Category Archives: Public Policy Principles News

Economics, Biblical Worldview, Education, Executive Usurpation, Events, Private Property, Public Policy Principles News

The Institute At The Freedom Action Conerfence

This entry is part 1 of 3 in the series Freedom Action Conference 2010

Freedom Action Conference

Are you looking for a chance to network with other freedom activists? Are you looking for answers to questions on a wide-range of liberty issues? Do you want to meet, converse, pick the brains of, and mingle with experts in those widely diverse areas where the battles for the return of liberty are being hotly contested?

Then you need to register for and attend the 2010 Freedom Action Conference in Valley Forge Pennsylvania on August 12, 13, 14, 2010.

So who are these experts, anyway?

Well, how about Dr. Thomas Woods, author of the new bestseller Nullification? How about William Jasper, editor of The New American magazine? How about Sheriff Mack, an expert on the rights, responsibilities and power of the local Sheriff? An important topic in the era of a revival of thinking about the 10th amendment, no?

The Institute For Principled Policy is a co-sponsor of the 2010 Freedom Action Conference and at least one of our board members, Chuck Michaelis, Vice-chairman of the institute and the Director of Camp American, will be joining with Larry Greenley of the John Birch Society to discuss the dangers of calling a new constitutional convention.

There are several GREAT options for registration.

Full conference registration is $270/$480 per person/couple and includes meals, breaks and a 1-year subscription to the DeWeese Report

There is a “Diet Plan” that DOES NOT include meals that costs $100 (you get banquet attendance but no meal or drink)

For students there is a $40 registration that DOES NOT include meals (student ID required)

There is a single day registration for any single day of the conference that DOES NOT include meals for $50

There is a banquet only registration that is $105

There is a registration for the reception for Tom Woods that is $20

There is also registration for display tables (includes full registration for 2) for $350

Please join us for what may well be THE most important conference of the year-

FreedomActionConference.com

Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview

Where Is The Money Coming From?

The video below is a humorous look at the European economic crisis, sometimes called the PIIGS Crisis (Portugal, Ireland, Italy Greece, Spain lending their first letters to the acronym). It’s actually very funny in an extremely unsettling way. Have a look and judge for yourself. From the Australian comedy team Clarke and Dawe.

What’s not so funny is that the question that is asked repeatedly- “But where is the money coming from?”- is THE pivotal question of the day.  Since most economists are Keynsian it is assumed that these countries economies MUST be bailed out in order to keep the world economy from falling like dominoes. But of course that presupposes several things. The primary presupposition is that “failure is not an option.” Well, of course it’s an option.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0a_FA_J6Sw[/youtube]

As any mortgage payer can tell you, if you can’t make your house payment the mortgage company will take it away from you. Well, at least that was the case in the recent past. Many branches of government are now attempting to make it possible for mortgagees to keep their houses without bothering to make the payments. No one is even bothering to try to make any kind of rational argument for why government should interfere with the mortgage contract in favor of the borrower at the expense of the lender. The arguments are all purely emotional, playing on the natural feelings of pity (and as we will demonstrate in a moment, envy) in the listener. But the facts are that it is dangerous and counterproductive to not allow failure. That is because, eventually (paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher) you run out of other people’s money. This principle is exactly the same for governments as it is for individuals and families.

The consequences of failure for families is bankruptcy and damage to the ability to borrow money. This is not necessarily a bad thing because it forces the individual or the family to do what it should have done in the first place; to buy only what is needed and to save for special expenses and pay for them in cash. This can wreak havoc on families who have come to expect to live the “good life” on credit and can lead to marital strife and, often, divorce.

The same can be said for countries, except that citizens of bankrupt countries who have come to expect to live the “good life” in the form of “cradle-to-grave” care with guarantees of food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc. paid for by the public treasury filled in large part by taxes levied progressively against the more productive members of society, rather than by the proceeds of their own labor. As these nations begin to exhaust the capital available from their more productive elements to pay for the support of the less productive elements of society, they have no choice except to either borrow from nations which do still have capital available or default on all obligations. The latter can be accompanied with threats against neighboring nations of impending unrest leading to civil war or  revolution which could cross borders into neighboring nations also on the verge of economic collapse.

The now obvious danger lies in the second major presupposition which is that that there is some large (Marxists and some Keynsians believe inexhaustable) pool of capital somewhere that can be tapped for these bailouts. The nurturing of this idea breeds an attitude of entitlement to the fruits of others’ labors. That is, the successful must be forced to bear a large portion if not the lion’s share of the burden for those who are not successful or refuse to try to become successful because they have no incentive to do so.

This is usually sold as the more “fortunate” being required to support the “less fortunate” but of course that begs the question. What makes some more “fortunate” than others? Usually it’s a combination of wit, the ability to calculate risk, proper timing, management savvy, knowing the market, filling a need, etc. The word “fortunate” implies that there is luck involved. None of the things listed describing the “fortunate” include luck as a factor, do they? That’s because it’s hard work to make a fortune. But it’s very easy to convince people who had nothing to do with creating the wealth that they are somehow entitled to a piece of the pie that was baked by someone else.

So, after an indefinite period of governments artificially “creating” wealth by inflation (actually a form of confiscatory taxation) and seizing more and more of the capital that would otherwise invested by the wealthy in order to create even more wealth in the private sector we find that there isn’t anything left to confiscate for redistribution. As Gary North demonstrates in this article “There Is No Money,” once that point is reached, and we’re getting dangerously close to that precipice, there is nowhere to go but default and that spells the end of the welfare state gravy train.

Of course, we here in the United States are not in any way inoculated against what is going on in Europe. We owe China billions,  if not trillions, for the US bonds they hold. Yet we have pledged huge amounts of money, over $108 billion dollars, to bail out central banks worldwide. Forty billion dollars of that is going to Greece so that they can continue to provide cradle-to-grave care for a people who have come to expect to be carried by their government whether or not they work. Don’t even try to convince them they should sacrifice by becoming more productive.

Since many of these loans are from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) they must theoretically be repaid for the member states to be able to continue to be eligible to continue to borrow. Let’s ask a question then. Who do you suppose would loan you money at all, let alone at a high interest rate, if you disclosed that not only were you had spent 14%  more than you made last year and that when you already had a personal debt that equaled more than 115% of your entire yearly income and were expecting to spend significantly more than you make this year? No one who had even a rudimentary sense of mathematics would. And yet this is where Greece, and several other countries in Europe stand currently. And this doesn’t include Central and South America, Africa or Asia, each of which have countries at least as bad off.

And so we ask- Where is the money coming from?

Education, Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

Powerful Forces Now Calling for a Constitutional Convention

1 Comment
This entry is part 5 of 8 in the series Ohio Con Con Call

April 27, 2010

By Tom DeWeese

In December, 2008, my American Policy Center (APC) led a fight to stop Ohio from becoming the 33rd state to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) (The Institute For Principled Policy was the first to discover the joint resolution calling for the Con Con and alerted other allied groups including APC- ed). In the 1980’s 32 other states had passed Con Con resolutions for the specific purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment. Had that resolution passed the Ohio legislature, we would have been just one state away from such an event. We argued then that one cannot call a Con Con to discuss just one issue. Once a Con Con is in place, there is no controlling the agenda.

We fought to stop the Con Con because of fear. Today there is massive ignorance among the American people about the Constitution. Worse, there are powerful forces who consider that document to be antiquated and a hindrance to their vision of an all powerful government. These things, and more, make today the worst possible time in our nation’s history to mess with the greatest governing document of all time.

We stopped the effort in 2008, but the battle is on again as an even more determined plan is under way to gather support from the nation’s governors and state legislatures to pass Con Con resolutions. Again, this is not the work of wild-eyed leftists intending to gut the Bill of Rights. This is an effort by conservative legislators who are alarmed by the growing power of government.

The new plan making its rounds in state capitals is much more ambitious than the 2008 Ohio resolution to simply discuss a balanced budget. Now an entire package of ten amendments to the Constitution is being proposed and promoted to state legislatures through a powerful and well funded campaign.

The main groups pushing for a Con Con are the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative association of state legislators; and a new group calling itself the 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc, chaired by William Fruth, President of POLICOM Corporation, which provides independent economics research

While ALEC is working behind the scenes to build support for a Con Con among state legislators, Fruth and his 10 Amendments for Freedom group has moved into the public eye to sell the Con Con idea to mainstream America. In March, Fruth kicked off his campaign by mailing out a slick, expensive package to conservative leaders and to over 7,000 state legislators. The package contained a book written by Fruth entitled “10 Amendments for Freedom.”

In the book, Fruth lays out an argument for the need for, not just a balanced budget amendment, but a total package of 10 Amendments to the Constitution including, the balanced budget; repay the national debt in 50 years; government transparency; line item veto; term limits for Congress; control illegal immigration; English-speaking nation; no foreign law shall bind us; government restraint (preventing the Federal Government from growth beyond constitutional powers; and finally, an amendment declaring “in God we trust.” Of course, there is no doubt that these amendments have great appeal for most conservatives, answering their growing frustration and fear of government expansion.

Arguing that Congress “will not likely take any action to cause the 10 Amendments for Freedom to become law of the land,” Fruth calls for all ten amendments to be packaged by state legislatures to be passed in a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. His package would include specific instructions to Congress as to how the delegates would be selected and outlining rules that would be enforced to assure only the ten amendments would be voted on.

Arguing the advantages of the Con Con, Fruth says, “Can you imagine the excitement in the nation leading up to the Convention? Schools will have to dust off history books which teach how our nation was founded. Many people for the first time will read the Constitution. The issue will be discussed at length, exposing what happened to our country over the years.”

Fruth then scoffs at our fears of a Con Con and efforts to stop it. He says, “Simply, it is not reasonable to assume there can be enough delegates sent to a convention who will propose amendments which ‘repeal the Bill of Rights’ or ‘legalize socialism.’ Even if they did, the amendments would never be ratified,” concludes Fruth.

Anticipating opposition to his scheme for a Con Con, Fruth says that those who opposed the effort in the 1980’s, to call for a Con Con for a balanced budget amendment, told the American people that the delegates at the convention can “change the Constitution any way they want.” Argues Fruth, “We know that is not true.”  He says, “it is both irresponsible and disingenuous for anyone to publicly say that the convention can change the Constitution.” And he says, “any recommended changes must be approved by three-fourths of the states.”

These are the arguments now being presented to every single state legislator and Governor in the nation as Fruth and ALEC put on a full-court-press to call for a Constitutional Convention. While the intention may be an honest desire to reign in the power of government, the fact remains that every one of these arguments for a Con Con is wrong.

The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States’ hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to discuss only a specific issue like a balanced budget – or the whole package offered by the 10 Amendments for Freedom group — is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention starts, the delegates become super delegates which can take any action they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table and the delegates can take a “scalpel” (pen) to it and change any section or even the entire document if they desire.

What proof do I offer? Here are the exact words of Article V of the Constitution: “…on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, (Congress) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.”

Article V gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide. It does not matter if the states passed resolutions as Fruth proposes, containing absolute guidelines for delegate selection. The Constitution provides no rules – it is up to Congress to decide how delegates are selected and what qualifications they will have. The guidelines proposed by Fruth carry absolutely no weight in the final process – even if every state passes the exact same resolution including those rules. Again, Article V simply says that when 34 states have called for a Con Con the Congress “shall call a Convention…” Period.

And there is more legal proof in support of the argument that delegates are not bound by any instructions or resolutions from the states.

First, of course, is the famous letter written by former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum. In the letter Burger writes, “…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederated Congress…”

And there is more legal documentation proving that Congress or the states can control the agenda of a Con Con. Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. The following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Con Con. (From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S. 9) “The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vesting in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) And, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)” The footnote numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made. (1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v Fredericks (11 So. 472); (2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v Hill (14N.W. 738); (3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v Jackson (6 W. Va. 613); (4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v Autry (91 p. 193); (5) Texas (1912) Cox v Robison (150 S.W. 1149).

Clearly, the position put forth by Fruth, and ALEC, that state legislatures can pass a resolution dictating the rules of the Con Con is simply wrong.

Delegate selection is another dangerous trap waiting to spring. Again, Article V provides no guidelines. The process is left for Congress to decide. That means the current Congress could control the entire delegate selection. Under the rules that Congress could set, States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to choose delegates, then what would be the method? Again, Congress will decide. Will the governor or the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral panel or blue ribbon commission?

Or could it be a plebiscite – a vote of the people? If so, then who would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of “enfranchisement,” allow all citizens, and potentially foreign nationals (illegal immigrants) to vote for this “special election?” There are no guidelines and anything is possible.

And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called “proportional representation” of all special interest groups – NGO’s? Will some be excluded because of “extreme” convictions? Of course, according to the Federal Department of Homeland Security, “extreme convictions” includes those who want to protect the Constitution. So, what will the criteria for eligible delegates be? All of these choices would be made by Congress – that same one now controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

But again, none of that will matter, according to those calling for the Con Con.  William Fruth argues that no matter what such a convention does, it still must be ratified by two-thirds of the states, making it very difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history lesson is in order.

There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation – that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a difficult time performing commerce among themselves. So it was decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected, some delegations were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing else beyond the commerce issue.

However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.

Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. These are the people who will decide the rules for the convention, including delegate selection. Keep in mind, these are the people who just managed to ram through a health “reform” bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed. These are the same people who managed to pass the bailout package opposed (according to polls) by almost 80% of the American people.

Do you trust them to follow the rules dictated by state legislatures? Do you think Pelosi and Reid would pass up an opportunity to set their own rules to guarantee a Constitution to their liking?  Do you think for one minute that they would take any steps to protect our Constitution? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to foreign laws to assure our own laws are worthy. We live in an era when many believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. Barack Obama has expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events. Pelosi and her cohorts are itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has shown, once a Con Con is called, delegates (picked though a Pelosi process) can do anything they want to it, including writing a completely new document.

And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce, the states still must ratify it – thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land – until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two-thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used – even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document produced by the Con Con said ratification only required a vote of Congress – or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection by the states.

And rather than an excitement in the nation with a rebirth of study of the Constitution, as Furth envisions, there would in fact be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle over the process, guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It’s not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution.

These are the reasons why I, and many others around the nation, adamantly oppose a Constitutional Convention at this time. We fear a Con Con because the subject matter cannot be controlled. And if the worst happens, there is no guarantee that we can stop ratification. There has never been a worse time in the nation’s history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form of government. That new document, as precedence has shown, could be enforced without ratification by the states. Remember, our current Constitution was not ratified by the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation, but by an Article V that wasn’t yet law of the land. Now that the precedence is there, it can happen again. The Pelosi’s of the nation, proven to have the power and the will to twist any issue or initiative as they desire, are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a Con Con.

No doubt there is great need for several of the amendments Fruth and his group propose. But he seems to ignore the fact that there is a powerful, organized opposition. Again, I call your attention to the continuing battle over health care. That’s child’s play compared to what will happen in a Con Con. Do Americans really want to risk that in these uncertain times? Every freedom-loving American must stand up against this misguided call for a Con Con. Tell your state legislators NO.

Reprinted by permission of Tom DeWeese

Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online, for more information click here.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Private Property

An Open Letter To Rep. John Boccieri

To the editor:

Though I address this letter to the editor, I am really addressing this to our 16th district congressman, Representative John Boccieri.  Congressman, it is well known that you first voted in opposition to the recently passed health care bill, but then shortly before the final vote changed your position and voted for this bill.  You have released some public rationale for your change, but since your vote was such a crucial vote in this very important decision affecting many of us in your district I am requesting that you publicly explain some things to your constituents.   Would you please address these issues?  I am sure many others share these questions and concerns:

  1. The administration is calling this health care bill a transition, what President Obama called a “fundamental changing of America” with more to follow.  Could you please explain philosophically what this means to you and how you want America to “fundamentally” be changed?


  2. In supporting this Bill, I assume you believe that health care is a fundamental right that is owed to every American, could you then explain what the basis for this fundamental right is since I do not see it in the Constitution or in Natural Law?


  3. Socialism is defined as central government control or oversight of economics, I’ve read and taught such socialists as Robert Owen, Marx, and Stalin and it looks like socialism to me; do you understand and accept it as socialized medicine, why or why not?


  4. Can you explain how this Senate version of the health care bill is a significant improvement over the one that you voted against in the House?


  5. Since you were a former state house representative how do you expect the financially strapped State of Ohio to pay for the loss of Medicare funding for Ohio that will occur with this Bill?


  6. The Senate version you voted for supports that the government should pay for abortions, that those of us who are pro-life should subsidize abortion.  Can we now assume that you support tax-payer funded abortion?  How do you reconcile that to your Roman Catholic faith?


  7. Physicians are divided on this bill.  Some reports say that as many as 30% of general practice physicians may resign their practices with the activation of this bill.  Can you explain to us how we can increase and improve medical care when there will be more patients and fewer general practice physicians?


  8. Section 52.10 of the Health Care Bill has a provision in it that allows the government to establish a “ready reserve” private army.   Why is this hidden in a health care bill?  As a person with a military background do you really support the establishment of a new private army?


  9. The health care bill has inserted a segment into it that removes the oversight of student loans from the banks into the direct hands of the government.   There are good reasons on both sides of this issue.  The question is, why do you support this hidden in a health care bill without permitting any transparent public debate on the issue?

Thank you for your kind attention to these issues.

Mark Hamilton.

Dr. Hamilton is an associate professor of philosophy at Ashland University where he has taught for 28 years.  He is also the NCAA Faculty Athletics Representative at Ashland University.  He currently serves as the board chairman of the Institute for Principled Policy

Executive Usurpation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview

Diagnosis on Health Care Vote – A Symptom of a Sick and Dying Nation

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

John 10:10

The despicable health care vote of March 21, 2010 is not the fault of Barack Obama or the democrats. It’s not the fault of republicans for squandering twelve years of congressional power on federal expansion. It’s not the fault of MSNBC, the SEIU, ACORN, or the G.E. Corporation. It’s not the fault of the American public for electing Obama in 2008, or their collective 70% approval rating at the onset of his term. (It’s not as if everything was fine in 2008 and then suddenly turned south in 2009). It’s not even the fault of the public education system for finally producing a generation of dumbed-down Americans that would gleefully elect a cadre of radical leftists to run the federal government. In fact, this is the exact result one would expect from a sick and dying nation.

It’s easy to curse the darkness and start targeting the above villains that have brought us to this socialist storm brewing on the horizon. It’s easy to treat each of these evils as if they are the real problem, endlessly plugging holes in the dyke only to bolster the flood waters. It’s easy to play “what if” – if only we’d elected McCain – if only the tea party were more organized – if only the media would stop being biased – if only Congress would heed the will of the people – if only the republican party would get its act together, etc. Maybe it’s time to stop trying to treat the symptoms and tackle the disease itself.

What then is the root cause? Why is America sick and dying, with that process now having been accelerated by the advent of a European-style socialized heath care system? It really is a simple answer – THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IN AMERICA HAS FAILED. The church has failed for decades to be salt and light in the culture, and here we are scratching are heads wondering why the average American doesn’t “get it”. The fact is most Christians don’t get it either. Polling shows that at best, ten percent of Christians evangelize the lost. And a substantial percentage of that evangelism assumes that we still live in the nominally Christianized society of the 19th century. Couple that with the absolute lack of worldview training and discipleship, and the lack of doctrine and biblical literacy in the average evangelical church. Then couple that with the frightening trends among Christian youth in America, a group that almost monolithically rejects absolute truth (to say nothing of the secular youth). This combination makes one begin to realize that socialized medicine is only the beginning of sorrows in America.

Socialized medicine has been decades in the making, it was inevitable. As societal rejection of God increases every year, the state must rise in His place. In fact, the Marxists have telegraphed their plans for the last 100 years, why are we surprised? The church in America has failed to the be the storehouse and beacon of truth in our society. Now a majority of Americans decide for themselves what truth is, and are dumbfounded when the state passes draconian legislation against the consent of the governed. As William Penn stated over 300 years ago: Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants. Outside of a moral society based on Christianity, the principle of the consent of the governed no longer operates. The sinful nature of human beings cannot co-exist with true liberty, the state must fill the void.

Even still, there is much deserved backlash against the passage of so-called health reform. Now there is a “conservative ascendency” in America as people look for a GOP takeover of Congress in 2010 to lead us to the promised land. There other movements afoot as well – Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and of course the loose coalition of Tea Party groups. However, we had a republican congress from 1994-2006. The anarchist and godless French revolution of 1789 only produced more tyranny. Secular political solutions will at best produce short term victories, delaying the inevitable result of a sick nation – DEATH. Lost people are dead spiritually. Yes the proposed repeal of this legislation and the reassertion of tenth amendment state’s rights are noble endeavors. However, unless the collective spirit of America is awakened, the nation will still riding the long, black train to the graveyard – it will just take a little longer to get there. Only the power of Christ can accomplish the miraculous, and only God’s absolute truth can sustain a free and vibrant nation.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?What good is liberty to dead people?

Mark 8:36

Will the church rise up once again as did in the Great Awakening to shine the light of truth on America, and offer real solutions that will reverberate throughout eternity? Or will she continue to build buildings, play rock concerts, reject sound doctrine, fail to evangelize the lost and disciple the found, while retreating further from the culture? The church has a golden opportunity to disciple the nation is true liberty, and yet she is allowing secular movements to fill the void – much like education has ceded to government schools. If the church will not tell the truth in society, then who will? We are endowed by God with our rights, and yet Americans reject that God in favor of human saviors and self pleasure. Americans therefore have no right to complain as those rights are stolen right before our eyes. As Josh McDowell has pointed out, this could well the be the last Christian generation in America. If that is the case, it will also be the last generation to have any memory of a free society. Government health care will be just the beginning of the nation’s death throes. Is the church ready for CPR yet?

Biblical Worldview, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Life Issues, The Church, Economics

HEALTH CARE: A Biblical Critique – part 1

This entry is part 1 of 1 in the series HEALTH CARE: A Biblical Critique

Dr. Mark Hamilton is  Chairman of the Board of the Institute For Principled Policy, Professor of Philosophy Ashland University and an Elder for Providence Church

Health care is dominating the news and our culture.  It is also apparent that most people want all Americans to be treated fairly and compassionately and that the current costs of health care have burdened many and threaten this desire for fairness.  But the current proposed health care bill presents numerous reasons for concern and there are specific aspects of the bill which are wrong and morally unacceptable.

God cares about our health. The Bible refers to the words heal, healer, healed, health, healthy at least 169 times.  1 Corinthians 6:19-20 states, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?  For you have been bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body.”  We should take care of our bodies as service to God.  Jesus came to heal and redeem, and ultimately we must understand that all healing comes from God and is dependent upon Him.  Jesus alone is our healer.  He came to make us well and bring life.

God cares about our Laws.  Isaiah 10:1 says, “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees….” But how do we know an unjust law?  As Christian I believe in the “sufficiency of scripture.”  This means that scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”  Since this is so we must look to Scripture as the supreme standard to evaluate the proposed government takeover of health care. The only standard by which any one can really evaluate any laws is by the standard of Scripture.  In this analysis I will evaluate the proposed Health Care Bill by the standards of Scripture and particularly by the Standard of God’s Law, the Ten Commandments.

The proposed health care bill builds on the modern American trend of statism. Statism is when power is centralized and located in the state not in the people.   In statism, a person’s life and work belong to the state.  For the past 150 years America has become gradually more nationalized in its approach toward government with the state taking more and more control over economic planning and policy including the lives of its citizens.  The American Founding Fathers understood the tendency of governments to move in this direction of restricting freedom so they implemented means to block that movement.  They also understood power ultimately rests in God and that all nations rise and fall by the authority of God.  They often acknowledged the sovereignty of God.  The Declaration of Independence even states, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge our Lives, Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.”  They understood that God, not the state, society, class, or church is our security.  God alone is ultimately sovereign and all power and authority rests in Him.  Furthermore only God can be trusted with power.  Human power and freedom is always a threat or danger because of sin.

Because of the effects of sin, whenever God’s sovereignty is reduced, then humans or human institutions step forward and fill that vacuum. For example in theology when God’s supremacy is reduced then individual human authority intervenes and results in Arminian theology and a reduction in God’s work of grace in salvation.  Understanding God’s sovereignty properly leads to an understanding of the limited power and authority of humans and human institutions.  The American Constitution created a government of limited and enumerated powers with a separation of powers because the Founders and Authors understood the nature of God’s sovereignty and the dangers of human autonomy and power.  In this formula no man or department exercises all the power of even a limited government.  God alone is to be trusted with power.  This type of Federalism is based on a presbyterian form of corporate church government with a plurality of leaders and with no monopoly of jurisdiction.  The Christian should understand the need is to fragment and limit political power because of sin so it cannot threaten the lives and liberties of the people.

Statism is the modern idolatry of the state.  We must understand that the nationalization of Health Care violates the First Commandment which exclaims, “Thou shall have no other gods before me.”  Growing statism makes the state into a deity.  During the medieval periods ecclesiolatry was responsible for much of the world’s suffering.  When God’s sovereignty was reduced prior to the Reformation in Europe, the church emerged as the sovereign entity and an ecclesiocracy was established as the church ruled over the state.   The situation is now reversed.  It is now this crossing of the state into the realm of the Church which has caused the suffering of the 20th century.  “All modern dictators—Communist, Facist, or disguised—have at least one thing in common.  They all believe in social security, especially in coercing people into governmentalized medicine” stated economist Melchoir Palyi in 1949 in Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State (Chicago) (quoted from the November 2009 The Trinity Review) .

Here then is a second form of idolatry as the state usurps the role of the Church in its quest for sovereignty. We could say it violates the tenets of separation of church and state causing the state to enter into the realm that is the Church’s.  Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, Lenin and Stalin of the USSR, Salazar of Portugal, Mussolini of Italy, Franco of Spain, Yoshito and Hirohito of Japan, Peron of Argentina, Castro of Cuba, Mao of China, and Hitler of Germany all were autocrats and all were advocates of National Health Care (November 2009 The Trinity Review).

Virtue must be voluntary. It is not the role of government to increase the virtues, “Render to God what is God’s.” The government must give opportunity for virtuous men to act appropriately, to get out of their way.  American generosity is the consequence of Christianity and capitalism.  Compulsory charity is an absurdity like involuntary volunteerism.  The state cannot love; It cannot force compassion.  Its role is to wield the sword and punish evil-doers.  Get the state out of the affairs of the Church.  To refuse to do so is to commit idolatry.

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Life Issues, Economics, General

McCain Flip-Flops On Supplement Regulation

Reprinted with Permission from the Rainrock Nutritionals website

In an article in the Over The Counter Today blog we learned that Sen. John McCain has withdrawn all support of his own bill (S. 3002), the laughably misnamed Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010.

In effect this bill would have imposed draconian penalties for dietary supplement companies who made new products with recently uncovered ingredients if they weren’t marketed in the United States prior to the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (Oct. 15, 1994). In other words, only drug companies would have access to ingredients that became available prior to nearly 16 years ago. If a company were to use one of these ingredients, the FDA would be empowered to call it “adulterated” and to order an instant recall. It also handed the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to ban ingredients by simply striking them from a list called “Accepted Dietary Ingredients.”

It is clear that McCain is feeling the political heat. He is in a tense primary battle to keep his Arizona US Senate seat and apparently, enough of you have contacted his office and expressed your displeasure with this new power grab to give him the idea that maybe supplements ought to be left alone. This effort of McCain’s was really just one of the many steps the federal government is taking to turn control of all dietary supplements and pharmaceuticals over to the control of international “authorities” by adopting the European “Codex Alimentarius” as law in the United States. This essentially would place all regulation of supplements under the control of European bureaucrats who are themselves under the control of German Pharmaceutical giants.

McCain was convinced by both internal and external pressure to withdraw support for this bill. Your calls helped as did this letter from Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But we must be vigilant. Dietary supplements are in the cross hairs of regulators and the current administration. I was told at a meeting of Complementary and Alternative Medicine providers and patients last summer that the Obama health care bill would ensure the continuation of the easy availability of dietary supplements. This is an absurd notion. The European example tells a very different story. Dietary supplements throughout the EU are rapidly becoming an endangered species (except in the UK which doesn’t care for German control of ANYTHING).

Please take this opportunity to join and support the National Health Federation and purchase Director Scott Tips book on the Codex Alimentarius- Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism

Marriage and Family, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Life Issues, Biblical Worldview

More Information On Gardasil

Way back in 2007 the Institute For Principled Policy Led the fight to oppose mandatory Gardasil vaccinations for girls as young as 10. Gardasil is a vaccination created to immunize against a limited number of strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It was being touted as a cervical cancer prevention method. We cited a complete lack of information on vital statistics regarding length of anti-viral activity, adverse immunological effects, possible adverse reactions (Guillain-Barre Syndrome, etc), actual statistical analysis regarding reduction of cancer, etc. For a complete list of the questions we were asking in the Spring of 2007 you can read our main article HERE.

Now, 3 years later, the bloom is off the “miracle vaccination” rose. It is becoming clear that the objections we raised were more than justified. Merck & Co. the pharmaceutical giant that developed this vaccine and has spent millions trying to guarantee itself indemnity from lawsuit via a little known section of the PATRIOT Act that makes mandatory vaccinations immune from damage lawsuits. That’s what was going on in Ohio in 2007 and we at the Institute For Principled Policy exposed it early, thus killing the bill (HB 81) that would have made the vaccine mandatory.

Since that time there have been nearly 9000 adverse reaction reports, including deaths, paralysis, mysterious pain, immunological impacts, reports of passing out, etc. Now Merck & Co. are trying to get boys in the act, claiming the vaccine will work in them, as well.

Here is a video that gives an interesting overview of the situation including a CBS Evening News report on Gardasil adverse reactions-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJsEEXDGAsk[/youtube]

There is also a very well done video response to the first video that looks at the problem from a more scientific perspective. It targets both the medical journals and marketing of the vaccine-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ32gAb1o-E[/youtube]

As the second video makes clear, there are many questions that MUST be answered about Gardasil primarily but also many other vaccinations. Vaccinations can be wonderful things (polio), but there is an immunological price to pay for their use. The extent of that price is not yet fully known. As consumers we need to be given considerably more information on that price than we now have.

Public Policy Principles News, Life Issues, Biblical Worldview, Executive Usurpation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary

Observations on the Healthcare Summit

By Dr. Mark Hamilton

Due to my own medical issues I load up my teaching on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with a Tuesday night class. This keeps Thursdays free for medical appointments. This meant that I was fortunately (or maybe unfortunately?) able to take in the televised spectacle of the health care summit with President Obama entertaining the leaders from the Senate and House of Representatives in mortal verbal combat last week. This short expose’ will be my personal reflective thoughts on the day. Be reminded that due to my own illness, I read and reflected on the entire bill last summer and have been judiciously following the debates and discussions. Regarding this recent summit, I have been careful not to listen to many “post-game” pundits so that I can attempt to give my own untainted response to the nefarious activities of that day.

First, the sessions, especially the morning one was a good introduction to the health care debate. The primary issues were revealed and the ground clearly staked out by each side. The Democratic position was first laid out by the President followed by a clear eloquent Republican response by Lamar Alexander and Tom Coburn. After hearing their reply anyone who says the Republicans do not have a proposal for health care is badly mistaken. These men put forward specific Republican plans.

Second, the morning session, while accomplishing nothing in terms of resolution was a great educational time. My wife who understands many of the issues but who has not studied the bill in depth like I have was very attentive to much of the morning session because of the striking philosophical differences revealed.

Third, obviously President Obama was trying to find common points of agreement. Each time a Republican point would be made he would try to restate the discussion and frame it in a way that minimized the differences and magnified the agreement. I now know what Mr. Obama’s real calling is, a professional facilitator. For those of you who have been to professional planning sessions you know what I mean. These are people who are blind to disagreement and violate the law of non-contradiction by seeing all sides as part of the same side. I suspect his plan is to use this grasp at common ground as fodder to attempt to push through his bill while publicly saying the Republicans agree with much of its content.

Fourth, if the summit accomplished one great deed it was revealing the obvious differences in the sides. The Democrats want government to oversee the health care industry and to regulate it wherever possible while the Republicans want more freedom and less government control. Because there are some points of agreement, some will be persuaded to think the two sides are not far apart. They are completely polarized because they have different world views.

Fifth, the Republicans at the summit were much more eloquent and succinct in their points than the Democrats were. Senators Alexander and Coburn, and Representatives Ryan and Cantor were all very eloquent and persuasive; none of the Republicans looked confused or uncertain. I was very impressed at how fluent and philosophically consistent these Republicans were. In the past decade I have been quite critical of many of the leading Republican because of their pragmatic unprincipled approach to governing. That was not observable on Thursday. Democratic Senator Reid looked like a weasel as he denied the concept of reconciliation while networks were showing recordings of him and other Democrats mentioning the idea over the past few months. His denial of reconciliation made him look like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar saying to his mother that he was not going to eat any cookies. Speaker of the House Pelosi spoke as she always does, irrationally and haphazardly. If I ever hear of another liberal calling Palin dumb while supporting the mindless idiocy of Pelosi, I will pull my hair out. The Democrats must have used twice the time as the Republicans to say less than half of the content.

Sixth, Obama himself tried to be conciliatory and at times it worked. But his disdain for the Republicans obviously manifested itself in his rebukes of McCain and Cantor and the way he wanted to respond to each Republican directly after they spoke. Mr. Obama is the most defensive president I’ve ever seen. I’m sure he lectured and cajoled the Republicans for more time during the summit than all the combined speeches of all the Republicans.

Seven, finally it became obvious that the central issue is one of statism. The Democrats believe in it and hold fast to its tenets. Though some Republicans have been statists, like the Bushes and McCain, the emerging Republican leaders who were spokesmen at the summit are moving away from this outdated, idolatrous position. Healthcare is drawing the line in the sand and the summit painted this line in florescence green.

Crime and Punishment, Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview

Private Property Rights- A Canary In A Coalmine

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… (emphasis added) Amendment 5 US Constitution

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety… (emphasis added) Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

A story in the Detroit News, when read carefully, is an excellent indicator of the state of liberty at least in the state of Michigan. And as go the states so goes the Federal government. In the article we learn that local police departments are using virtually any excuse imaginable to impound privately owned automobiles. Pick a colleague up from a street who has dared to make “eye contact” with passers-by and you could lose your car- literally. No exaggeration necessary. According to the article…

State law allows police to take property, usually vehicles, for any reason, even in the absence of criminal activity

While it is difficult to imagine that any state law is this broad the article does further state…

…that vehicles sometimes are seized even when police admit no crime took place…

A quick search of Michigan’s Constitution reveals a bill of rights which states rather clearly that…

The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from
unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or
things shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation

In light of the crystal clear language of the highest law of the land in Michigan, its constitution, it s almost impossible to imagine that any law enforcement official could be so jaded or corrupt as to describe any of the situations chronicled in the articles as “probable cause.”  And yet here we stand asking the question “what constitutes a “reasonable” seizure?”

It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that the real focus of Wayne County (Detroit) law enforcement’s  efforts have been directed not in protecting the rights and property of the citizens despite their oaths but in making sure they don’t illegally seize the property of people with the mindset and resources to bring suit on constitutional grounds against the law enforcement officers and agencies in question. Why should law enforcement go to the trouble, if this proposed line of thinking is true? Follow the money.

Once vehicles are “seized” (or if the Michigan Constitution is to be believed- stolen) victims are  required to pay $900 on top of towing and storage fees to get their often illegally seized property returned. This would be a tremendous boost to any county’s or municipality’s “ailing” budget.  Seize 100 cars on dubious grounds (say winking at an undercover cop working as a faux prostitute or perhaps demonstrating that you think law enforcement is “number one” with an inappropriate finger in the air) and VOILA! Ninety thousand dollars suddenly appears in the ailing government entities coffers.The current economic situation in many places is grim, no thanks to the frugality of  public servants, and the current attitude of government representatives and public safety servants has, in many cases, morphed from an attitude of servanthood to an attitude of the divine right of rulers in a remarkably short time. This is no idle speculation. The article contains a quote from Walter Epps, a candidate for Wayne County Sheriff. He said…

“Under the current ordinance, there doesn’t have to be a crime proven in order to seize someone’s vehicle,” said Walter Epps, a former Wayne County sheriff’s lieutenant who ran the department’s Morality Squad for more than four years. “But I feel if we’re going to take someone’s car, the least we should do is to charge them with the crime or issue them a ticket.”

The problem with this man’s statement is subtle. Did you catch it? It’s the sequence. Seize the car then to justify it charge the driver with a crime or issue a ticket. This, of course, is a clear indicator of the phenomena noted above. It is a tacit admission that law enforcement is ready , willing and able to make vehicle seizure appear to be justified by creating a charge or issuing a ticket as justification. But ask yourself a couple of questions. What ticketable offense justifies the seizure of personal property with the value of an automobile? How will this candidate’s solution fix the problem of illegal property seizure? Answer- It won’t. Putting a pig in a tuxedo doesn’t do anything except annoy the pig and ruin the tuxedo. But “public servants” will point to the “vast improvement” in the situation when it’s time for the re-election campaign and the media will dutifully report that the problem has been completely fixed, when in fact the situation is now worse. Not only will the poor former auto owner be stripped of his car but he will now be before a court on what may very well be a trumped up charge.

Within this framework it is easy to postulate that the practice of seizing personal property with little or no legal grounds has been a policy both developed and implemented by elected representatives with the understanding that the personal property of constitutional attorneys, state representatives or other prominent citizens who might have the clout to knock the gravy train off the rails would not be seized unless the case was blatant absolutely air tight. This is a clear indicator that the trend in government is to pretend that private property is actually a feudal holding. The true owner of all property, both real and personal, is the feudal baron (the state, county, city) while the citizen is a fief bound to the land and liable to will and whim of the baron. This is easily seen by examining the current reliance of counties and municipalities on the property tax. Under the current model of property ownership in most areas of the country ownership merely buys the right to pay rent to the local baron. If you think this is exaggerated then you can prove it to yourself by not paying your property taxes for a couple of years. An entity which can confiscate property for non-payment of any fee is the true owner of the property.

The only entity more powerful than the barons in a feudal society was the king, to whom all barons owed their loyalty as the one who granted all land holdings. The king was the original owner of all property, real or personal. In our analogy, the king is the Federal government and while it doesn’t have a role in this particular case (where is the Michigan ACLU screaming at the top of its lungs about the clear violation of the 4th and 5th amendments to the US Constitution in these seizure cases? The world wonders) it is not without “bloody hands” in the situation. The Federal government routinely steals personal property by “arresting” it and holding it often without charge or trial of the property’s owner, sometimes for decades. Occasionally, it secretly files for “forfeiture” and auctions or destroys the property without recourse to any legitimate criminal or civil action.

Until public servants are disabused of their recently acquired notions of being our rulers rather that our representatives and servants we will continue to suffer outrages like those chronicled here. There is only one way open to the Christian constitutionalist to disabuse them of this notion . Can you think what that might be?