that the Brotherhood’s claims are “all lies,” that most polls indicate that Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Morsi “failed,” and that the Islamist group’s motive is simply to sow “discord and dissension.” He proceeded to give several examples of how the Brotherhood’s claims are incongruous with reality.

But why believe Shafiq’s spokesman and staunch secularist Okasha? Good question. Here’s a better one: Why believe the Muslim Brotherhood? Why follow the lead of an organization that has mastered dissimulation, an organization that promised Egypt it would not run a presidential candidate, only to renege once opportune?

Knowing the Brotherhood’s deceptive tactics—”War is deceit” declared their prophet—there is good reason to think that they may have planned a propaganda victory well before the elections. They could claim victory, won fair and square; they could have their Islamist and Western media supporters trumpet it; they could embed it in everyone’s mind over the course of three days before the results are formally announced—all to set the playing field to their advantage.

Then, if Shafiq wins, everyone—from militant Islamists in Egypt to a grandstanding U.S. Secretary of State—will shout, “foul play!” thereby exonerating the long promised civil war Egypt’s Islamists vowed to wage if the election did not go their way—a rebellion that would then be portrayed in the West as a result of “grievance.”

The truth is, as of this moment, no one knows which candidate won. What is known is that it’s a close race. Perhaps Morsi will win; perhaps Shafiq. Short time will tell.

In the meantime, although the media need to “break the news” and not be left behind, prudence is in order. It is counterproductive for the West to eat straight out of the Brotherhood’s hands—to unreservedly follow their tune and propagate their unsubstantiated information—which is precisely what the Islamists want: it works only to their advantage.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. The above article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute on June 19, 2012.

Terror Tuesdays, Kill Lists and Drones: Has the President Become a Law Unto Himself?

By John W. Whitehead
June 18, 2012

“What lies at the nexus of Obama’s targeted drone killings, his self-serving leaks, and his aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a president who believes himself above the law, and seems convinced that he alone has a preternatural ability to determine right from wrong.”—Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran Foreign Service Officer at the State Department.

Since the early days of our republic, we have operated under the principle that no one is above the law. As Thomas Paine observed in Common Sense, “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” Several years later, John Adams, seeking to reinforce this important principle, declared in the Massachusetts Constitution that they were seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”

The history of our nation over the past 200 years has been the history of a people engaged in a constant struggle to maintain that tenuous balance between the rule of law—in our case, the United States Constitution—and the government leaders entrusted with protecting it, upholding it and abiding by it. At various junctures, when that necessary balance has been thrown off by overreaching government bodies or overly ambitious individuals, we have found ourselves faced with a crisis of constitutional proportions. Each time, we have taken the painful steps needed to restore our constitutional equilibrium.

Now, once again, we find ourselves skating dangerously close to becoming a nation ruled not by laws but by men—and fallible, imperfect men, at that. Yet this latest crisis did not happen overnight. Its seeds were sown in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, when fear-addled Americans started selling their freedoms cheaply, bit by bit, for phantom promises of security. From torture at CIA black site prisons and Abu Ghraib abuses to extraordinary renditions, from TSA body scanners and warrantless wiretaps to the PATRIOT Act, Americans have failed to be outraged by the government’s repeated violations of the rule of law. In this way, as the “war on terror” has unfolded beyond our wildest imaginings—from the barbaric treatment of foreign detainees at American-run prisons to the technological arsenal being used by the U.S. government to monitor and control its citizens—our rights have taken a meteoric nosedive in inverse proportion to the government’s rapidly expanding powers.

The New York Times’ recent revelation that President Obama, operating off a government “kill list,” has been personally directing who should be targeted for death by military drones (unmanned aerial assault vehicles) merely pushes us that much closer to that precipitous drop-off to authoritarianism. Should we fail to recognize and rectify the danger in allowing a single individual to declare himself the exception to the rule of law and assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner, we will have no one else to blame when we plunge once and for all into the abyss that is tyranny.

Declaring Obama’s actions “without precedent in presidential history,” the New York Times describes a process whereby every few weeks, Obama and approximately a hundred members of his national security team gather for their “Terror Tuesday” meetings in which they hand pick the next so-called national security “threat” to die by way of the American military/CIA drone program. Obama signs off personally on about a third of the drone strikes: all of the ones in Yemen and Somalia, and the risky ones in Pakistan.

These “Terror Tuesday” sessions run counter to every constitutional and moral principle that has guided America since its inception. It’s not only suspected terrorists whose death warrants are being personally signed by the president but innocent civilians geographically situated near a strike zone, as well, whether or not they have any ties to a suspected terrorist. As an anonymous government official on Obama’s drone campaign observed, “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.” Indeed, Obama’s first authorized drone attack in Yemen led to the deaths of 14 women and 21 children, and only one al-Qaeda affiliate. Incredibly, the government actually justifies these civilian deaths by suggesting that the individuals must be “militants” or “combatants” simply because of their proximity to the target.

No matter what is said to the contrary, the Constitution does not in any way provide for the president to engage in such acts, even under the auspices of his role as Commander in Chief. In fact, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process, intended to protect citizens in the event that the government attempts to overreach its authority, assure every American citizen that before the government can imprison them or put them to death, they have a right to hear the charges being levied against them, review the evidence, and be treated to a fair and impartial trial by a judge or jury.

Thus, perhaps hoping to distract and divert the public’s attention from the core issue at hand—namely, the fact that the president has become a law unto himself—the Obama administration has launched an investigation to discover who leaked the information about the kill list. The media, in typical fashion, have taken the bait. However, no amount of obfuscation can alter the fact that Obama, by his actions, is circumventing the Constitution, especially as it pertains to the rights of American citizens. Indeed, in a decision he claims was “an easy one,” Obama has already killed two American citizens in this fashion: Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric living in Yemen who served as a propagandist for Al-Qaeda, and his 16-year-old son.

Yet with every passing day, the casualties are mounting—not just the innocent women and children abroad blown to smithereens by American missiles, but our Constitution, our increasingly fragile republic and our ability to trust that our government leaders will be accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

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.

Big Lies, Big Economic Problems and Polticians

The big title reflects a recent artcile by one of America’s the big economists, Thomas Sowell. In his commentary, Sowell delinates the problems engendered by the continual lies offered by officials seeking election to those who want to believe them. According to Sowell, “[w]hen the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy them, and only in the short run.”

Sowells offers a number of examples to prove his point. They include the problems of social security, medicare, printing money, and taxing the rich, which he claims has never worked. It never works because the rich invest their money in ways the Obamite-type politicians cannot touch.

Is my opinion that Sowell’s best argument is about welfare.

“Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic is the notion that the government can supply the people with things they want but cannot afford. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government.”

To me, this sums up all the other examples presented by Sowell. But, don’t take my word on it, read Sowell’s article yourself. You may find it was worth reading.

“From Reboot to Replay” Same Old Obama Politics

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIL5xmSYj1o&w=560&h=315]