All posts by Camp Director

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?

Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Public Policy Radar, Commentary

Obama Administration Learns From Popular Seafood Company

1 Comment

Free Crab TomorrowIf you’ve ever been in or near a Joe’s Crab Shack restaurant then you know about the “Free Crab Tomorrow” ploy. Of course, it’s a humorous “promotional” for the company that “consumer protection advocates” have not yet become familiar with (we’re waiting for the first class-action lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission demanding free crab be served per the advertising. OOPS! Don’t want to give bureaucrats any ideas regarding the raising of revenue.). For the uninitiated in the audience, the sign never changes. Every day the sign continues to read “Free Crab Tomorrow.” Tomorrow, of course, never comes. That’s the joke.

The Obama administration, always up for a good prank on the American electorate, has borrowed a page from Joe’s Crab Shack’s self-promotion handbook. Only they aren’t joking. In an article in Yahoo News from Reuters we are informed that “White House economists see jobs growth by spring.” In another article from the New York Times on January 11, 2009 in which it is claimed that “hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created during 2009.” The claim is also made that “…unemployment is still expected to rise but then fall late this year (2009)…” (emphasis added).

Other job creation claims made by the President from the Times article-

In the campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to create one million jobs, and after winning election he put forth a plan to create up to three million. The report now puts the figure at roughly 3.7 million, the midpoint of an estimated range of 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs by the end of next year.

Millions of Jobs Tomorrow.

Oh, yes, the same article has an interesting reference to an Obama “middle-class tax-cut” that has long since fallen into the media memory hole-

Obama transition officials have said that the president-elect’s proposed middle-class tax cut — called “Making Work Pay,” which would provide $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples by reducing payroll tax withholdings — is “nonnegotiable.”

Free Tax-cut Tomorrow.

What’s next? What new predictions will be made regarding the economy? When will small business get relief from the crushing costs of regulation and the cost of mandatory health care insurance? When will the federal government move to become the major stockholder on other corporations beside GM and Chrysler?

More information tomorrow.

Taxation, Education, Gambling, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

The WRFD Town Hall Meeting- A Review

From the WRFD WebsiteThis author has been teaching an adult Sunday school class on God and Government (using Gary DeMar’s book of the same name as a guide) at his church. Class members (who are currently viewing David Barton’s The Keys to Good Government) are being convicted of the necessity to examine not just the public lives of those who want to be stewards in high office but to also examine their private lives, as well. They are seeing, some for the first time, that private character matters in the behavior of public officials.And some are awakening to the necessity of electing men who are not just Christian but actually apply their faith to all of their life, including their exercise of duty while in office.

You may think this means a position advocating hiring  private detectives to look in bedroom windows and such. You would be wrong. What is being advocated is the examination of the fruit of the faith of candidates and office holders. Many are shocked to learn that the word that is translated as “minister” in some versions (“servant” in some others) is a title used for both civil authority and ecclesiastical authority strongly implying that the admonitions for office holders of Exodus 18 and 1Timothy 3 apply to both offices. The Timothy passages tell us to look to the way a man conducts his family business as an indicator for whether he is capable of handling higher office. That is because how a man manages his family is an indicator of how well a man disciplines himself and maintains his relationship to God. This follows from the idea that a man faithful to God is a man who applies his faith to the management of his family and will also do in the management of his duties that come with higher office, whether civil or ecclesiastical.

Sadly, a man’s faith in God is no longer a guarantee that his family, business or duties of higher office will be handled in a godly manner. Modern pietistic Christianity has bought into the secular humanist argument (made popular by Col. Robert Ingersoll a militantly anti-Christian crusader of the 19th century) that a man’s life can be compartmentalized into separate spiritual and worldly spheres of influence. Thus, a man can be a pillar of his church and completely corrupt in the conduct of his personal and business affairs and his duties of higher office.

If you have paid any attention to recent Supreme court justice confirmation hearings, you will have heard nominees questioned about their faith. To a man, these nominees have declared that they were men of faith and, astonishingly,  that their faith would have absolutely no bearing on any decision they would make from the bench. Frankly, a man who can compartmentalize his faith to this degree is far more frightening than a man who applies his faith to all aspects of his life as the  foundational operating philosophy. That man’s decisions will be predictable based on a knowledge of the law that emanates from his faith. A man who does not apply his faith as a governing philosophy will be like a philosophical nomad traveling from place to place in search of a temporarily green place to nurture his philosophical flock.  This seems fine until one day everyone discovers that all of the ground the nomad traveled has been made barren through his abuse of it. Think in terms of modern Supreme court decisions where justices turn every which way, examining European law for example,  searching for legal philosophy on which to base decisions when all they need do is apply biblical case law as courts have done since their inception here in the early 17th century.

As part of the Sunday school class, this author made the observation that not only was the average Christian compartmentalizing his faith when choosing candidates for higher office, but that so-called Christian leadership, who should, theoretically, know better, actively participate in making it more difficult to discern which candidates for civil office are worthy of the Christian vote. One of the things I had in mind (though not by a long-shot the only thing) were the things I saw and heard at the recent WRFD town hall meeting.

Several members of the Institute for Principled Policy’s governing board were audience participants at the town hall meeting and we were there from about 2:30 pm for the pre-show until about 5:00 pm. At the outset it should be made clear that the host of the program, Pastor Bob Burney, did his best to make the town hall meeting what he promised it would be; open and informative. How do I know this? The format of the meeting was that the participants would write questions out on a pre-printed form and submit them to one of the programs producers or one of the floor volunteers. They were reviewed for things like language and coherence (I presume) and then handed to Pastor Burney.

It is this writer’s opinion that Pastor Burney is a Christian who is not afraid to ask tough questions of political candidates to ferret out their positions on issues. This is because he read a question that this writer had submitted to find where John Kasich, candidate for Governor, stood on the second amendment. He didn’t change the wording, or soften the question in any way. Why so sure? This writer wrote the question. It read approximately like this-

Keeping the phrase from the 2nd amendment…”shall not be infringed…” in mind- how can a law that prohibits the ownership of a gun on the basis of caliber, firing rate, magazine size or stock configuration not be an infringement? If you agree that it is an infringement then please explain your vote to restrict my ownership of guns on this basis as a congressman

Sad to say, this question was read during a news break and so the radio audience never heard it. But the studio audience did. And they also heard the 2-3 minute long answer which completely failed to address the specifics of the question. The audience present heard Kasich declaim using phrases taken directly from the politician’s rhetorical cliche handbook. Things like “I agree with the NRA (National Rifle Assoc.) more than I do my wife” and “I own a gun.” They also heard Kasich imply that he the had NRA’s endorsement. He doesn’t.

Why does all of this matter? Why should a Christian care one way or another about a candidate’s votes in Congress? After all, Kasich has a “conservative” reputation and his wife and children were there with him, he has his kids in Christian school, doesn’t he? That’s a great question because it aims right at the heart of the issue of how Christians are supposed to evaluate candidates for office. And the sad fact is that Christians have been misled by those in leadership to think about candidate evaluation in completely the wrong context.

Look again at the rationalizations listed above. In every instance they are based on outward appearances. Yes, Kasich is nominally “conservative.” But that word can be defined in many ways by many different people and groups who award that title. One group’s conservative vote might be another’s progressive vote in Congress. The standards are variable. In fact, by a constitutionalist’s (defined as someone who subscribes to a strict literal interpretation of the meaning of the US Constitution) standard Kasich is conservative to moderate on economics (OK on taxes, flawed on spending) with a moderate progressive streak on social issues. In short he is a so-called “big government” conservative. That’s why the second amendment question quoted above is of vital importance.

How so? In order to understand we must look at what it means to be a representative. All government structures of God have certain characteristics. They are both representative and covenantal. Governments of all jurisdictions self, family, civil, church) are representative in two directions. The chosen representative represents the authority of God to those within his jurisdiction and those people in his jurisdiction back to God. With that in mind, it is easy to see that a people who despise God will seek poor representation who also despises God.  In return as a judgment God will give them the poor representation of and to Himself that they ask for and deserve.

So what is the covenant aspect and why does it matter to civil government? A covenant is a contract. According to a biblical view of government, it is a contract in which God is a party to the contract as both the initiator and arbiter of the contract. God gives the parties to the covenant a choice. Obey the stipulations of the covenant and see earthly and eternal rewards or disobey them and receive earthly and eternal punishment. There is no negotiating the terms of such a contract and neither is there an opt-out. Believers or not, human beings are subject to the terms of the covenant. The covenant applies to all aspects of life including the political.

You might be thinking “I thought there was a separation of  church and state, so how can God be involved in government?” Yes, indeed there is a separation of church and state in terms of jurisdictions (spheres of authority). The state is forbidden by God from engaging in or interfering with the jurisdiction reserved to His church. Likewise the church’s jurisdiction is to act in an advisory capacity to government secondarily. Primarily, the church’s responsibility is to teach the tenets of the Christian faith and how to apply those principles to every facet of their lives to believers . That includes the choosing of and acting as good godly representatives as described above. Hence, the secondary responsibility to act as an advisor to godly representatives in a teaching capacity.

Now to why the second amendment question is so important. When John Kasich and Ted Strickland were elected to Congress, and this goes for all Federal representatives, they swore an oath before God to “…uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America…” Kasich violated that oath when he voted to give the federal government an authority that the highest law of the land denied to it. The authority to ban the sale of guns for any reason or in other words infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. That makes him a willful covenant breaker.

Now, Kasich could have made an effort to repair his reputation as a covenant breaker by explaining that his bad votes had been mistakes and that he now regretted them on the basis of principles that he did not understand at the time. He made no effort to do so and instead chose to attempt to defend his votes and when it became clear that none of his attempts to side step the question were satisfactory he said simply “It is what it is.” That spoke volumes. He broke his covenant without remorse. To a Christian who has a consistent worldview, this made him someone who could not be eligible to be a representative in civil authority.

While Pastor Burney was as faithful to his promise as possible there were other participants that were not so faithful. The questioning noted above took place before the late arrival of Chris Long of Ohio Christian Alliance. This author had submitted several questions of a similar nature to the one above. All of them designed to determine where the candidate answering the question stood as regards the keeping of his or her oaths before God to “…uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America…” All of them were very specific questions about parts of the Constitution very relevant to issues of the day.

After Mr. Long’s arrival the facilitation of the meeting was immediately transferred to his control and its nature instantly changed. Instead of allowing tough questions which were designed to get at the core principles of the candidates it became obvious that questions were being screened to protect candidates from hard ball questions. In fact, this writer watched from the front row just in front of the podium where the hosts and guests were seated as Mr. Long sorted audience questions, removing those presumably deemed inappropriate and handing the remaining soft ball questions to Pastor Burney to use.

You might be asking why this would be in light of what has been explained above. But if you think about this for just a minute you might see what’s happening here. It has already been discussed earlier in this posting. It is the habit Christians have allowed themselves to fall into of considering only the outward appearances of faith in looking for a candidate. And many Christian leaders have allowed themselves to be co-opted by a political party. This is nothing new. The Democratic Party co-opted liberal churches and leaders very early in the twentieth century. Conservative evangelicals, on the other hand, tended to avoid politics altogether during the period from about 1925 until the presidential election of 1976 when many of the were persuaded by Christian leaders to vote for a self-proclaimed “born-again Christian-” Jimmy Carter. Most conservative evangelicals found the policies of the Carter administration completely unpalatable, not to mention decidedly un-Christian and this disaffected new voting bloc was easily convinced to join the Reagan coalition inside the Republican Party. Christian leaders became aware that they had been the deciding factor in the Republican party in both keeping George Bush from getting the Republican  nomination (something they had obviously forgotten by 1988 and a fact that was a harbinger of future events with unpleasant consequences) and in delivering the White House to Reagan in 1980. They then began to try to leverage their power inside the Republican party to get some of the social and economic legislation that they believed the nation needed. In the process, many Christian leaders became Republicans first and Christians second. This culminated in the disastrous first and second Bush administrations.

With this short history in mind we have to ask ourselves why Christians continue to allow themselves to be used and, yes, seduced into supporting  nominal and  pseudo-Christian candidates by a political party which ignores, insults and does their level best to make sure that Christians stay home for primaries but insists they show their loyalty to the party and vote for candidates whose policies are repugnant to them in general elections. We also have to wonder how Christian leaders have come to the conclusion that they must either support and even work to protect  exclusively Republican candidates who are openly covenant breakers.

The answer lies in simply denying that they are indeed covenant breakers. The best way to do that is by maintaining a state of plausible deniability. If you never ask the tough questions you can easily deny knowledge that the candidate in question’s policies are in conflict with his oath of office. Sadly, this doesn’t often stop Christians from defending these candidates when their shortcomings are made public. Many will stop at almost nothing to protect their chosen candidates because they are nominally Christian (outwardly) and have the added ability to win elections. Winning with a nominal Christian candidate  who may be an oath breaker has become more important than providing a candidate with a consistent Christian worldview who could be a true oath honoring representative.  Earthly power beats godly covenant. Not hardly.

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote, Economics

A Health Care Rally Report

constitutionOn Thursday, November 5, 2009 a rally was held in Washington DC for the purpose of lobbying the House of Representatives, specifically our own Congressmen, to defeat the complete hijacking of the American health care system.

You probably already know that. You may not know that there were only about 2-3 days notice of this rally. You may also not know that with only that very short notice somewhere between 15,000-30,000 people made the time, found the precious resources and the guts to make the trip. In the middle of a work week. I was one of these. I can testify to the predominantly middle-class status of the rallyers. Like the TEA parties and Town Hall meetings of this last summer, this was no SEIU/ACORN orchestrated rent-a-mob complete with cookie-cutter signs placed strategically around the crowd. Look at the pictures taken by this author to the right. You will see just a handful of the signs and people we were able to see in the crowd (you can see these better in full-screen mode available on the far right of the option bar near the bottom of the picture carousel).  Some of the signs were pretty good- both clever and articulate. Some were corny and/or mediocre. Some were awful, for instance the Lyndon LaRouche Democratic Socialists with their picture of President Obama with a Hitler-like toothbrush moustache and the caption “I’ve Changed.” The LaRoucheites, being agents provocateurs and therefore masters of mis-direction, know full well that it is not Obama that has changed. Obama is doing what he said he would do during the campaign. What has changed is that people have begun to realize  that he was serious when he said them. The LaRoucheite presence at TEA parties and the health care rally with their inflammatory propaganda and signage is designed to provide a “look at the idiots” moment for the main-stream media, who know full-well who the LaRoucheites are but are more than willing to feature them as “typical” of attendees. The LaRouchites also know they can occasionally hook a sucker who does not know what they are about already. Thankfully, it appears that this crowd stayed clear of their table and their propaganda.

[slideshow id=1]

This was a true grass-roots upswell of individuals determined to lobby Congress to vote against the federal government commandeering their right to buy private health care coverage or go without coverage if they so desire.  Many of them, just like me, small business owners or the spouse of one. Many of them, just like me, fully aware of what the requirements of the House version would do to their businesses. Every small business owner knows this fact; Employees cost a lot more than just their wages. Training, unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation, Social Security, Medicaid and the cost of benefits like health care coverage, made mandatory under the bill, all contribute to the cost of an employee. This bill creates an atmosphere that will stifles the growth or or completely kill off  small business. And small business is the largest employer in our economy. The tremendous costs of doing business in the atmosphere being created by the bill is a hurdle that many small businesses and even many medium and large-sized businesses will not be able to negotiate without increased productivity. Increased productivity is an economic analysts euphemism for squeezing more work out of a smaller work force. In order to stay competitive these businesses will simply not hire new employees and probably lay off some of those they already have. To say that the health care bill will create greater unemployment, in fact will kill jobs is no overstatement.

Others were there because they understand that the final objective of the public option is the elimination of a private market for health care insurance and a complete assumption of all authority over who does and who does not get treatment. If that sounds like it means  “death boards” to decide if grandma gets her surgery that’s because it means exactly that. Overweight? “Sorry, but that’s  a procedure with a risk of failure among the “less disciplined” members of society. Lose 50 pounds first.” Everyone should be asking why the major media believe that those who expose this obvious implication of the health care bill to be a targets for derisive criticism.  Could it be that they are, as elitists who have never actually had to deal with the bureaucracies they demand be created (the vast majority of them at least),  so enthusiastic for government expropriation of the entire system that they are willing to ignore the obvious results of that action?

This article was being written before the bill passed the House of Representatives by a squeaker vote of 220-215. Two votes to spare. Look at the pictures at the right side above.  Note there are some that just appear to be lines of people. These are the lines of constituents waiting to talk to their elected representatives. The lines are more than a block long for each of the three House office buildings. Some of those who actually got in to see their representatives reported being treated courteously. Others were treated rudely, staff looking for any excuse to usher lobbying constituents out of the office,  and a few claim to have been physically man-handled. Twelve were arrested in one case when a Congressman was physical with a female constituent and some of the males nearby objected.  They were arrested and charged with “unauthorized entry” and “disorderly conduct.” The Congressman’s chief-of-staff was making every effort to weasle out of the incident, saying that everyone had been polite and nice, knowing the public relations nightmare the Congressman had created. If everything had been “polite and nice” then why were 12 people arrested? Rep. Nancy Pelosi had anti health care bill constituents physically removed from her office. How could Congress ignore the clear will of the American people that health care reform of this kind was not what was wanted? It’s simpler than you might think. It’s also more corrupt than you might think.

What many of the rallyers didn’t now about was the maneuvering going on behind the scenes by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and her lieutenants. The vote was originally scheduled for Thursday or Friday.  Pelosi and company simply didn’t have the votes on these days. As late as Saturday, she still didn’t have the votes despite an Obama pep-talk to the Dempcratic caucus and there was talk of postponing until Monday or Tuesday. The difference was the pro-life and Blue-dog Democrats. Pelosi put her House Whip to work brokering deals to pass the health care bill.

Scuttlebutt has it (and of course the truth of this will not be known until after the 2010 elections pans out who loses their jobs over this bill) that more than a few Blue-dog Democrat Congressmen were promised headships of federal agencies if they are un-elected after their “YES” vote on this and the so-called “cap and trade” bills. Complicating the matter are the Christian activist leaders who devised what they thought was the no-lose strategy of calling on their membership to admonish their Congressmen to vote “NO” on the sole basis of the abortion funding provisions that leadership had tried to claim were not there but were forced to admit actually existed. The final deal was brokered with the pro-life Democrats to accept an amendment offered by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak to remove the abortion funding provisions. The die-hard infanticides were placated with the promise that the abortion funding will be in the final House-Senate conference committee version of the bill after Senate passage.

Thus, the mid-rated Christian strategists were thinking one move ahead while the grandmaster politicians were thinking 3 moves ahead. What does this mean? The removal of the abortion funding language was the excuse that pro-lifers and many Blue-dogs needed to cast their votes in favor of the bill. A bill that they desperately wanted an excuse to vote for and still be able to claim that they had complied with all that they had been asked to do by strategically out-maneuvered Christian activists. Had the Christian groups taken a principled stand against the bill on the far more comprehensive  grounds of the bills constitutionality rather than on a narrow pro-life stance, Pelosi might still be looking for the votes she needed.

Al hope should not be lost, however. While Rep. Michele Bachmann should be given great credit for organizing this rally with only a few days to get the job done, it should be noted that the Republican House leadership made a concerted effort to hijack the movement (surprise, surprise). House minority leader John Boehner and several Republican House leadership members attempted to gin up support for their own health care federal takeover bill (called by one wag the “me too!” bill). Not only did this effort yield, at best, lukewarm support the effort served to both bore the attendees who were there to lobby against federal health care and make the rally, at more than 2 hours, overly lengthy. It was clear that this crowd was heavy with TEA partiers who were not overly thrilled with the Republican party and especially its bungling leadership and their efforts to do the same thing as the Democrats, but in a different way.

That’s a great sign for constitutionalists and should be a warning to Republican party leadership. But no one ever went broke underestimating the ability of Republican leaders to purposefully mis-read obvious signs of discontent (bordering on open revolt) among the party’s conservative core. The revolt over New York’s District 23 election has already been mis-characterized by Republican party hacks like Rush Limbaugh as a triumph for the party (you know, the Republicans who ran Dede Scozzafava, a closet Democrat shill for the seat) while downplaying the 3rd party aspect of the near victory by Hoffman on the Conservative Party ticket.

The Republican party had better get the message (though they won’t)- The core of the party simply won’t accept any more blue-blooded, forked tongue, country club liberal Republicans anymore and the TEA partiers whom party leadership are currently wooing aren’t interested in supporting the status quo Republicans. They’ll happily bolt to a principled third-party if they don’t like the Republican choice ala Doug Hoffman. If bills like “cap and trade” and health care “reform” are passed into law, neither of these groups will sit still in the 2010 elections for anything short of candidate pledges to rescind these laws if elected. Any so-called “conservative” candidate who says “well, these things are the law now and we need to make the best of it from here on out” needs to find another job, preferably in the private sector where he can see the damage that his lack of real commitment to the movement has wrought. If the private sector will have him/her. Liberal Republicans need to be shown the door forthwith. These are the modern political realities emerging thanks to Barack Obama’s presidency.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

Ohio Issue 2 Pro and Con

This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series 2009 Election Issues

Voting MachinePeople have different ideas about the same issue.  This is especially true about this year’s Ohio ballot Issue 2, the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.  Keeping that fact in mind, the Institute for Principled Policy will be bringing pro and con arguments relative to the issue, but will not be making an official endorsement of it either way.

Argument Pro Issue 2

Issue 2 creates the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board (the Board), a board of Ohio agriculture interests which would have first right of refusal on any and all potential regulations on agriculture.  Issue 2 sets up no regulatory scheme; it neither prohibits nor proscribes any specific action by anyone involved in agriculture; and it is up to the people of the state of Ohio to decide to create it (and it’s established in the Constitution to keep radical interests from altering the makeup of the board after the fact).

The board, if adopted, will be the first review of any potential regulations on agriculture to be proposed.  The Constitutional amendment would also have force of law advantage over any other future initiative that may be proposed on the ballot, and can be the basis of legal challenge to such an initiative (per legal review of the issue by the OSU Extension Director of Ag Law, Peggy Kirk Hall).

The makeup of the board is known to the extent that there are certain specialties that must be represented on the board (2 veterinarians (one being the State Veterinarian), 1 county humane society member, 1 food safety expert, a dean of an agricultural college, the Director of Agriculture, 2 consumer representatives, 2 reps from farm organizations, and 3 family farmers).  Who those actual people are (except for the Director of Agriculture and the State Veterinarian) is subject to an application/nomination/Senate confirmation process.  That process will serve to sort out those who have real interests in protecting and promoting Ohio agriculture from those who have a radical animal-rights agenda.

Any authority given to this board is subject to the authority of the elected General Assembly (GA), as the enabling legislation spelled out particularly (Senate Joint Resolution 6, citing Article XIV, Section 1(B)), so the 13 members of the board do not have unilateral authority…the General Assembly also establishes the procedures for the board to follow in creating any potential new rule, so there can’t be any “making it up as they go along” effort that doesn’t get elected official oversight either.

Additionally, Section 1(D) of SJR 6 states “The General Assembly may enact laws that it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, to facilitate the execution of the duties of the Board and the state department that regulates agriculture under this section, and to set the terms of office of the Board members and conditions for Board members’ service on the Board.”  Again, the final control on the Board, except for the number of board members, the numbers of each interest (family farmers, farm organizations, veterinarians, etc.) on the board, and who appoints which (Governor appoints 10 through Senate confirmation process; House Speaker and Senate President each appoint 1 family farmer), is all left in the hands of the Ohio General Assembly, our elected legislative officials.

Concerns have been raised that Issue 2 will allow the state to have control over agriculture.  Extending “state intervention” is problematic mainly if one believes that up until Issue 2 there was no intervention by the state in agriculture.  A 2-inch-thick book known as Title 9 of the Ohio Revised Code is proof that there has been state intervention in agriculture since Ohio became a state.

Under the existing Title 9 regulations, agriculture has become the state’s biggest economic engine, producing $93 billion in economic growth, nearly 1 million jobs, and (especially with what is happening to states like California, Michigan, Florida, etc. with Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)  intervention) a top-ten-in-the-nation ranking for Ohio agricultural production in many areas of the agricultural economy.  Ohio does that with about 75,000 farms, only about 200 of which are considered concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s), or “mega-farms” in the common vernacular.  For the public to believe that a board of review on Ohio’s agricultural practices would have as a primary goal the harassment, persecution or elimination of Ohio’s family farms (the vast majority of the farms involved in our agricultural economy) in order to benefit the CAFO’s in some nefarious scheme strains credulity.

The main opposition to Issue 2 is carried out  mainly under the banner of the coordinating ballot organization “Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover (OhioACT)”  This coalition is replete with committed leftists, neo-Marxists, green warriors and animal-above-people radicals.  The Ohio Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, League of Women Voters and HSUS all are part of this effort. Others include Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based “progressive” farm policy group focusing on “economic justice” whose board includes Earth First! Activists; the Ohio Farmers Union, which testified in Columbus that they want to compromise with HSUS and agree to HSUS’ demands relative to animal confinement; Mercy For Animals, a Chicago based (with a Columbus office) animal rights group who state, from their website that “non-human animals are irreplaceable individuals with morally significant interests and hence rights”; and Working Families Win, an Americans for Democratic Action-associated organization whose Ohio chapter states their goals of “organizing around the issues of guaranteed health care, jobs and wages, fair trade and sound energy policy.”

OhioACT’s “factsheet” on Issue 2 is filled with fictions.  The claim:  ‘The Livestock Care Standards Board, once cemented into the state constitution, would have the power to override any act by the Ohio Department of Agriculture or the state legislature, or any other initiative or referendum brought before the Ohio public other than an additional constitutional amendment.  In effect, this means that any standard created by the Board is a final decision, giving it unchecked power over animal agriculture” is unsupported in light of Section 1(B) of the actual language of Senate Joint Resolution 6.

It is interesting that OhioACT’s “factsheet” quotes just the first half of the first sentence in Section 1(B), conveniently leaving out the pertinent detail about the Board being ‘subject to the authority of the General Assembly.’  Oh, but they have to leave that out, don’t they?  Otherwise, their claims become seen for what they are:  empty and misleading.

Under the factsheet’s “unchecked power” heading, they make claims there will be no public input.  How do they know that?  The General Assembly sets the rules by which the Board will operate.  If the GA wants 10 public hearings by the Board on each rule proposed, then 10 public hearings the Board will have to provide.

The section on “undemocratic board” is a cute ploy.  They state there are no rules about the time of service on the board, then footnote Section 1(D) of the law which states clearly that the Ohio General Assembly will set the terms of service for the board members.  Can’t put that up front, now can they? If they did the entire theme of “unchecked power” argument goes down the drain!  Additionally, Section 1(A)(4) of SJR6 states clearly that “Not more than seven members appointed to the Board at any given time shall be of the same political party.”  This means clearly:  Partisanship is reduced by design of the law!  How can it get more democratic than that?

Then we have OhioACT’s “Family Farmer Fallacy” fallacy.  Here’s the real definition of “family farm” according to USDA regulation:  A farm that (1) produces agricultural commodities for sale in such quantities so as to be recognized in the community as a farm and not a rural residence; (2) produces enough income (including off-farm employment) to pay family and farm operating expenses, pay debts, and maintain the property; (3) is managed by the operator; (4) has a substantial amount of labor provided by the operator and the operator’s family; and (5) may use seasonal labor during peak periods and a reasonable amount of full-time hired labor.  It is reasonable to assume that this would be a working definition which the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, and the Governor will use in making their nominations to the board for the “family farmer” slots on the board.

In essence, even though the language doesn’t specifically say “This amendment will stop the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in their tracks”, it does throw a significant legal and administrative hurdle in their path, one big enough that HSUS and their allies, many of them listed above as Issue 2’s opponents, are expending considerable effort to defeat.  To read the language of Issue 2, and the enabling legislation, is to understand that there is much in it that WILL stop (or significantly hinder) HSUS from getting to the ballot in 2010. The HSUS proposal would definitely wreak havoc on small family farmers, as well as large ones.

Is it any coincidence that HSUS came in to Ohio at the end of their successful 2008 ballot initiative in California with the threat of “do it our way, or we will bring the initiative to the ballot in Ohio…..in 2010“?  Why wait the extra year?  Why not bring it in 09 before the full impact of what happened in California gets out in the information cycle?  Why not roll right into another attack while you have significant momentum?  Why 2010?

The likely answer:  2010 is a major election year in Ohio, and the progressive movement needs a turnout issue at the ballot in order to protect their gains in Ohio politics, and secure the bulwarks for the 2012 cycle.  What better than an emotionally-driven issue such as “humane animal treatment” to bring out their hardened cadres and get popular support from a significant segment of the Ohio electorate who often doesn’t take the time to think through most issues they will be voting on?  What better way to get “the team” (progressive/leftist elected officials and candidates) to endorse this issue and thus be associated with a “compassion” issue?  There’s a lot more to the HSUS delay than meets the eye.  There’s a lot more to Ohio Issue 2 than meets the eye, as well.


Argument Con Issue 2

“If it’s going to increase the scope, size, or cost of government – vote NO”.   Should we add a clause to this principled axiom which states “…unless it’s a preemptive strike against radical environmentalists”?  This is the thrust of the argument for supporters of Issue 2, which would create the Livestock Care Standards Board via constutional amendment.  The argument goes something like this: if we don’t create this board (which would have input on all agricultural legislation in Ohio), then the Humane Society of the United States will descend upon Ohio in 2010 with their own ballot initiative, and attempt to turn us all into vegans while implementing planks of the UN Agenda 21.  This brings up several problems and questions that one should consider before supporting Issue 2.

1. How does the creation of this board advance the cause of liberty, or line up with the preamble to the Ohio Constitution?

2. State Representative Ruhl, a supporter, conceded that the creation of this board would NOT stop HSUS from attempting a ballot iniative.

3. Why are Issue 2 supporters so convinced that HSUS could muster enough support to pass such an initiative?  This is not California or the east coast.  A better strategy might be to go ahead and let them make their attempt next year – then ALL pro-liberty and pro-family groups in Ohio can join forces and expose HSUS for what they really are.  As it stands now, some groups (such ours and the Buckeye Institute) have elected to stay neutral in light of the division this has caused in the pro-liberty and conservative communities.

4. One of the main concerns is that HSUS, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, etc. oppose Issue 2.  However, should we base our endorsement or opposition of an issue solely based on who is on the other side?  The Principled Policy Institute adamantly opposes Issue 3 (casino gambling) — but so does the ultra-liberal Ohio Council of Churches along with a number of gambling interests!

5. Contrary to the claims, this initiative is more reactionary than proactive.  A truly principled and proactive measure would have been to have created this board years ago, in the absence of any imminent threat.

6. Would this set a regulatory and legislative precedent in Ohio for other areas of law?  Imagine dozens of similar appointed boards that would have jurisdiction over legislation regarding health care, manufacturing, insurance, banking, energy, etc. in Ohio.  Such a system of unaccountable bureacracy would be contrary to the truly representative ideals of an elected general assembly.

7. With the wrong governor and legislature in power, such a board could do serious damage to Ohio before their terms expire.  Much like the H1N1 vaccine, the cure could potentially be worse than the disease.  What if the Livestock Care Standards Board ended up being spiked with disciples of Rachel Carson?

Nobody in their right mind would support the agenda of the Humane Society of United States, if they knew the truth about this radical organization (which has nothing to do with animal shelters).  However, let us think very carefully before purposely increasing the scope, size, and cost of government – as a preventative measure to a potential increase in the scope, size, and cost of government.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Government is the extension of God’s moral order

“Government in every area is God’s order, law, and authority asserted over His creation. In the world of men, God’s government, whether in church, state, school, business, or family, is the extension of God’s moral order over a fallen world, an assertion, to use an old Calvinist battle-cry, of ‘The Crown Rights of King Jesus.’ To reduce government, whether in the family, the state, or elsewhere, to force is to destroy government. Modern government, having forsaken God’s law, is essentially government by force, and its force is a killing, dissecting force, a government by autopsy.


Read the rest of the entry here

Economics, Taxation, Private Property, Commentary

Some Wisdom On Property Taxes From A Very Odd Source

tax

“As Property Taxes Become a Real Burden, Can Backlash Be Far Off?” screams a headline from an article in the (gack….choke…) New York Times. We will avoid the obvious comments about stupid questions and proceed with the point. Of course the backlash isn’t far off!

Let us illustrate with an example. In Westerville there is a pending levy vote on 7.99 additional mills. For a house with a value of $170,000 (a reasonable middle-of-the-road value there) this will bring a tax increase of $475 per year which will mostly go to salary increases for administrators and teachers. But wait a second. Just last spring an additional millage was voted to a “capital improvements” renewal levy that will cost at least $75 additional dollars per year, leaving out the increase on a renewal caused by being taxed at the current valuation rather than the previous one (tens more dollars per year). Let’s call it an even $100 more per year. And, oh, yes. Forgot to mention that suddenly the fire department needs 2.7 additional mills. That’s about $160 more per year.

Now all of a sudden you’ve got, when all of the voted millages kick in, an additional $735 dollars per year for so-called “necessities” that aren’t really. That’s an additional $61.25 per month that is unavailable for spending on items from local businesses like restaurants, clothing, grocery and hardware stores. Throw in various “throw-away”  millage increases for mental retardation, libraries and various other socialistic tax vampire increases and you’re looking at nearly $900 per year in additional taxes over two years.

The theoretical house in Westerville 12 years ago may have been valued at, say, $122,000 then and $170,000 now (the obvious recent drop in value due to the market crash was, of course, ignored by the Franklin County Auditor who chose to hold the property valuation line in most cases. The Delaware County Auditor George Kaitsa claims that some values have actually increased  in the Westerville School District portions of Delaware County, proving that Fantasyland actually exists and the Delaware County Auditor is its Great and Powerful Oz. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain). In other words, the house supposedly appreciated by about 39% in 12 years. But what about the taxes? That same house paid about $1750 per year in property taxes in 1997 and now pays about $3300 in taxes or about 89% more currently. The growth of current taxes has outstripped the value of the house by a factor of over 2 times. Now if the new millages pass and the taxes take effect that additional $900 per year comes into the picture and suddenly the $3300 per year in taxes is $4200 per year. That means in 13 years the value of the home will have grown 39% (assuming a continued flat real estate market) and the taxes will have grown by 140%, outstripping the growth in value by about 3.5 times. This thoroughly crushes the argument that failing to pass levies leads to decreases in property values. Who wants to move into a tax district where the taxes grow 3.5 times faster than property values? These are ugly numbers that should be a wake up call to voters who know them. We’ll see. The tax districts certainly aren’t being honest about it.

The article itself attempts to make some absurd points about New York real estate values and taxation. It is the New York Times, after all, the home paper of Pulitzer Prize winning Stalinist dupe and “progressive”  Lincoln Steffens (who once gushed of the Soviet Union of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s “I have seen the future- and it works!”) and hyper-Keynsian Paul Krugman who still thinks the fascistic economic misadventures of Hoover and Roosevelt that created a 17 year long “Great Depression” (24 years if you count how long it took for the stock market to recover) from a rather nasty but potentially short-lived recession (ala the very deep, short and little known depression of 1921) saved the country from the same “Great Depression.” For instance

Property taxes are high around here in large part, of course, because property values are high. But there are several reasons why property taxes are higher here than in other costly parts of the country. Unlike California and Massachusetts, there are few, if any, longstanding brakes in place that kept property taxes down (and, in California, led to disastrous revenue shortages). Public employees unions are powerful and politically feared. And we’ve come to expect good services — top-rated schools, nearby police in little boutique towns — and have been willing to pay for them.

Taxes are high because values are high? Well, no kidding but what about the points made earlier in this analysis regarding the rate of tax growth? Taxes are high because unions are feared? Why are such a tiny percentage of workers so fearsome? And frankly, the claim that California has been “deprived of revenue” due to property tax reforms is to approach the subject as if the state of California had a right to that revenue without recourse to a vote which proposition 13 brought to a halt in the late 1970’s. It doesn’t (Ohio failed to learn that ugly lesson and recently passed into law a bill that allowed school districts to offer permanent levies that feature tax rates that grow with property values without an intervening approval vote; hence the rapidly burning fuse on the property tax powder keg). And “good services” need not necessarily be expensive. Neither can they be cheap.

The fact is that school systems and bureaucracies dependent on the property tax have become bloated thanks to property value increases that far outstripped inflation. Now that the property value gravy train is derailed they all are, like all leeches, starved for more lifeblood in order to continue growing. That’s right. The real problem is not that these agencies need the funds to operate properly and efficiently, they need them to continue to grow. The fact is that what the Times is calling “good services” are often rapidly expanding unelected bureaucratic agencies that stifle small business and trample private property rights (zoning and planning boards, municipal business sign and licensing provisions, etc).

The so-called “good schools” are likewise unresponsive to parents who want their children to be taught how to read at an intelligent level and reason in a manner that comports with their personal values. The schools’  goal is to foster thinking that state and federal mandates designed to create worker drones (“School to Work”) requires. This “education strategy” has created such abysmally dull thinking and widespread illiteracy in the United States, which in the 19th century was able to boast of literacy in the high 90% range, that it now declines to keep statistics on the subject. So much for “good services.”

The cost of the growth of government is tacitly admitted here

…several reasons why property taxes are so high: unreasonable state mandates piled on local governments; income tax dollars inequitably distributed back to local governments; far too many local governments — more than 10,500 in New York — that need to be consolidated or eliminated; fraud and waste; and economic stagnation producing no expansion in the property tax base. You could throw in crippling Medicaid costs and unsustainable pension costs.

The specter of unfunded mandates rears its ugly head. Also, what’s with “redistribution” of money from the state to local governments? Why is the money being taken from those jurisdictions in the first place? Money cannot be taxed and run through a bureaucracy without scraping off and, frankly, wasting significant percentages of it (conservatively 70% and up). Why not just drastically cut state taxes (and corresponding mandates) and allowing the local governments to go to voters for what they actually need to run without intervening and ultra-expensive bureaucracies? The alleged fraud and waste at the local level is obviously only compounded at the state and federal levels which are far less responsive to electoral safeguards. It’s a lot harder for crooked politicians to survive in small towns than it is in Albany or Columbus or Washington DC (and a lot less expensive). Everybody knows who and what you are in Podunk.


The last 2 paragraphs of the article tells the tale.

Gerald Prante, an economist with the Tax Foundation in Washington, said at least people feel they get something tangible from their local taxes and can tolerate them if they believe they’re getting what they paid for “If I told you I spent $40,000 on a car, it doesn’t tell you much unless you know what kind of car,” he said. “If it’s a Lamborghini, it was probably a good deal. If it was a Saturn, it’s not such a good deal.”Thus, for all the angst, the fact that most local school budgets still routinely pass indicates we might be more likely to grumble than to cut close to home.

The problem is that many suburbanites who bought the luxury car a few years back now can barely afford the Saturn.

Are taxpayers actually looking at the costs versus the return yet? When they do- WATCH OUT! And help spread the word.

Taxation, Education, Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics

It’s Levy Season- Know How To Vote

taxIt’s levy season once again. The time when school boards attempt to defraud taxpayers into voting themselves massive tax increases on the basis of the impending collapse of western civilization if the latest combination of renewal, replacement and new millages are not passed. The terminology of these appeals to emotion are deliberately misleading and/or deceptive.

What exactly happens to my taxes with a renewal that includes “no new taxes” and why do my taxes increase anyway when the renewal passes? Why do my taxes increase when the replacement levy was sold as a decrease in my old millage? Will this levy ever expire?

Have you ever asked these questions and been completely stumped by the rhetoric from the school officials and the news media who have closed ranks with school officials in an attempt to make sure levies pass?

This spring we ran a series called Tax and Spin- Undersanding Property Tax Levies. It is an attempt to unravel the mystery of property tax levies and explain why what looks like a decrease in rate actually causes an increase in taxes.

Don’t continue to be fooled. Read the series. This post will be a “sticky” until the election. New articles will post below it.

Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics

Auditing The Federal Reserve- Dr. Gary North

constitutionDr. Gary North has written an excellent analysis of the current effort to audit the Federal Reserve by the only true Constitutionalist currently in the government of the United States, Dr. Ron Paul.

Rather than bore you with my analysis of North’s analysis I will simply tell you to click here to read the article. And while you’re at it take the time to watch the video below (also oattached to Dr. North’s article).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Oh, yes.  Please be sure to read Dr. Thomas Woods Meltdown and Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse, both available in our Amazon Store to bolster your knowledge on the how’s and why’s of the current financial crisis.

Taxation, Education, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

(Star) Dust In The Eyes

shellgameIf, as they say, some dust thrown in my eyes

Will keep my talk from getting overwise,

I’m not the one for putting off the proof.

Let it be overwhelming, off a roof

And round a corner, blizzard snow for dust,

And blind me to a standstill if it must. –Robert Frost

While reading the news today (8/19) I stumbled on a story that caused me to think a little bit. I hope it does the same for you. There will be a little technical discussion in this article. Don’t let that scare you away. I’ll be gentle for the non-scientists out there and hopefully instructive and explanatory. If not, leave a question in the commentary box. I’ll try to answer it.

The story I read was based on a NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Stardust comet dust sample return project news item, available here. The news release starts in a breathless tone-

NASA scientists have discovered glycine, a fundamental building block of life, in samples of comet Wild 2 returned by NASA’s Stardust spacecraft.

“Glycine is an amino acid used by living organisms to make proteins, and this is the first time an amino acid has been found in a comet,” said Dr. Jamie Elsila of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “Our discovery supports the theory that some of life’s ingredients formed in space and were delivered to Earth long ago by meteorite and comet impacts.”

That’s certainly interesting scientific news. Now there’s both some truth and some incredibly wild-eyed speculation and what scientists call “extrapolation beyond the bounds of the data set” in this short quote from the article (interpolation is the practice of making measurements of standard samples, then analyzing test samples based on data from those standards; extrapolation is making the same measurements for data that are outside the upper and lower boundaries of the standard samples. A little bit of extrapolation is usually OK. More than a few per cent beyond the upper or lower bounds is not OK, usually). Can you separate the truth from the speculation?

The quote is truthful, at least partially, in that glycine is a chemical compound that is one of the so-called “building blocks of life,” the amino acids. What is wrong with the report? It raises the eyebrows of critical thinkers for several reasons.

First, it’s not all that shocking that a form of glycine would be found in a comet’s tail. Comets contain all sorts of organic compounds including organic acids, of which glycine is one. The term “organic” means that the compounds are made up of carbon and hydrogen and sometimes oxygen and nitrogen, all of which are in glycine. Glycine is THE simplest amino acid. An amino acid cannot contain fewer constituents than glycine. Amino acids have a specific chemical structure. They consist of a central carbon atom, and by the laws of chemistry carbon must have 4 attachments. In an amino acid carbon is  attached to a carboxyl group, the acid part (-COOH), an amine, the amino part (-NH2) a hydrogen (-H), and what is called a side chain that can consist of several single or chained attachments like hydrogen (as in glycine) to very complex multi-carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur chains. Proline is an exception to this rule because the side chain reacts with the amine group to form a “ring” (a bond where  the atoms are bonded together in a more or less round structure). But that’s just to let you know there are a few weird and complex exceptions. So glycine, as opposed to other amino acids, is a really, really simple molecule, in fact, it is one of the simplest organic acids.

Second, there is no indication of what conformation or three-dimensional form the glycine was found in. This is of the utmost importance in considering the claims of NASA to have found some of “life’s ingredients” in the comet’s tail. All proteins in life on earth are built from chains consisting of  22 amino acids, 8 of these are called “essential amino acids” in humans because we cannot make them in our own bodies. In every case the amino acids in all life forms on planet earth are in the “L” 3-dimensional configuration.  It follows that one of the requirements for life, at least from our observations on this planet, is that amino acids be in the “L” configuration. And in fact, that is true because “D” form proteins made of the same amino acids as the “L” form are vastly different in size and shape as are proteins that contain a mix of “R” and “L” forms. Size and shape effect function of a protein. A change in a proteins function equals malformation and death. But there is no indication which form or if there was a mix of forms found in the comet residue.

Glycine formed by so-called “natural forces” tends to exist in equal amounts of the “D” and “L” forms. This is what we would expect to see in, for instance, glycine from a comet’s tail residue. From a physical chemistry standpoint, this creates a problem for evolutionist arguments for the spontaneous generation of life. The “spontaneous life generation” assumption can be seen in this  overwrought quote from the article-

“The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the universe may be common rather than rare,” said Dr. Carl Pilcher, Director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute which co-funded the research.

One of the major arguments against life emerging from a pre-biotic soup of chemicals is the fact stated above- that all proteins from all life on the planet are built from “L” amino acids. If there were a mix of “L” and “R” amino acids in approximately even ratios in the pre-biotic world that came from a comet or from static electrical discharges or whatever mechanism is suggested then any self-organized life system should contain approximately equal amounts of “D” and “L” amino acids. It could be argued that the resultant chemical structures were not conducive to life and therefore did not survive. But then it becomes necessary to prove that it is possible (or, more accurately, probable) for a chain of single conformation amino acids to form into the chain sizes and shapes necessary to support life and reproduce itself spontaneously. The minimum number of proteins necessary for this is in the hundreds. And all of them require, at the minimum, dozens of amino acids. And they all have to be in the same 3-dimensional conformation. It also becomes necessary to explain why there is no life that contains nothing but “D” conformation amino acids. So what are these odds? I don’t know and I suspect no one at NASA wants to calculate the probabilities because they know that the probabilities make the events simply too overwhelmingly unlikely to occur spontaneously.  This is why the lack of information regarding the conformation of glycine is therefore somewhat suspicious.

But wait a minute. There’s also a claim here that “the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent” in space. There are a number of problems with this. First, there are noun problems. The detection of a single amino acid in a single comet tail does not warrant the claim that “the building blocks of life are prevalent.” Second, there’s also an adverb problem. The only claim that can be made legitimately is that “a building block of life has been detected.” The detection of small amounts of a single amino acid is hardly “prevalence.” Third, the conclusion in the quote that “life in the universe may be common rather than rare” does not follow because the primary premise, that the building blocks are prevalent in space, has not been proven or even implied by the presence of a single, simple organic acid in a single comet tail.

And, of course, none of the other 21 amino acid residues were found in the comet residue. This doesn’t completely invalidate the case NASA’s trying to make, but it certainly puts a gaping hole in the fabric of their argument. A protein, which is a chain or a collection of chains of  from a few to hundreds of thousands of amino acids could be made of a single amino acid but its usefulness in any biological process is highly doubtful. One of these has never been found. It therefore follows that life cannot spontaneously self-generate from a single amino acid. Considering the necessity of proper protein size and shape for functionality, it seems likely that is all 22 amino acids must be present or nothing as regards the spontaneous generation of life. What NASA wants you to ask is “are the other amino acids there, too?”

The reason that the report by NASA is suspicious are the motivations behind the hype from them. Scientists are desperate to find proof of at least two things that they believe would bring an end to the Intelligent Design/Creation Science (IDCS) opposition to neo-Darwinist dogma. First, they believe that the discovery of life on other planets could be the stake through the heart of IDCS. It is not clear why they believe this since an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent Creator of the universe and all things contained in it could just as easily create life on another planet as on earth. Furthermore, if only “simple” (a silly description that belies the tremendous complexity found in all life forms on this planet, including so-called “primitive” forms) forms are found and no evidence of earlier or transitional forms (sound familiar?) are found,then how does this prove that the life on that planet evolved? Are there theological difficulties with life on other planets? Yes, but that’s really outside the scope of the discussion.

The second thing that scientists must prove is that it is possible for the self-organization and activation of hundreds of organic chemicals into the proper conformation to sustain life and reproduce itself. That can only be made remotely more probable if the raw materials are available in the same areas in very large quantities. Hence the speculation and exaggeration about comets containing the “building blocks of life”  in large quantities.

OK, but why is NASA’s being a little overly enthusiastic about an interesting but not overly remarkable find? Because what NASA wants desperately is MONEY! This is an attempt to dupe taxpayers into looking the other way while their pockets are emptied of billions of dollars for interesting but clearly unconstitutional programs like the Stardust and the manned Mars mission projects. As long as NASA can use a shell game consisting of speculation, equivocation and exaggeration to hide the pea of the waste of tax dollars for research of incredibly high cost and even more highly questionable value, these kinds of “news” releases and hype in scientific journals, funded in large part from government grants of even more tax dollars, will continue.