Category Archives: Commentary

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

Hold It A Minute…

constitutionThe Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings… Article I, § 8 of the US Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution

Frankly, the reading of these two portions of the highest law of the land, the Constitution could not be clearer. The Federal government must have the legislative condent of a state to own property within that state’s borders.

This clear requirement has been completely ignored by the Federal government for over a century and a brewing problem in California is illustrative of the need for states to reassert their authorities as guaranteed in the  1oth Amendment.  You see, California is bankrupt. And as part of that bankruptcy they are discussing the closure of state parks. According to an AP story–

California officials said Wednesday they are trying to avert the federal government’s threat to seize six parks that could be closed to help reduce the state’s ballooning budget deficit

Seize the land by what authority, you might be asking? According to the story-

National Park Service Regional Director Jonathan Jarvis warned in a letter to that all six [stste parks] occupy former federal land that could revert to the U.S. government if the state fails to keep the parks open.

The article quotes Jarvis as writing…

…”Lands conveyed to the State under the Federal Lands to Parks Program must be open for public park and recreation use in perpetuity as a condition of the deed”

Did you catch that? Formerly Federal land, deeded to the state with a caveat? A caveat that the Federal government is prohibited from making? Well, how’s it forbidden from making the caveat, you might be asking?

Since the  state of California has the authority under the two sections of the Constitution stated to simply revoke the permission granted the Federal government to own the land, this caveat is legally meaningless. There is nothing legally from keeping the State of California from simply seizing any particular piece of, or in fact all of, the Federal property in California by a simple act of the California legislature.

In reality it would be foolish for California to seize, for instance, the San Diego Navy Yard. But the Constitution is clear that it is permitted to do so (they might have to give “just compensation” per the 5th Amendment, but of course the US Supreme Court has a terrible track record on arbitrary seizures and property values, so that could work in California’s favor) and that means if they wish they can simply brush Mr. Jarvis’ protestations to the contrary aside as one would a pesky blood-sucking mosquito.

How does this effect Ohio’s public policy? Ohio currently has a “Sovereignty Resolution” before the State Senate, Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 13. In it Ohio merely proclaims that it retains the rights and responsibilities of a sovereign state and intends to use them to make Ohio a place where its citizens can feel free from the over-reach of Federal authority. Like, for instance, forcing the state to keep parks open when it is bankrupt at its own expense.

Just another reason Ohio needs to remind the Federal government that it is a sovereign state.

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

Report From England- Climate Change And The Sun

flare_sxi2_medThe webmaster is in England. Currently I am staying at the North London Rifle Club facility at Camp Bisley, Surrey, England. It is one of the parapets in the UK yet to be stormed in the world-wide effort to remove the absolute last resort tools that private citizens have for protecting their liberties, i.e. guns, from the hands of private citizens.

But that’s another story. Every day as I take the train to London to see the incredible sights there, I have noticed that the ad campaigns are laying it on thick about “climate change.” Daily there is a story in the newspapers (I have yet to turn on a television) about the hundreds of thousands per year who die as a result of “extreme weather conditions” in third-world countries. The newspaper stories and screaming billboards always cite the same research and scientific data to bolster their claims- none. That’s because there isn’t any.

And after all, why should there be? The global warming/climate change campaign is one based on emotion, not logic. Real science is not only ignored, it is an unwelcome encumberance to the goal of convincing people that they should accept government restriction of their lives and learn to live like those third-worlders- for the good of the planet, mind you.

And so, you get pictures of starving third-world children (who have been with us since the beginning of recorded history and, according to Jesus Christ, we will always have with us) and polar bears on isolated ice floes and and completely refuted claims of their impending extinction and the shrinkage of polar ice caps (the polar ice caps have grown significantly during the last two colder than average winters and the polar bear population is on the rise, not declining).

If you pay any attention to the science pages at all you may get a clue that “climate change” has nothing to do with man’s activity but is completely in the hands of God who is in complete control of the Sun and solar system, not to mention the galaxy and the universe. Just this morning I came across a report issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) showing that the latest sunspot cycle activity is “…in a valley–the deepest of the past century.” Many climate change activists (nearly all non-scientists) claim that climate change studies are “settled science.” Or not. Listen to what one NASA researcher says about this sunspot cycle- “In our professional careers, we’ve never seen anything quite like it. Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007.” Does this sound settled or like they really haven’t got a solid handle on the science yet?

Why all of the talk about sunspot activity in relation to global temperature (which, by the way, has plummeted by nearly 0.7 C during this period of low solar activity)? Because there is a strong co-ordination between sunspot activity and global temperature. Look at the chart below. Pay special attention to the current period. The Sun is simply not as active as it was during the 1930’s and 1990’s when temperatures rose after extended high sunspot activity.

maunderminimum_strip2

Note the period between the first quarter of the 17th century through about the first ten of the 18th century. This period of extremely low, if not completely absent, sunspot activity is called the Maunder Minimum and it corresponds nearly exactly with the “Little Ice Age” which was a period of deep global cooling (climate change). Not man caused, God caused.

There are other charts available showing the co-ordination between very high sunspot activity and the Medieval Climate Optimum (climate change) a period of global warming of the 9th to 14th centuries that coincided with, for instance, the Norse exploration and colonization of Iceland and Greenland, which at the time was actually green.

Want a deeper understanding of these issues? Dr. Michael Coffman of Environmental Perspectives, Inc gave a great talk at Camp American last year on global warming and how it is being used by globalists to restrict or completely eliminate basics of liberty such as private property, true stewardship of the earth (as opposed to the pagan religion of environmentalism), private enterprise, etc. Dr. Coffman connects the dots on ownership of private property, economic prosperity, stewardship of the land, bad climate change science and the attempts to use bad science to re-mold the world’s economy. You can get a copy of Dr. Coffman’s lectures here.

Currently, the US (and the EU) is considering the adoption of so-called “cap and trade” legislation which will do nothing but tax US and European energy users into poverty, stifle technological advances for true stewardship of the land, socialize and therefore destroy the economy and keep third-worlders from developing and using the technology they need to make the land pay and continue to pay in the future through stewardship, fight ignorance, disease and death from poor sanitation, cooking and food storage and pulling themselves out of the socialist morass they are in. “Cap and trade” makes sure this cycle of poverty, suffering and dearh will continue in the third-world by setting a limit on technology and then paying third-world slavemasters to sell their nation’s “carbon credits” to the west in a bid to maintain and eventually degrade western standardsof living.

The scientific numbskullery demonstrated by representatives like Henry Waxman of California during hearings on “cap and trade” has been simply stunning. No one expects them to understand all of the tiny details of the science. They are expected however to grasp the fact that there are opposing views based on scientific analysis of existing data that are actually doing a better job of fitting numbers to models than the science they are taking as gospel.

Contact your representatives and ask them to oppose “cap and trade.”

Education, Events, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Church, Biblical Worldview

Institute For Principled Policy Chair on “The State of Ohio” This Week

TelevisionInstitute For Principled Policy Chairman Dr. Mark Hamilton will appear on this weeks “The State of Ohio” program.  The program appears on PBS stations throughout Ohio.

The topic of the program is on the role of clergy in speaking on public policy. Taking an opposite position from Mark’s is Pastor Tim Ahrens of First Church in Columbus Ohio. Mark is the Teaching Elder at Providence Church in Mifflin Twp. (near Ashland). He is also a Professor of Philosophy at Ashland University.

Here is the air and station schedule of “The State of Ohio:”

Fridays

5:30 PM Columbus WOSU-TV34 and Portsmouth WPBO-TV42

7:30 PM Cleveland WVIZ-TV25

10:00 PM Cambridge WOUC-TV44 and

Athens WOUB-TV20

10:30 PM Toledo WGTE-TV30

Saturdays

5:30 AM Akron WEAO-TV49 and Alliance WNEO-TV45

Sundays

6:30AM Cincinnati WCET-TV48

7:00 AM Dayton WPTD-TV16

10:30 AM Oxford WPTO-TV14

12:00 Noon Bowling Green WBGU-TV27

12:00 Noon Cleveland WVIZ-TV25

12:30 PM Cambridge WOUC-TV44 and

Athens WOUB-TV20

CABLECAST on The Ohio Channel

Mondays 10AM, 6PM & 2AM

The Ohio Channel, available on:

Akron – Time Warner Channel 538

Athens – Time Warner Channel 0

Cincinnati – Anderson Union Channel 08, Cable Channel 22 Channel 23,

Media Bridges Channel 15, Norwood Community TV Channel 15,

Waycross Community Media Channel 4, Time Warner Channel 22

Clermont – Time Warner Channel 22

Cleveland – Cox Channel 201, Time Warner Channel 181

Columbus – Time Warner Channel 96 and Digital 34.2, Insight Channel 190,

WOW Channel 150

Dayton – Time Warner Channels 715 & 720

Toledo – Buckeye Cable System Channels 199

Ohio Public Television broadcast channels are also available on local cable channels.

Please let us know what you thought of what Dr. Hamilton had to say.


Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Biblical Worldview, Education

Your Local Library – Cornerstone of the Community?

library“The library decades from now will look different, no question.  But it will still be that cornerstone of the community.”

So says Pat Losinski, director of the Columbus Metropolitan Library, in the Columbus Dispatch (5/17/09).  The article was about the brave new world of central Ohio libraries as they desire to become urban trendsetters as they “get their groove on” by embracing the latest electronic toys, rather than being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.  Specifically, these toys are electronic readers, such as Amazon’s Kindle and Playaways (several hundred of which were recently purchased by the Westerville Library).  These electronic readers appeal to a younger demographic who would much prefer to be passively read to, rather than being forced to expend mentally energy on reading comprehension.  State librarian Jo Budler rallies behind the exponential dumbing down of our society by proclaiming that taxpayers are “getting more for our money, not less”.  Why, this is no less than a “digital arms race” in which we must plow ahead full steam ahead, according to the Delaware County Library director!  In fact, Delaware County voters just passed a ten-year property tax on themselves to build another library branch, and of course beef up their arsenal of Playaways – without which civilization evidently cannot advance.

And pray tell, what shining example is used for these technological wonders that will lead our “cow towns and cornfields” out of drudgery of obsolete paper books?  What bastion of truth is hoisted up as the beacon of the new enlightenment emanating from the cornerstone of our community?   What literary classic will herald the new Information Age – James Fenimore Cooper or the Federalist Papers or perhaps the Annals of the World?   Sorry, not trendy enough.  Instead the Dispatch article features a picture of Linda Uhler of the Westerville Library, with a big Gidget smile and a proud sparkle in her eye, holding up the latest addition to the Westerville Public Radio Shack – yes, it’s Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code!

Finally!  We can all breathe a sigh of relief, as society cannot move forward without numerous copies this electronic book widely available for public listening.  The Da Vinci Code of course has been a worldwide phenomenon, as this fast-paced thriller expertly dices apart thousands of years of accepted Christian theology by calling Jesus Christ a liar and venerating Mary Magdeline to goddess worship.  We can all rest easy as our communities are wisely using our tax dollars to spread critical knowledge, advance the arts, and benefit society.

Meanwhile, dozens of Ohio libraries -  those precious community cornerstones – routinely ban the use of public facilities for “religious activity”.  This would include any meeting where prayer, singing, or other religious elements are practiced.

Of course, we can’t mix “state and religion” together.  Unless of course you’re using taxpayer dollars to order electronic readers which trash the religion on which our nation was founded.     Before the accusations fly about those wacky fundamentalist Christians screaming for censorship – time out, not the point.   But let’s stop the nonsense that public libraries that propagate relativistic truth while denying religious meetings are the “cornerstones of our community”.  After all, the word “cornerstone” in this context would be defined as the essential and in fact the indispensable foundation upon which to build a community.  Such hyperbole may stroke the egos of those in the library profession or help pass tax levies, but communities could certainly function without taxpayer-financed libraries and their hip electronic toys.

Maybe it’s time to at least question the wisdom of attaching Da Vinci Code electronic readers to our property taxes.  At most, maybe we should conjure up debate about whether or not running libraries is a legitimate function of civil government in the first place.   Could these institutions not be nonprofit entities, financed by donations from the community and grants from businesses?     That way the community could decide with its dollars whether or not to have the Satanic Bible on audio.

Education, Events, Private Property, Commentary, Life Issues, The Vote, Biblical Worldview

Camp American- Class Samples and a Special Offer!

calogoIt will come as no shock that the Institute For Principled Policy is involved in biblical worldview education for young men and women. You only need to look at our Divisions and About Us pages to see that education in biblical worldview is one of our main functions.

In keeping with our commitment to solid biblical worldview education the Institute partners with groups whose specialty is biblical worldview training on issues like government, economics, critical thinking skills, history, etc.

Every year the Institute partners with Camp American, a non-partisan, non-denominational Christian worldview and recreation summer camp which specializes in the Institute’s target areas. Several of Camp American’s teachers over the last few years have been members of the  Institute For Principled Policy’s board.

And we’re doing it again this year. From June 14-20, 2009 Camp American is being held at Pokagon State Park in Angola IN. Among the teachers from the Institute For Principled Policy will be Executive Director Barry Sheets and Vice-chairman Chuck Michaelis, who is also Executive Director of Camp American. Other teachers include Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, Pastor David Whitney head instructor of the Institute On The Constitution, Mark Harrington of the midwest office of the Center For Bio-ethical Reform,  Dr. Charles Rice Professor Emeritus of Notre Dame Law School and Charlie Smith, a political consultant from Pennsylvania.

You might be asking what Camp American’s classes are like. Here are some short excerpts ofclasses taught last year at Camp American

First, a class on the religuious and philosophical foundations of the Founders taught by Institute Executive Director Barry Sheets

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egg2SfJmdoo[/youtube]

Next is a class taught by Institute Vice-chairman Chuck Michaelis on the Electoral College

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh97UZa8SNQ[/youtube]

Third is a class taught by Pastor David Whitney of the Institute On The Constitution on the rights and responsibilities of a fully informed jury

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEmVsy7g4E0[/youtube]

Last (but definitely not least) is a class on property rights, globalism and globa warming taught by Dr. Michael Coffman CEO of Environmental Perspectives, Inc.

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

If you want to attend there’s a special offer for our blog readers. You can sign up for Camp American on their online store and you can use a special coupon designed for our readers that you can use to get a $50 discount at checkout. The coupon is IPP. Don’t wait. Spaces will fill up.

The Church, Biblical Worldview, Book Review, Commentary

Prayer: The New Common Denominator?

The Crumbling ChurchDo you pray? Have you thought about prayer?  Christians pray.  Muslims pray.  Hindus pray.  Buddhists pray.  Just about everyone prays.

And this, says Mark Siljander in his book, A Deadly Misunderstanding— is something that can unite people from different faiths.

Especially, he says if they can unite around the person of Jesus.  The Qur’an speaks highly of Jesus, in many ways similarly to the Gospels.  All the great religions have a place for Jesus — or Isa, as He is known in the Qur’an.

So Mr Siljander has been wandering around the world as an ambassador for world peace trying to find ways to bring warring people together.  And this is his solution.

Now, if prayer and Jesus are to be linked together, a proposition I think highly worthy, then I wonder if Mr. Siljander has in mind this prayer:

Our Father, who art in heaven Hallowed by they name. Thy Kingdom come.  Thy will be done On earth, as it is in heaven.

I can’t help but wonder if this is the kind of prayer these men of different faiths had when they came together.  The very idea of a God who exists — in heaven — is a problem for many religions, and, of course, the idea of doing His will on earth, as it is in heaven raises another range of issues many people would rather not talk about.

First and foremost, what is God’s will?  How do we know what it is?  Is it subjective or objective?  Is it merely a matter of the inward leading of the . . . . I was about to say Holy Spirit, but that seems disallowed in the dialogue. Are the characteristics of the Three Persons of the Trinity merely attributes of a one-Person God?  How can an “attribute” speak to an individual inwardly?  This is a question I would like to see Mr. Siljander answer.

Or, on the other hand, is God’s will a matter of written authority?  But now we’re back to the perplexing question of last week.  Should it be Torah, New Testament or Qur’an that takes the top spot?

Keep thinking.  We’re not done, yet.

Have a great week.

Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

P.S.  If you like what you read here, forward this essay to your friends.  For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button.


Commentary, The Church, Biblical Worldview

Are Christians, Jews and Muslims all of the one Faith?

1 Comment
The Crumbling ChurchThis perplexing question is answered in a new book by former Michigan Congressman, Mark Siljander.  It’s an interesting proposition.

I had the fortune to meet Mr. Siljander in 1991, when he attempted a new run at Congress from the state of Virginia.  He was not successful. But he has been successful in the diplomatic front in some interesting ways.

Now, in a book entitled  A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide, Siljander tells us of his own theological journey.  He started with the idea that Islam was the antithesis to Christianity, but has ended with the idea that the Muslim’s Allah is the same as the Christian’s Jehovah, and it is merely that our understanding of God is different, but we’re all referring to the same Person.

For example, Siljander argues that the Muslims attribute to Allah the things that Christians attribute to the Trinity.  He raises the Eastern Orthodox rejection of the Trinity, attempting to argue that in the end it may not really matter whether or not we call the Persons of the Trinity simply “attributes”. It is apparently merely a matter of semantics.  He says,

All three holy books (Torah, New Testament, and Qur’an) describe these three same entities or attributes as Deity — God, Holy Spirit, and Messiah.  I have asked distinguished clerics, both Muslim and Christian, if they could explain to me the interaction of these three deified attributes, and after much bantering back and forth, in the end they have all given me the exact same answer: “Mark, it’s a mystery.”  So what are we arguing about?

This is an interesting proposition.  One that entertains the mind in a  number of ways.  All three books are holy?

You can see in this statement the very question that started me on these series of e-mails 59 weeks ago.  What is your rock-bottom, starting place in theology in terms of the written Word?  This is what determines what the holy books really should be.  Now, Siljander raises the Qur’an to the same level as the Torah and New Testament.

Here’s the challenge:  Where’s the starting point in God’s revelation?  Torah, New Testament, or Qur’an.  Your answer will reveal your basic presupposition about God’s revelation and how we should be seeking that revelation today.

So it seems that the question Siljander has come to is this:  Why can’t the Qur’an have at least equal value with the Torah and the New Testament?

On the other hand, I’ve simply been asking how did the New Testament get equal authority to the Torah.  Now I’ll have to expand this: How does the Qur’an get equal authority with the Torah?  Or, in the case of the Muslims, how did the Qur’an get raised above the Torah?

That ought to get your mind working overtime. Next week, I’ll add some other questions Mr. Siljander does not appear to ask.  Maybe there’s a reason.

Until then, God bless you in your efforts for His Kingdom.

Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

P.S.  If you like what you read here, forward this essay to your friends.  For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

Reclaiming State Sovereignty- How It’s Done!

This entry is part 27 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4

As this article and the attached video (see below) demonstrate, the Oklahoma Legislature continues to run an impromptu class on the “How-To’s” of reclaiming state sovereignty. And while they’re at it, they’re also giving an unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) advanced level seminar on long-term political strategy and tactics. What have they done?

Once again, Oklahoma has passed a state sovereignty resolution. The previous one was passed in both the Oklahoma House and Senate but was vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry whose best excuse was to claim that it would require the “return of federal tax money,” thus proving that the Governor either completely failed to grasp the point of the resolution or grasped and rejected it.

What’s interesting here is that the Oklahoma House has come up with a parliamentary method to bypass the Governor who has proven himself to be a federal lick-spittle. Oklahoma House members led by Charles Key (R- Oklahoma City) has made the new resolution a House Concurrent Resolution which can be passed by both houses of the legislature and does not require the signature of the governor. The Oklahoma House passed it last Monday May 4, 2009.

But why is this bypass such a political coup, when the concurrent resolution really doesn’t have any legal punch?

The strategic reasons:

  1. Once state sovereignty begins to be discussed seriously, it means that discussion of the repeal of the 17th amendment, the amendment that requires Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than appointed as state government representatives to the federal legislature, can begin


  2. True federalism, i.e., Madison’s “divided sovereignty,” with true sovereignty of the states will only be returned through the repeal of the 17th amendment


  3. Repeal of the 17th amendment would make repeal of the 16th amendment, the amendment that allows the federal government to engage in direct taxation, far easier. This would be another step towards the re-establishment of true federalism. Direct taxation authority belongs only to the states in the original federalist design


  4. Once the federal leviathan is put on a strict forced tax diet, its unnecessary fat necessarily shrinks and falls away. The surest way to reduce the size, cost and intrusiveness of government is to reduce the revenue available to it.


  5. Repeal of the 17th would also make it possible to repeal of the Federal Reserve Act, which would go a long way to reducing the revenue available to grow government. It could be replaced with the old Independent Treasury System, often called the “most stable banking system of the 19th century”


  6. One state doing re-declaring its 10th amendment sovereignty is cause for derision from the “federal supremacy in all things” camp, 5 states is a cause for concern there, 10 states is reason for panic, 25 or more means that some form of completely irrational response would be forthcoming from those in the power centers which tends to awaken the sleeping populace.

The tactical reasons:

  1. Oklahoma Republicans now have their governor, a Democrat, on record as being against their state’s sovereignty. He has, in effect, said to them “We have to live with the federal boot on our necks to keep our own tax money coming back to us.”


  2. The Republican legislators now have a basis to work to expose an extremely popular governor of the other party who has clearly flouted the will of the electorate (this measure is quite popular in Oklahoma) who has now been show to be more interested in pleasing his federal overseers than protecting the constitutional guarantees of the rights of the citizens of his own state


  3. Republican legislators have demonstrated that they are willing to proactively go toe-to-toe with a popular governor in order to protect those same constitutional guarantees in spite of his efforts


  4. Republican legislators have demonstrated that they are willing to go toe-to-toe with the federal playground bully who has, up to now, had no qualms about whose lunch money it would steal


  5. Republican legislators have maneuvered Democratic legislators into demonstrating that they will do “whatever it takes” to protect a Democrat governor who kow-tows to the federal leviathan and disparages state sovereignty (thus exposing their own positions) from the political fallout of the resolution’s passage while Republicans have shown they’re willing to do “whatever it takes” to protect Oklahoma voters from federal usurpation


  6. A few state legislators working within the bounds of their authority in their own state legislature have made the now astronomically expanding federal leviathan begin to look over its shoulder to see the specter of the Constitution beginning to haunt its attempts to assume all authority and make the states an anachronism

The real question here is will other state legislatures, it really doesn’t matter what their party affiliation, recognize that there is a Constitution, that it sets boundaries and limits to federal authority and gives the states wide latitude to interpose on behalf of its citizens.

Frankly, that’s an open question in Ohio. If state leadership like the feckless Kevin DeWine have their way, Republican legislators would run screaming from the room if this type of legislation were to be mentioned. But it seems that there are some of that party who understand the two-fold utility of this type of resolution. It both alerts federal usurpers that Ohio will no longer stand idly by while the 9th and 10th amendments (not to mention article IV) are simply ignored by Congress and the Executive branch and it exposes those members of both parties who oppose Ohio’s move to protect its citizens from federal over-stepping of authority as despots or the toadys of despots. Thus, these resolutions HCR 11 in the Ohio House and the new resolution in the Ohio Senate (to be introduced today) are the tools Ohioans need to dig out from the avalanche of federal laws, rules, regulations and resolutions that are burying them in taxes and the fetters of government restriction.

What can be done?

Part of this article contains a promotion of a conference where you can learn how Oklahoma is getting the job done. Freedom21 is a grassroots coalition of state and national groups banded together to protect life, liberty and property from both federal and international assault. At its core, Freedom21 exists to oppose the UN’s laughably misnamed Agenda21 sustainable development power grab.

Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key is a headline speaker there and was last year as well. Last year Key, an aptly named key player, came to the Freedom21 conference and explained how he and other Oklahoma legislators stopped the NAFTA super-hiway (remember? It’s the road project that the federal government claimed never existed) from passing through Oklahoma.

Texas activists also did their part to stop the corridor using local planning commissions. They were so effective that Gov. Rick Perry (who appears to have gotten the message if his latest statements at a Texas TEA Party is any indication) came out and announced that the road project that didn’t exist was now officially canceled in Texas. These folks were at Freedom21’s conference last year as well to explain how they did it.

Will you be there this year to find out how to do it? Come out to Freedom21 in August and learn how to re-take your state’s sovereignty- proactively.

In the meantime, contact your state Senators and Representatives and urge them to co-sponsor and vote for the state sovereignty resolutions.


Commentary, Biblical Worldview, Marriage and Family, Public Policy Radar

Valuing Civil Dissent

Dr. Mark Hamilton, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Ashland University

In November 2008 I was attending a conference in downtown San Diego.  As I exited a Saturday session and emerged out of the hotel onto the street for a breath of warm fresh air, I was struck by a distant roar.  It was low and constant but seemed to be gradually increasing.  I walked in the direction of the reverberating echo  and in about two blocks came to a brigade of humans about six across marching orderly and chanting in rhythm.   As I carefully read the signs and listened to their repetitious outcries, I realized it was an organized march on behalf of gay marriage protesting California’s passage of the Marriage Amendment.

I was shocked by the massive turnout of people, but I was equally surprised at the relative control and respect demonstrated by the crowd.  My only previous experience with a gay parade had been over a decade ago in Boston when my wife and I, along with our two daughters, drove into Boston for a walk along the famous historic Freedom Trail and while on our casual walk encountered a shocking gay parade.  We were forced to step into several stores to shield our eyes and the eyes and ears of our young children from the profanities being shouted and the visual obscenities.   The San Diego march was quite different.  The signs made their points, the crowd was loud but orderly, and they were respectful to the surrounding citizenry.  They allowed me to politely cross through their midst to meet my ride.  I later found out that there were dissents like that all across America that day but that the San Diego one was the largest, estimated at between 20-25 thousand people.   And though I disagreed with the content of their political statements, it was important to recognize they were appropriately exercising their political rights and freedoms and doing so legally and without infringing upon the rights of others.

It has been rightly stated innumerable times that America is a nation built on dissent.  The founding fathers began the rebellion against England as a form of dissent and had the insight to protect the rights of others to dissent through the First Amendment.  America’s great strength has been its ability to allow disagreement and dialogue.  I am a conservative yet I often dissented with the Bush administration on issues like spending, the increasing size of government, the War in Iraq, the use of what I would consider questionable means of extracting information, the lack of foresight in developing renewable sources of energy or the inability to make a decision on the status of the detainees in Guantanamo prison by placing them on military trial.

One of the great failures of the Bush presidency was its breakdown to dialogue with friendly dissenters, with conservatives.   I have been frequently disturbed by so-called conservatives who blindly followed his policies thinking that Republicans are naturally conservative, are always right, or that because Bush confessed Christ he was making “Christian decisions.”   Unfortunately many conservatives mindlessly think that a dislike of war is a lack of patriotism or that the more one refuses to support the use of force the more un-American a person becomes.  We fail to look at the complexities that are involved in defining a truly “just war.”   America is becoming a country of mindless conservatives and mindless liberals where dissent is seen as unpatriotic or as immoral where we must fight back or silence the dissenters.  Just look at the recent events at the University of North Carolina where students violently disrupted and shouted down Tim Tancredo.  One UNC student defended the action saying, “He was not able to practice hate speech.”  Have we become so afraid of words?

We can no longer just blindly trust our government’s interpretation or our media’s reporting on these events.  They all seem to want disagreement shut down.  I want to live in America because it is a place of dissent and discussion.  I feel threatened that we contrarians are being forced to be silent by both the liberals and the conservatives.  People no longer understand what free speech is; it is a necessary freedom with great responsibility.  We may disagree with the content of what fools may say but we cannot take away their right to speak.  I’ve known the freedom to peacefully demonstrate against nuclear build-ups, against abortion, against hazardous waste incinerators, or against child pornography in mainstream bookstores and the freedom to discuss openly great issues of controversy in the college classroom.  Do we dare annihilate this freedom?

Many liberals used to be strong supporters of free speech.  Sadly this has eroded from their midst.  Even the supposed “Tolerant Mr. Obama” has prided himself on this, but if this is so why does he mock those who attended the Tea Party rallies?  Was his ridicule of the Tea Baggers a form of “Hate Speech?”  Why has the media failed to fairly cover these Tea Party events the way it covered similar Gay Rights demonstrations?  My eyes were opened to this liberal failure several years ago when they wanted protestors outside abortion mills prosecuted for racketeering (RICO act).   I had always thought that liberals knew what free speech was.  That may have been true in the past but it is no more.  I am greatly disappointed in my American friends who are liberal.    Boy, was I fooled by thinking all these years that one of the real positive things that liberals stood for was the First Amendment.  I can no longer be fooled.   Ideology has replaced American ideals.    Certainly it is politics and not ideology or justice behind the desire for “Hate Speech” legislation and the desire to silence talk radio. I’m an American and dissent is at the fabric of my being.  Do not take this away from me and do not shut me down.   If you do so you shut down the last vestiges of America.

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

Tax and Spin–Part 7: Eliminating confusion-Step 2

This entry is part 7 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxBallot Example No. 2

The second ballot, presented in November 2001, is for a “replacement and increase.” It replaces a 0.3-mill existing levy and adds 0.2 mill:

“1 PROPOSED LEVY – (REPLACEMENT AND INCREASE)
GREENE COUNTY COMBINED HEALTH DISTRICT

A Majority Affirmative Vote Is Necessary For Passage.

A replacement of 0.3 mill of an existing levy, and an increase of 0.2 mill, to constitute a tax for the benefit of Greene County for the purpose of PROVIDING THE GREENE COUNTY COMBINED HEALTH DISTRICT WITH SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO CARRY OUT ITS HEALTH PROGRAMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHILD AND SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICES, CONTROL OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES, FOOD AND WATER PROTECTION, HEALTH EDUCATION, AND AIDS/HIV DIAGNOSIS AND EDUCATION at a rate not exceeding 0.5 mill for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.05 for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for a period of 5 years, commencing in 2002, first due in calendar year 2003.”

This proposal amounts to two tax increases in one vote: the hidden increase in the replacement tax part of the levy and the obvious 0.2-mill increase.

The proposed tax for just the 0.3-mill replacement tax part of the ballot was this amount: 35% X $100,000 X $0.0003 X 87.5% = $9.19.

The 0.3-mill tax includes a hidden increase because what is not shown on the ballot is the effective rate of the existing levy that was to be replaced, which was only 0.283881 mill. Had the existing levy been renewed rather than replaced, the cost would have been this amount: 35% X $100,000 X $0.000283881 X 87.5% = $8.69.

Therefore, just the 0.3-mill replacement tax is nearly 6% percent greater than the existing levy. That’s without the obvious 0.2-mill increase.

The cost of the entire 0.5-mill proposal was this: 35% X $100,000 X 0.0005 X 87.5% = $15.31, which was a 76% increase over the existing levy.

Next–Part 8: Eliminating confusion-Step 3