Category Archives: Commentary

Commentary, Life Issues

The Machine Wars…Just Around The Corner!

PlayPlay

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Article in question.

For those of you who have ever watched The Terminator movie series, this article may send chills through your spine. When I watched the first of that series, my first thought was that it could never happen (boy, how many times do we fall for that convoluted line of thought). Automated killer robots…now that is a unique idea. My father taught me years ago that movies and novels will sometimes be the tool to “break the ice” on new technology or ideologies. How right he was.

Another movie that came to mind when I read this article was a more recent one called Stealth where the military developed a highly advanced jet that could think and fight on its own. The commander justifies the new technology as a way of “not sending home body bags to mothers when they could have used this new weapon with no loss of life to their sons”. The leader of the flight crew raises one major concern when he responds, “these machines have no moral reasoning”. These machines don’t know how to make a judgment call.

How will these killer robots discern between the good guys and the enemy? What happens when our enemies obtain this technology and reverse engineer them against us? If both sides in a major battle are led by autonomous killer robots, who will be the collateral damage? Us?

Be afraid…Be very afraid.

Commentary, The Vote

Watching The “Debate”

Voting MachineAside from mock civility between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, the insincerity of which was so thick that a professional grade chainsaw would have to employed to have the faintest hope of cutting it, there was nothing of any real note in tonight’s Democratic Party debate. Brian Williams and Tim Russert could just as easily have phoned in their inane and useless questions about campaign tactics. Both of these “hard hitting” journalists appear to have left the pads in the locker room in favor of a light workout. Policy questions revealed that the only real difference between the Obama and Clinton platforms, even the much vaunted health care issue, was the color of the fringe around the edges. In other words there wasn’t any real difference. Hillary’s approach to health care may be less disingenuous than Barak’s because Hillary admits her’s is a “gun in the back” approach. Barak’s approach makes the phony appeal to “choice.”

The howler of the evening came when Obama explained that since he had been a constitutional law professor he understood the impact certain policies probably better than anyone else. This raised an idea for a new party game. Find the saltiest chips you can buy and make sure no one has had anything to drink. A list of Barak Obama’s campaign proposals (or Hillary’s or McCain’s or Huckabee’s, for that matter) are given to each player. Each player must read a proposal and then look for the authority to implement that policy in the Constitution. Any player failing to find the authority in the Constitution must eat a handful of chips. No one can drink anything unless they can find a clear constitutional authority for the candidate in question’s proposals. It’s a lead pipe cinch that the gamers will be demanding the suspension (if they can muster enough saliva to actually wet their puckered lips and croak out their demands) of the game by the third round.

Totally appropos of nothing, it appeared that MSNBC dedicated a soft-focus camera for Hillary. It also appears that her handlers made sure that theatrical makeup was applied…ahem…liberally (meaning with a trowel) and she was warned to keep her facial muscle movements to a minimum to avoid re-exposing the crevasses they had artfully concealed.

The bottom line is that Hillary needed to hit a home run in order to right the sinking ship of her campaign in Ohio and Texas, and consequently the US. Barak just needed to appear to not be mean to the girl. She whiffed. He didn’t.

Overall, this “debate” was a gross waste of time. Except for the idea for the party game, maybe.

Commentary, Taxation, Public Policy Radar

Special Guest Blogger- A Crisis in Democracy: Are We Going Bankrupt?

John WhiteheadBy John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute

“Our country is insolvent, and bankruptcy will come.”—Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.)

I’ve never seen our country in worse shape—culturally, constitutionally or financially. Marriages and families are falling apart, our liberties are being eroded and the U.S. economy is in serious trouble. We are, as author Robert B. Reich noted in a recent New York Times editorial, “totally spent.” All we’re managing to do now is keep our creditors at bay.

The U.S. trade deficit has reached record highs in recent years. Gas prices, which have largely contributed to trade deficit woes, have led to higher prices in transportation and other goods. The bursting of the home price bubble has triggered a crisis in U.S. housing finance. This has led to a sharp spike in foreclosures, as well as heavy losses at major banks, a pull-back in the market for securitized debt and a credit crunch worldwide.

With the value of the dollar plummeting worldwide, America is, in effect, now on sale at discount prices to foreign countries. For example, a record $414 billion was invested by foreigners in the U.S. economy in 2007, with much of it coming from sovereign wealth funds, vast pools of money controlled by anti-democratic governments from China to the Middle East.

The fact that our nation is nearing bankruptcy has become what David Walker, comptroller general of the United States, calls “the dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows.” Most politicians, says Walker, are aware of the impending financial crisis but reluctant to do anything about it. After all, it is not politically expedient to increase taxes or trim spending, but this is exactly what needs to be done.

Walker also argues that health care, a political promise rolling off every candidate’s tongue, is by and large the most prominent issue, five times bigger than Social Security. And Walker calls the 2003 measures that included Medicare prescription drugs “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.” This bill, Walker says, was “eight trillions dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding.”

Walker, who recently resigned after serving as the government’s chief internal watchdog for a decade, concludes that the nation’s “current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken.” But, as usual, when we leave the problem-solving to the politicians, what we end up with is bigger government, more bureaucracy and a larger federal deficit, which is projected to total $410 billion for 2008. (The national debt, which is the total amount of money owed by the government, is currently estimated to be over $9.2 trillion.)

We are living in a house of cards that’s on the verge of crashing around us, and yet most Americans remain oblivious and continue to spend beyond their means. But, as Reich notes, “That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.”

Hoping to continue the spending a little longer, Congress passed a $168 billion stimulus plan made up of personal tax rebates and business tax cuts. While some Democrats criticized the plan, fiscal conservatives expressed grave doubts that the measure is too little and will reach consumers and businesses too late. Former congressman Jack Kemp asserts that “rebates haven’t worked in the past…and won’t work in the future,” as they reward past production. Other critics have voiced the concern that such a costly measure merely serves to increase the already burgeoning national deficit.

While the nation’s financial woes are grave, a recession will impact more than Americans’ pocketbooks—it will impact our very freedoms. After all, economic security and freedom go hand in hand.

In his book, A Free Nation Deep in Debt, James MacDonald, an investment banker, discusses the relationship between democracy and economic development: “Democracy (even in its most partial and imperfect form), is a system in which the citizens control the state. As long as democratic states borrow from their own citizens, their good credit is simply a reflection of the virtual identity of borrower and lender.”

Unfortunately, as economist James Galbraith explains, “The American citizenry has lost its pride of place as creditor of the American state. Today, financial intermediaries hold about 37 percent of U.S. public debt; Japan and China, along with other countries, now hold about 30 percent. The proportion of U.S. debt owned directly by Americans has fallen to below 10 percent; in 1945 (when the debt was more than twice as large in relation to GDP as now) citizen-creditors just about held it all.” But that is no longer true, and “for all practical purposes, the venerable marriage between public credit and democratic government, so vital a factor in the history of the world, has been dissolved.”

Galbraith concludes: “If MacDonald’s thesis is right, the disappearance of the citizen-creditor forces a question. Can democracy survive when its financial roots have been cut? The scale of public debt is not the issue, but its ownership is. Can a country—whether the United States or any other—be truly democratic if it is in hock to banks and foreigners? …To put it bluntly, are we still a democracy? And, if not, what would it take to bring democracy back?”

We know what must be done.

First, we need to elect fiscally responsible representatives with the backbone to resist political pressure to spend what is not there. We also need to stop putting ourselves in hock to foreign banks and nations. And we need to put a stop to the financial hemorrhaging related to the Bush Administration’s war on terror. For example, over the past six years, the U.S. has disbursed to the corrupt government of Pakistan about $80 million monthly, or roughly $1 billion a year. Yet according to the Washington Post, few receipts are provided to account for how the money is used or where it ends up. That’s just the tip of the iceberg when one considers that we spend at least $1 billion a week in Iraq on military operations alone. Just imagine how those dollars could be put to use in our own ailing economy.

Second, we need to show some personal discipline. This will mean reining in our binge spending, nationally and individually. It will also mean getting back to work. We need to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States and re-inject ourselves into the economy, even if it means Americans taking on jobs that are usually done by illegal immigrants.

Finally, we need to do a better job of protecting our freedoms. This means resisting the government’s attempt to amass greater authority and centralize power in the executive branch. It also means electing representatives who will abide by their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

If we value our freedoms at all, we have to sober up—and fast—or we will certainly find ourselves facing an even more dangerous crisis in democracy. Yet beware: this will not be a sudden coup but a gradual transformation into a more authoritarian regime. As former presidential advisor Bertram Gross points out in his book, Friendly Fascism: “Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic—as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile.”

Click here to read other commentaries by John W. Whitehead

General, Public Policy Radar, Commentary

Slow Posting Lately….

RadarYes, yes we know. It’s been a little slow here lately. Well we’re working on a boatload of stuff, but the research and writing takes some time to get right. And we know what happens when we get things wrong. Just look at the commentary from my “Real Thanksgiving” post to see what can happen when you do a hurry-up piece.

Anyway, we’re working on an analysis of Governor Strickland’s State of the State address, where the Ron Paul presidency should go from here, more police brutality and what it all means, our long awaited report from the Constitutional Coalition meeting, reports on Ohio State Senator Tim Grendell’s efforts in changing Ohio’s eminent domain law and his efforts to change an awful interstate compact with international implications to keep the southwestern states from diverting Great Lakes water, a report on HB 429 which eliminates the small business killing delivery-based state sales tax collection method in favor of the old purchase-based system (this has been an economic nightmare for small business since its proposal and inception and the state spent MILLIONS trying to get a working computer program that would at least allow a “simple” calculation. It’s a nightmare to use if any volume at all is involved).

We’re a little short-handed due to illness, travel, and the fact that only two of us (not me) lobby, or do policy analysis on a professional basis. In other words, most of us have jobs to do, businesses to run, or classes to teach (when we’re healthy).

Thank you for your patience!

Crime and Punishment, Public Policy Radar, Commentary

Featured Guest Article- Are You a Homegrown Terrorist?

John Whitehead By John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute

At first glance, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 may not seem dangerous. Yet nothing is ever what it seems, and this bill is no exception.

On its face, the Act, which was approved in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 404 to 6, would establish two government-appointed bodies (one a national 10-member commission, the other a university-based Center for Excellence) to study, monitor and propose ways of curbing homegrown terrorism and extremism in the United States. However, as journalist Jessica Lee points out, the legislation could actually succeed in “broaden[ing] the definition of terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience.”

The danger is the legislation’s vague definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism and the commission’s power to label individuals and groups as possible terrorists. Violent radicalization, for example, is defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” Note that you don’t actually have to commit violence to be labeled a violent radical. You just have to adopt or promote a belief system that differs with the government, which is easy enough in these times of economic instability, expansive government powers and endless wars.

The definition for homegrown terrorism is equally vague: “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born [or] raised…within the United States…to intimidate or coerce the United States, the civilian population…or any segment thereof.”

Would abortion protesters or anti-war organizers be accused of using “force” to “intimidate or coerce” others? What about people who promote immigration views that are considered “extremist”? By Congress failing to define what an “extremist belief” is, what would constitute “ideologically based violence” or the use of “force,” it could mean anyone who expresses a belief contrary to that held by the occupants of the White House.

The concern, as Lee points out, is that the law will be used “against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for power at the expense of civil liberties.”

The Senate version of this legislation, which finds that domestic threats “cannot easily be prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts,” requires the creation of what would essentially join federal agents and local police together in a single paramilitary entity.

“This sounds like part of the same continuum we’ve experienced in the last seven years, which is the effort to deputize local law enforcement to work with the FBI and national agencies without local accountability, as we have seen with the establishment of joint-terrorism task forces across the country,” said Hope Marston of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. “When you talk about working with local law enforcement to possibly spy on groups and individuals to try to find the so-called ‘needle in the haystack,’ this definitely poses a threat to local autonomy.”

To Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States, H.R. 1955, as it is referred to, is just one more in a long series of laws passed in times of foreign policy tensions. He points out that the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, for instance, sent people to jail for criticizing the Adams administration. And “During World War I, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act sent close to a thousand people to jail for speaking out against the war. On the eve of World War II, the Smith Act was passed, harmless enough title, but it enabled the jailing of radicals — first Trotskyists during the war and Communist party leaders after the war, for organizing literature, etc., interpreted as conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence.”

The true targets of this bill may be the anti-globalists and radical environmentalists who pose a threat to the corporate powers. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the congresswoman who introduced the bill, has enjoyed a long and productive relationship with the RAND Corporation, a California-based think tank with close ties to the military-industrial-intelligence complex.

“Trends in Terrorism,” a 2005 study by RAND, contains a chapter titled “Homegrown Terrorist Threats to the United States.” In that study, RAND maintains that “homegrown terrorism” will come from anti-globalists and radical environmentalists who “challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism.” RAND also claims that anti-globalists and radical environmentalists “exist in much the same operational environment as al Qaida” and pose “a clear threat to private-sector corporate interests, especially large multinational business.”

Any thought, speech or action that threatens corporate hegemony and profit under this law—however protected it might be by the Bill of Rights—could be considered an act of homegrown terrorism.

This is not unlike the government’s Red Scare tactics used during the 1950s McCarthy era when thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers simply for disagreeing with the government or associating with those who did so.

We are the descendants of a long line of dissenters dating back to the early days of this nation, from the Pilgrims fleeing religious persecution and our Founders standing up to King George’s acts of tyranny to civil rights activists staging sit-ins to protest segregation and peace activists protesting the armaments industry.

As long as there are individuals speaking out against what they see as injustice, oppression or corruption, there will always be those in high places attempting to silence or suppress them. But we must not be intimidated or silenced. Instead, we need to raise our voices even louder or our constitutional rights will be obliterated.

Click here to read other John W. Whitehead commentaries

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Crime and Punishment

What Will You Do When They Come For You? (II)- Update

Yes, they’re aiming at you.Stark Countians can sleep easier tonight. Hope Steffey, who was brutalized by Stark County Sheriff’s deputies then falsely charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest was also convicted of the same. And yet another dangerous radical, guilty of carrying her dead sister’s drivers license as a momento and reminder of her has now been convicted and exposed as someone who law enforcement should keep a close eye on. Of course the tape of the deputies brutalizing Mrs. Steffey was not aired at her trial.

False arrests complete with police brutality and wrongful conviction followed by hiding behind the fact that the person brutalized was convicted of a crime should not instill confidence in Stark County residents of the competence of Sheriff Tim Swanson or his deputies to complete their sworn duties in a lawful and just manner.

William Grigg whose blog we have linked to before does his usual amazing job in getting all of the facts and analyzing the situation like no one else can. He gives the complete run down on this case here. His analysis far outshines our own.

Public Policy Radar, Commentary

When The Pigeons Come Home To Roost…

RadarHey! What do you know? The Ohio budget passed just last summer with a projected budget surplus of $53 million, is now projected to produce anywhere from a $733 million to $1.9 billion deficit. So how did this happen? How could there be a $786 million to 1.953 billion dollar mistake in a budget that this much work went into and was one vote shy of a unanimous passage (thank you, Rep. Diana Fessler)?

The answer is that, despite the obvious signs that the economy has been slowing for months, the state legislature and Ohio’s popular new governor ignored the signals, shook hands and promptly buried their heads in the sand. The signs have been there for longer than just a few months and, as Ken Blackwell pointed out in his ill-fated gubernatorial campaign nearly two years ago, Ohio has had one of the worst managed state economies in the United States for many years. Hey, Republicans! It was under the tenure of a Republican-controlled legislature with a Republican Governor.

Hide your wallets! It’s a RINO!The facts are that the previous two governors, Bob Taft and George Voinovich along with their sideshow act, the RINO’s in the Ohio legislature have created a business climate that is very near the bottom for new job creation and very near the top in taxes, “fees” (the tax pig in a tuxedo), “contributions” (called “voluntary” until you stop writing checks, then they suddenly become voluntarily mandatory) and tolls. And, as any economist will tell you, small business is the economic backbone as the largest employer in every state of the union. And it’s really bad for small business in Ohio. It’s not so hot here for bigger businesses, either.

The problem with Ohio’s budget is not a new one. A recent Columbus Dispatch article gives a rundown of the tax and spend policies that have helped create the current mess. The article also shows that the authors, Siegel and Johnson, can’t connect the dots for the full picture. Here’s the sequence the Dispatch put together

• In December 1971, Gov. John J. Gilligan didn’t face a budget shortfall as much as he faced embarrassment for the condition of Ohio’s schools, highways and facilities for the mentally ill. He persuaded the Republican-controlled General Assembly to enact the state’s first income tax.

Take note that Ohio’s first income tax became necessary because Gov. John Gilligan was “embarrassed” over the condition of Ohio’s highways (one of the first states to complete its interstate legs), Ohio’s state hospitals (most later closed to “save money,” creating the “homeless crisis” of the early 1980’s), and Ohio’s schools (which are supposed to be local responsibilities). We have been unable to determine if ex-Governor Gilligan is equally embarrassed by his grandson’s creation of an “adult-themed” board game called “Don’t Drop The Soap” about prison life. Apparently his mother, Gilligan’s daughter Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas is quite proud.

• In 1983, his first year in office, Democratic Gov. Richard F. Celeste faced a $530 million deficit on a budget of $6.7 billion, a nearly 8 percent shortfall. Under Strickland’s worst-case scenario, today’s deficit would be 3.6 percent.

Celeste, with help from a Democratic-controlled legislature, made permanent a 50 percent income-tax surcharge imposed under Gov. James A. Rhodes, and added 40 percent to it.

Note that Ohio’s budget has at this juncture grown over 600% in the eleven years since the institution of the income tax, something that income tax opponents warned of and proponents derided as alarmist. Pay close attention as we move through Dick Celeste’s two terms to the beginning of Voinovich’s two terms which starts with a deficit- after a permanent 90% income tax increase only 7 years earlier.

• Trouble returned soon after Republican Gov. George V. Voinovich entered office in 1991 and inherited a state budget in the red. The fiscal crisis that engulfed his administration forced Voinovich to raise taxes, make Draconian budget cuts and at one point moved him to tears.

He faced a budget shortfall estimated at $262 million the first year and up to $1.5 billion for the two-year budget. The new governor had to lay off 600 employees. Another 500 layoffs would come later.

By the end of 1991, Voinovich asked the General Assembly to increase a host of taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and other tobacco items, to help what was then estimated at a $931 million budget shortfall. He also trimmed state spending by 3 percent to 6 percent.

Voinovich’s plan included $196 million in cuts and other adjustments to save $254 million. Among the victims: many state liquor stores were closed and the others privatized.

On April 1, 1992, Voinovich was talking with reporters in his Statehouse office. Outside his window, he could hear the impassioned chants of hundreds of protesters opposed to the cuts in general assistance he had ordered.

“Whether they believe it or not, George Voinovich really cares for his fellow man,” he said. “That’s why I’m in the business,” he added, his voice faltering before he broke into tears. “I’m doing the best I can with what we’ve got.”

The state of Ohio, he said, was bankrupt.

George Voinovich had a lot to cry about. But he wasn’t really upset with the real problem. In fact, he was completely ignoring it. The 1991 budget, only 19 years after the institution of Ohio’s income tax had ballooned to a proposed $27 billion; 2700% higher than the first budget after the institution of the income tax and more than 400% higher than the budget which required a permanent 90% increase in order to cover a deficit only 8 years before. How did Weepin’ George fix the problem? Did he cut spending? Well, to be fair, he cut a little bit but what he did mostly was raise taxes and fees. Seeing the trend yet?

• Facing skyrocketing Medicaid costs, a bursting tech bubble, a national recession and economic reverberations from the attack on Sept. 11, 2001, Gov. Bob Taft trimmed state budgets in five straight years from 2001 to 2005, and signed a series of bills to fill more than $4 billion in budget shortfalls.

Husted said that from the time Taft introduced his budget in early 2001 to the time the House took action on it a few months later, the plan already was $700 million out of balance.

In December 2001, Taft signed a $1.5 billion budget-correction bill. The plan included about $500 million in agency cuts, $250 million from the rainy-day fund, $260 million raided from the tobacco-settlement fund, and joining the new multistate Mega Millions lottery.

But revenue quickly diverged again from projections. In June 2002, Taft signed a bill filling a $1.9 billion budget hole. It contained $1.54 billion worth of additional revenue, including a 31-cent cigarette-tax hike, more tobacco money and $600 million from the state rainy-day fund, plus $455 million in spending reductions.

In February 2003, the legislature passed another $566 million budget fix, which was added to another $162 million in state spending cuts — on top of $121 million in cuts ordered by Taft two months earlier.

Just as Taft and legislative leaders finished fixing the 2002-03 budget, they had to wrap up a new two-year budget. Thanks to several factors including the previous use of one-time money to balance books, lawmakers passed and Taft signed a temporary penny sales-tax increase, half of which still exists today.

By 2001, 29 years after Ohio’s first billion dollar budget and the institution of the state’s income tax the Ohio budget stands at 45 billion dollars; 4500% greater than the 1972 budget and 180% higher than the 1991 budget which caused George so many tears.

Flash forward to 2008 and we are in the midst of yet another “budget crisis.” The 2008 budget stands at $49.5 billion; 4950% of the first income tax budget and 10% higher than the last “budget crisis” of 2001, just 7 years ago. The internet contains several inflation calculators that allow you to calculate the change in the value of the dollar over time via the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Those calculators tell us that the CPI has increased by 512-519% since 1971, yet the cost of Ohio’s government has increased by nearly 5000% in the same time frame. Ten times the rate. And what is the reason for the constant budget shortfalls? Is it that our taxes are too low, as many leftist think tanks and some media outlets would have you believe? That is a ludicrous assertion. As the rate of spending has increased so has the rate of revenue generation to pay for the spending increases. And where does the increase in revenues come from? Well, don’t buy the argument that it comes from taxes and fees levied against businesses, corporations, etc. Yes, corporations pay taxes, fees assessments, etc. and yes it’s a significant portion of Ohio’s revenue. But the facts are that it is taxpaying consumers who pay corporate taxes. Taxes are passed along to consumers as a cost of doing business. Lawmakers know this, but like to hide behind the false conception that it is those “greedy businessmen” who are the culprits in rising prices. All businesses do it. Most politicians blame them for it.

Take for example Ohio’s Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) which was ostensibly instituted to eliminate the hated Inventory tax, a tax which allowed the state to tax unsold inventory year after year after year as long as it remained in inventory. The CAT’s real purpose was to allow lawmakers the ability to tap into the gigantic revenue pool from grocery sales. Groceries were exempt from the Inventory tax. Groceries now pay the CAT which is a straight percentage of the total commercial activity The result? A large increase in revenue to the state and a significant increase in the cost of groceries. Who pays? We all do.

What are the consequences of allowing government to grow at a rate 10 times greater than inflation? You can probably answer that question for yourself, especially if you are over 40. Ask yourself if you have more liberty now or did you have more in 1971? It is an inevitable and undeniable corollary that the growth of government necessarily means increase in the cost of government and the control of government over citizens’ lives. It follows that uncontrolled growth of government fueled by uncontrolled access to revenue allowed by failing to constitutionally limit legislative methods of raising it inevitably lead to uncontrolled loss of liberty.

When will taxpayers demand an end? The threshold may be nearer than anyone thinks.

Crime and Punishment, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

What Will You Do When They Come For You? (II)

Yes, they’re aiming at you.NOTE: The Youtube feeds that we originally embedded into this article have been removed from Youtube due to copyright violations. You can see them at the originating TV station, WKYC in Cleveland here and here.

These incidents are becoming far too frequent. Of course, one is one too many, And they aren’t just happening in “Hicksville” or “out west” or “down south” or wherever the knee-jerk reaction of the hearer might mentally carry them. And it’s not just happening to people who are members of the “loony right,” the “patriot movement” or whatever other cliched scapegoats the media loves to create. It’s happening to regular citizens who aren’t “properly compliant” or who aren’t behaving in a way that law enforcement officers think is “normal.” And it’s happening right here in Ohio. As close as Stark County (County seat in Canton).

For those of you who doubt this, we offer a couple of videos that we hope you find shocking. They certainly shocked us.

WARNING! These videos are violent and contain shocking footage of the brutal strip search of an apparently innocent woman by no less than 5 and as many as 7 Stark County sheriff’s deputies male and female (in violation of Stark County Sheriff’s office policy). All nudity has been blocked.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1yUsYIk2EM[/youtube]

The second part of this report can be seen here

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ6Lsqmf9yM[/youtube]

The Stark County Sheriff, who is “…charged with the responsibility of maintaining the public peace and protecting the lives and property of all citizens in Stark County…(emphasis added),” instead of protecting the rights of Mrs. Steffey, he rallied around his “troops” and claimed they were doing this “by the book.” This is obviously a lie and nothing makes that more obvious than video footage that was clearly taken but not turned over to Steffey’s lawyers (see second video) and the fact that gee, what do you know, here’s a shocker, there is no footage of any of the incidents leading up to Mrs. Steffey’s arrest. The officer “forgot” to turn on his cruiser camera. It seems that Sheriff Swanson and his deputies had hoped this incident would “just go away.” But now it probably won’t just go away and some are asking Ohio’s Attorney General Marc Dann to investigate. It remains to be seen whether or not Dann is just too busy with driving around the state personally filing suits against the focus of all evil in Ohio, underperforming charter schools, to look into it.

What should happen? This sorry excuse for a sheriff should be sent packing by the electorate either via a recall effort or at his next election. He is in violation of his oath “… to serve and protect…” which disqualifies him from further service as a law enforcement officer. The next sheriff should, as his first official act, fire all deputies involved in this incident, apologize to the Steffey’s on behalf of Stark County and agree to provide any necessary evidence or testimony in their damage suit.

If Stark County residents return this man to office then they get what they deserve.

Public Policy Radar, Commentary

What Will you Do When They Come For You- Update

Yes, they’re aiming at you.I’ve been saying for some time that my first official act, if I were ever elected as mayor of a major city (Hah! Fat chance!), would be to issue an executive order that the black SWAT uniforms be immediately turned in and destroyed. They would be replaced with similar equipment in a lovely shade of hot pink. I would also order that all SWAT vehicles be painted a matching shade of pink. I would also order that those face masks SWAT teams wear to hide their identities be immediately banned and that all badge numbers be prominently displayed and made available on request of the arrestee.

SWAT teams use black uniforms for the same reason Hitler’s SS wore black uniforms. They are intimidating. And, unfortunately, they also tend to attract persons of a particular mentality, and not a particularly good or desirable mentality. It tends to attract the type of man who doesn’t know and doesn’t care what the Constitution says about the rights of citizens, even those suspected of a crime. It tends to attract men who like to see themselves armed with billy clubs, flash-bang grenades, tasers and automatic weapons and using those weapons in situations other than protecting home and hearth. This makes for a a dangerous combination. And, believe me, those pink uniforms and vehicles would go a long way to discourage the “licensed headknocker” types from going over to SWAT. Imagine having to appear at SWAT competitions and demonstrations dressed in pink if what you really care about is appearing to be “bad.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that special weapons and tactics don’t have a place in modern law enforcement. I’m definitely not saying all SWAT team members are bullies or power freaks or completely ignorant of the Constitution. I’m sure there are some, somewhere, who love liberty and look at their SWAT team membership as a necessary evil, and who consider the legality and constitutionality of the actions they take. But if that’s true, how come we never hear about one being fired or reprimanded for refusing to carry out an illegal order?

Will Grigg, formerly on staff at The New American magazine and currently a blogger has written a detailed report and analysis on the incident that CCV Bruce blogged about a few days ago about the SWAT team being called to forcibly kidnap a child from his parents for “medical treatment” that was later admitted to be unnecessary.

Grigg goes into far greater detail and has a deeper analysis than I am capable of so please click on the link above and read his entry. He fleshes out the story with detail I only saw on his blog (he does that a lot) and clarifies issues that the local sheriff tried to use to cover his own tracks in forcibly removing a child from legal parental custody. While the doctrine of interposition is far too detailed to go into here (though not too detailed for these articles), suffice it to say that the sheriff admits that he didn’t think the court order he was serving was necessary (not to mention legal or constitutional). So why didn’t he refuse to serve it if he thought it was in error? Because local officials no longer understand that part of their job is to refuse to violate the rights and property of those he has sworn to protect.

Grigg points out that one of the reasons that the SWAT team was called out was because the man being served papers was constantly citing (GASP!) the Constitution and loudly proclaiming that he had inalienable rights that he would defend (unlike the sheriff)! How dare he?

What will you do when they come for you?

Public Policy Radar, Commentary

Senatorial Musical Chairs; Corruption Replaces Incompetence On The Minority Side

RadarNews came out of the Ohio Senate late last week that Senate Minority Leader Teresa Fedor (D-Toledo) was ousted from her post as Minority leader. According to the Columbus Dispatch, Fedor and Sen. Tom Roberts (D-Dayton), the No. 2 man in the Senate were removed by vote of the Senate Minority Caucus.

As we’ve noted in past articles (available here and here) Teresa Fedor has demonstrated that she is not exactly a clear or consistent thinker. She has also demonstrated that she is not above role playing to get something she wants. Her imitation of Capitan Louis Renault in Casablanca who was “Shocked! Shocked to find that there was gambling going on in this establishment” while poor Emil the croupier hands him a wad of bills and says “Your winnings, sir!” was classic. Indeed, Fedor was double-dealing enough and incompetent enough at it to draw attention from bloggers like us. We noticed the Teresa Fedor who was shocked to find strippers at a Democratic Party golf outing and politically savvy enough to offer a bill, weak as it was, to make an effort to stem the tide of human trafficking that is particularly bad in her district was the same Teresa Fedor who stood with and spoke at the “Dancers For Democracy” press conference at the kickoff of a petition drive to kill the Community Defense Act, that regulated adult businesses like strip clubs which are major centers for human trafficking. Sen. Fedor voted “no” on that bill.

As we noted in those earlier articles Fedor’s mock outrage was part of an effort to wrest control of the Lucas County Democratic Party away from one faction and replace it with her and Rep. Chris Redfern, a Democratic representative in the Ohio House, the Ohio Democratic Party Chairman and her ally’s, faction.

It appears to our jaundiced eye that there might be some payback with presidential election implications going on here with her replacement as minority leader by Columbus Senator Ray Miller. This looks a lot like a Clinton v. Obama internecine gang war, complete with political “hits.” It will be interesting to watch what happens to and around Chris Redfern in the next few weeks.

One of the political “hits” that took place showed that someone in the Democratic Party has some dirt on Sen. Ray Miller. It seems that, according to the Columbus Dispatch, Sen. Miller has not bothered to file several required campaign finance documents since 2002 and has not filed a completed report since 2005. The Dispatch also reports that Miller was convicted in 2005 of ethics violations, allowing state staffers to work on his private, non-profit company on state time and that he has owed the Hyatt Regency Columbus more than $26,000 since a fundraiser in 2006.

These facts were made available to the public only after Fedor and Roberts were ousted from their posts. It is interesting to note that as soon as these facts came to light, Fedor and Roberts, who were allowed to “resign” from their leadership positions by letter to the Senate President, immediately rescinded those resignations. That required that the minority caucus then officially fire them. It also demonstrates that Fedor and Roberts thought that reports of Miller’s corruption in the media might be enough to scare the caucus into taking them back as the best available, but in this they miscalculated the minority caucus’s ability to stifle their collective gag reflex. It also demonstrates that the Democratic party is willing to go with virtually ANYONE, crooked though they may be, they believe will help win Ohio for their party in 2008.

Don’t get too smug about this, Republicans. Your own incompetence has been showing since at least the Voinovich administration.