Monthly Archives: April 2012

Rutherford Institute Appeals to Ohio Supreme Court on Behalf of Science Teacher Fired for Urging Students to Think Critically About Evolution

The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students “reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.” The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove “all religious articles” from his classroom, including a Bible.

The Rutherford Institute’s appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court is available at www.rutherford.org.

“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”

In June 2008, the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education voted to suspend John Freshwater, a Christian with a 20-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, citing concerns about his conduct and teaching materials, particularly as they related to the teaching of evolution. Earlier that year, school officials reportedly ordered Freshwater, who had served as the faculty appointed facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes student group for 16 of the 20 years that he taught at Mount Vernon, to remove “all religious items” from his classroom, including a Ten Commandments poster displayed on the door of his classroom, posters with Bible verses, and his personal Bible which he kept on his desk. Freshwater agreed to remove all items except for his Bible. Showing their support for Freshwater, students even organized a rally in his honor. They also wore t-shirts with crosses painted on them to school and carried Bibles to class. School officials were seemingly unswayed by the outpouring of support for Freshwater. In fact, despite the fact that the Board’s own policy states that because religious traditions vary in their treatment of science, teachers should give unbiased instruction so that students may evaluate it “in accordance with their own religious tenets,” school officials suspended and eventually fired Freshwater, allegedly for criticizing evolution and using unapproved materials to facilitate classroom discussion of origins of life theories. Freshwater appealed the termination in state court, asserting that the school’s actions violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and constituted hostility toward religion. A Common Pleas judge upheld the School Board’s decision, as did the Fifth District Court of Appeals, without analyzing these constitutional claims. In appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court, Institute attorneys argue that the Board through its actions violated the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and his students.

European Development Aid and Funding Abortions

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(New York C-FAM) The European Commission is using development funds to pay for abortions in countries that restrict the procedure and funding the two largest abortion providers in the world, International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, according to a new report by European Dignity Watch.

The report The Funding of Abortion through EU Development Aid reveals Marie Stopes International received over $30 million from the European Union. The Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, a high level global partnership that includes the UNFPA and provides abortion kits to developing countries, was given close to $32 million over a 30-month period ending in June 2011.

The report discloses that EU money was spent to fund abortions in developing countries with strict abortion laws through the EU’s Development Aid and Public Health budgets for projects related to “sexual and reproductive health.” But European Dignity Watch (EDW) says the “term ‘sexual and reproductive health’ as defined by the EU excludes abortion explicitly”.

International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International asked and received funding projects that included “safe abortion,” “emergency contraception,” “training in manual vacuum aspiration,” and “menstrual regulation” to admittedly bypass legal restrictions on abortions in countries like Bangladesh, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Peru.

The term “menstrual regulation,” the report explains, is a less explicit term for surgical abortions. It is described by Planned Parenthood as the process of emptying the uterus through the high-powered suction created by a manual vacuum aspirator. The device is inserted in the dilated cervix of a woman who “suspects” being pregnant rather than one who “knows” she is pregnant. After the procedure, it is impossible to tell whether a woman was pregnant unless the extracted tissue, which may include an implanted embryo, is examined microscopically.

The report denounces the European Commission, which manages the budget of the European Union, for acting illegally. The report asserts that the Commission does not have the authority to fund abortions because of the limited authority of the Commission, the Commission’s own statements, and the need for consensus to act on foreign policy. Each EU member state has a seat on the Commission, and several EU countries have strict abortion laws.

European Dignity Watch based the report on disclosures from a document request for all papers and correspondence between the EU Commission, the two abortion giants, and the Center for Reproductive Rights for the period running from 2005 to 2010. Not all the information requested from the EU Commission was handed over. The report calls the findings so far “cursory” and asks EU Parliamentarians to investigate further and take action.

The report was presented at the European Parliament in Brussels during an event that was part of the “Week for Life” initiative organized by EU Parliamentarians held in March.

For decades, public funding of abortion in Europe would not have been considered controversial. European Dignity Watch, which was formed in 2010, is just one of many recently formed politically active pro-life organizations in Europe. This development shows how the pro-life movement is gaining momentum in Europe.

Stefano Gennarini writes for C-FAM. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

American Catholic Bishops Inconsistent On Liberty and Marriage

By Bai Macfarlane

The US Bishops on April 12 issued a call to action to defend religious liberty and urge the laity to work to protect the First Freedom of the Bill of Rights – religious freedom.

In the USCCB’s press release, the first concern listed that prompted their call is the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate forcing all employers, including religious organizations, to provide and pay for coverage of employees’ contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs even when they have moral objections to them.

The Bishops don’t want the Church to be forced to pay for services or provide services to their employees that the Church knows are immoral. But sadly, the U.S. Bishops have been silent when tens of thousands of Catholic parents have been forced to pay for services and provide ‘care’ for their own children when the parents knew the services were immoral.

Every time a Catholic parent is the defendant in a no-fault divorce, and the civil court orders that parent to forcibly stop having daily access to his or her children, that parent is being forced to give ‘care’ to their own children that the parent knows is immoral. Every time the government forces that parent to pay financial support for a second separate household in which that parent is not even allowed to live, the government is ordering the parent to follow unjust laws.

By natural law, canon law (and one could even argue that by constitutional law), anyone with a Catholic marriage has the rights and obligations that both spouses agreed to accept when they married. When anyone marries in the Rite of Catholic marriage, they agree to follow the laws of Christ and His Church. Both spouses have the right and obligation to maintain a common household with their spouse and children unless there is a fault-based reason for separation of spouses (canon 1151-1155).

Neither can file for a divorce without the permission of their bishop and they cannot seek divorce orders contrary to divine law (canon 1692). But unjust laws inflict immoral separations on Catholic families every day whenever one of the spouses, for any reasons whatsoever, feels like reneging on their marital promises and files for no-fault divorce. The government’s divorce courts will coerce and force separation and divorce decrees, contrary to divine law, on the innocent spouse and children.

If the USCCB is going to be consistent with their call to action to defend our religious liberty, they will raise a unified voice against no-fault divorce practices, which are blatantly unjust. After all, the Bishops said, “It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law. An unjust law cannot be obeyed.”

This article was originally published in Spero New’s Religion Forum, April 12, 2012. Bai Macfarlane is founder of Mary’s Advocates.

Day of Dialogue April 19 Coming to a High School Near You

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2uAYBOCAUQ&w=420&h=315]

Jailing Americans for Profit: The Rise of the Prison Industrial Complex

By John W. Whitehead

In an age when freedom is fast becoming the exception rather than the rule, imprisoning Americans in private prisons run by mega-corporations has turned into a cash cow for big business. At one time, the American penal system operated under the idea that dangerous criminals needed to be put under lock and key in order to protect society. Today, as states attempt to save money by outsourcing prisons to private corporations, the flawed yet retributive American “system of justice” is being replaced by an even more flawed and insidious form of mass punishment based upon profit and expediency.

As author Adam Gopnik reports for the New Yorker:

[A] growing number of American prisons are now contracted out as for-profit businesses to for-profit companies. The companies are paid by the state, and their profit depends on spending as little as possible on the prisoners and the prisons. It’s hard to imagine any greater disconnect between public good and private profit: the interest of private prisons lies not in the obvious social good of having the minimum necessary number of inmates but in having as many as possible, housed as cheaply as possible.

Consider this: despite the fact that violent crime in America has been on the decline, the nation’s incarceration rate has tripled since 1980. Approximately 13 million people are introduced to American jails in any given year. Incredibly, more than six million people are under “correctional supervision” in America, meaning that one in fifty Americans are working their way through the prison system, either as inmates, or while on parole or probation. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the majority of those being held in federal prisons are convicted of drug offenses—namely, marijuana. Presently, one out of every 100 Americans is serving time behind bars.

Little wonder, then, that public prisons are overcrowded. Yet while providing security, housing, food, medical care, etc., for six million Americans is a hardship for cash-strapped states, to profit-hungry corporations such as Corrections Corp of America (CCA) and GEO Group, the leaders in the partnership corrections industry, it’s a $70 billion gold mine. Thus, with an eye toward increasing its bottom line, CCA has floated a proposal to prison officials in 48 states offering to buy and manage public prisons at a substantial cost savings to the states. In exchange, and here’s the kicker, the prisons would have to contain at least 1,000 beds and states would have agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.

The problem with this scenario, as Roger Werholtz, former Kansas secretary of corrections, recognizes is that while states may be tempted by the quick infusion of cash, they “would be obligated to maintain these (occupancy) rates and subtle pressure would be applied to make sentencing laws more severe with a clear intent to drive up the population.” Unfortunately, that’s exactly what has happened. Among the laws aimed at increasing the prison population and growing the profit margins of special interest corporations like CCA are three-strike laws (mandating sentences of 25 years to life for multiple felony convictions) and “truth-in-sentencing” legislation (mandating that those sentenced to prison serve most or all of their time).

“And this is where it gets creepy,” observes reporter Joe Weisenthal for Business Insider, “because as an investor you’re pulling for scenarios where more people are put in jail.” In making its pitch to potential investors, CCA points out that private prisons comprise a unique, recession-resistant investment opportunity, with more than 90% of the market up for grabs, little competition, high recidivism among prisoners, and the potential for “accelerated growth in inmate populations following the recession.” In other words, caging humans for profit is a sure bet, because the U.S. population is growing dramatically and the prison population will grow proportionally as well, and more prisoners equal more profits.

However, while a flourishing privatized prison system is a financial windfall for corporate investors, it bodes ill for any measures aimed at reforming prisoners and reducing crime. CCA understands this. As it has warned investors, efforts to decriminalize certain activities, such as drug use (principally possession of marijuana), could cut into their profits. So too would measures aimed at reducing the prison system’s disproportionately racist impact on minorities, given that the incarceration rate for blacks is seven times that of whites. Immigrants are also heavily impacted, with roughly 2.5 million people having been through the immigration detention system since 2003. As private prisons begin to dominate, the many troubling characteristics of our so-called criminal justice system today—racism, economic inequality, inadequate access to legal representation, lack of due process, etc.—will only become more acute.

Doubtless, a system already riddled by corruption will inevitably become more corrupt, as well. For example, consider the “kids for cash” scandal which rocked Luzerne County, Penn., in 2009. For ten years, the Mid Atlantic Youth Service Corporation, which specializes in private prisons for juvenile offenders, paid two judges to jail youths and send them to private prison facilities. The judges, who made over $2.6 million in the scam, had more than 5,000 kids come through their courtrooms and sent many of them to prison for petty crimes such as stealing DVDs from Wal-Mart and trespassing in vacant buildings. When the scheme finally came to light, one judge was sentenced to 17.5 years in prison and the other received 28 years, but not before thousands of young lives had been ruined.

No matter what the politicians or corporate heads might say, prison privatization is neither fiscally responsible nor in keeping with principles of justice. It simply encourages incarceration for the sake of profits, while causing millions of Americans, most of them minor, nonviolent criminals, to be handed over to corporations for lengthy prison sentences which do nothing to protect society or prevent recidivism. This perverse notion of how prisons should be run, that they should be full at all times, and full of minor criminals, is evil.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

You Have 8 Hours to File Your Tax Return

This is a public reminder that Uncle Sam awaits the filing of your income tax return. My sympathy goes out to all who are too poor to get a tax refund or have too much income that your federal big brother wants more of your gains on your capital. The rest of us saps are still depressed or just plan sobbing.

Perspective On Progressive Tax, Buffet Rule & Obama Plan

By Daniel Downs

In an article published in the Tax Analyst, Martin A. Sullivan explains why the tax code is not genuinely progressive.

Almost everybody assumes the individual income tax is progressive — that is, that higher income categories pay higher effective tax rates than lower income categories. That is true only up to a point, as shown in Figure 2. The schedule of effective tax rates in the United States is not steadily upward sloping. Depending on the year, average tax rates begin declining somewhere in the $2 million to $5 million range. For adjusted gross income over $10 million, the average effective tax rate was 19.7 percent in 2007 and 22.6 percent in 2009. The income tax is regressive at the upper end.

There is a simple explanation for both the declining rates at the top end and the rise in top-end rates in 2009 over 2007: the 15 percent rate on capital gains and qualified dividends. As income rises, an increasingly larger share of income comes in the form of dividends and capital gains. And there were more capital gains in the boom year of 2007 than there was in the depths of the recession in 2009.

Application of the Buffett principle would eliminate the dip in tax rates at the high end. The Buffett rule is roughly equivalent to an increase in the tax rate on capital gains and dividends on millionaires.

This helps explain why secretaries of both Buffet and President Obama pay higher income tax rates while earning much less than their bosses.

Yet, Sullivan began his article stating why the Buffet Rule may not be a good idea. “[I]t is a basic tenet of tax economics that an efficient system should eliminate all taxes on capital income,” which “translates into big tax benefits for the wealthy.” In other words, it’s not a good idea to tax non-wage related investment income, capital gains or corporate profits because doing so multi-taxes wage income. (See Economist, Feb. 24, 2012)

Capitol Hill bureaucrats like Obama actually may want to raise about $5 billion more in annual revenues to help ease the imperial burden. However, it is more likely they want to create a genuine socialist economy. From the beginning of his presidency, Obama’s sought to fuflill the party’s agenda for a coherent socialist system. Evidence of his efforts is the passage of the Obamacare legislation. Another piece of evidence is his ties to the progressive policy agendas of the Communist Party.

Information about progressive Democrats ties to the Communist Party (CPUSA) is coming out since the public ire about Congressman Allan West’s statement that about 81 of the Congressional Progressive Caucus were members of the Communist Party. As journalist Cliff Kincaid recent commented, “Joelle Fishman, chair of the political action commission of the CPUSA, openly campaigned for Barack Obama” because of the progressive affiliation between the two. “Trevor Loudon,” Kincaid continued, “points out that ‘Joelle Fishman is the daughter-in-law of Soviet spy Victor Perlo. Her role within the Communist Party involves coordinating efforts to elect progressive Democrats to state and national office and seeing that the Democrats adopt Communist Party inspired policies.'” She is one of many working to achieve the same goal. The clincher is that Obama’s political mentor was Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

Kincaid sums up the Obama plan that includes more progressive tax code: “The CPUSA is working through the Democratic Party as a whole, as well as the Obama Administration.” It is reasonable to assume that underlying Obama’s plan to tax wealthy is the goal of creating a socialist economy through progressive taxation. Such would be a win for the CPUSA. Maybe that is why neither the “Buffet Rule” nor any plan of Democrats proposes to eliminate the capital gain taxes.

Long live McCarthy!!!

If Taxes are the Solution, What’s the Problem?

by Cameron Smith

Alabama’s legislative leadership and Governor are under immense pressure in Montgomery to increase taxes to prevent cuts in state government funding. But is the real problem a lack of revenue?

The cuts themselves seem to be the most obvious source of consternation. So far, some Alabama agencies are engaging in spending reductions through attrition, not filling vacancies as current staff departs while others delay upgrades or capital purchases. In other words, state agencies seem to be doing what they can to prevent laying off employees. But, at some point, fewer employees tasked with administering the same government programs in the same manner may inevitably lead to reduction in state services or the elimination of state programs.

In many respects, these reductions create heartburn because the programs that may be eliminated are “good” programs. For example, Alabama’s Department of Human Resources will close an adult day-care program that enrolls about 380 people. The closure of the program will save taxpayers over two million dollars annually.

However, for the 380 people enrolled in the day-care program and their families, the elimination of the program means the removal of a substantial benefit. In a very real and meaningful sense, a good program is being terminated. But even if a thousand people are negatively impacted by the elimination of the program, how does their interest stack against the other 4.8 million Alabamians who would rather see those resources go in a different direction or remain in the pockets of taxpayers?

The immediate response that the adult day-care program and others like it should be preserved by increasing taxes makes two baseline assumptions worth challenging. First, it assumes that state government is as efficient at administering its programs and services as it could be. That is one bold assumption. Alabama has no statewide fleet management policy, antiquated payroll and time- keeping practices, and inadequate state-owned land and space management. And those are just a few issues on the internal administrative side of the equation before ever discussing efficiencies in delivering the actual services to the public.

The second assumption is that the majority of Alabamians actually want or need all of the programs and services the state currently provides. One common sentiment from those awestruck that Alabamians would want to reduce their own government is that most Alabamians are incapable of actually understanding what the “limited government” they are asking for actually requires.

But what if the people do understand? What if the people of Alabama actually intend to reduce the size and budgets of their government? Many Alabamians know that some services and programs currently provided by the government may need to be eliminated, but the tradeoff would be retaining lower taxes and prioritized government spending and services.

Maybe the pressure in Montgomery is coming directly from those with a direct financial interest in maintaining the current size and form of government. Most state employees, lobbyists, unions, and even the various agencies themselves stand to feel significant pain if government is reduced. While there are some easy cutbacks, such as eliminating unnecessary entities like the Interior Design Board, leaner government will eventually mean tougher choices.

Reducing the size of government will not, itself, lower the number of the poor and needy currently served by the state. Alabamians must be willing to open their hands and hearts to the poor and downtrodden in their midst in a reliable fashion if they want to cut programs serving those communities.

If Alabamians plan on reducing the size and budget of their government, revenue reductions provide the pressure necessary to force their legislators to prioritize. On the other hand, if they want higher taxes to pay for state programs and services, they had a funny way of showing it at the ballot box in 2010.

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Policy Director for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Tax Freedom Day April 17

“Tax Freedom Day® 2012 arrives on April 17 this year, four days later than last year due to higher federal income and corporate tax collections. That means Americans will work 107 days into the year, from January 1 to April 17, to earn enough money to pay this year’s combined 29.2% federal, state, and local tax bill,” according to The Tax Foundation.

“If the federal government raised taxes enough to close the budget deficit—an additional $1.014 trillion—Tax Freedom Day would come on May 14 instead of April 17. That’s an additional 27 days of government spending paid for by borrowing. This year’s federal budget deficit remains high, though it has declined slightly over the past two years.”

“As the economic recovery continues, the growth in individual incomes and corporate profits will increase tax revenues and push Tax Freedom Day ever later in the year. The latest ever Tax Freedom Day was May 1, 2000—meaning Americans paid 33.0% of their total income in taxes. A century earlier, in 1900, Americans paid only 5.9% of their income in taxes, meaning Tax Freedom Day came on January 22.”

The above figures are the national average. Tax Freedom Day arrives on different dates for each state. Tax Freedom Day came April 12 for Ohio taxpayers. Tennessee enjoyed the earliest day, which was on March 31st but Connecticut will still be paying Uncle Sam until the 1st of May.

Last year, IRS processed 143 million tax returns, but only 58 million (59%) paid any taxes. They paid a total of $945 billion in federal income taxes. All of the tax filing consumes an estimated 7 billion hours in order to comply with the 3.8 million word tax code. This alone demonstrates the need for serious tax reform some similar to the simplified fair tax proposal.

Below is a chart indicating the share of income taxes paid by adjusted gross income levels. As you will see, the Tax Foundation’s chart shows upper income earners already paying most of the federal income taxes. The Obamaites appear to wrong about the wealthy taxpayers not paying enough taxes.

Resurrection, Relationships, and America

By Daniel Downs

Jesus is risen!

Today, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, the Jew. The celebrants rejoice in his victory over the consequences of sin, which is death. For first century Christians, this fact was cause for hope for eternal life, and it is still cause for the same hope now.

But, what is life? Surely, it is more than bodily functions such as breathing, thinking, going here and there… In the book of Acts, the author recounts a forty-day period during which time Jesus renewed his relationships with disciples, family and others. Acts also presents an eyewitness account of Jesus’ ascension to heaven. His resurrection and ascension depicts the ultimate restoration of Jesus relationship with God.

Being redemptive, Easter is a celebration of the restoration of our relationship with God through Christ Jesus.

The first chapters of Genesis show us that a human relationship with God was the divine intention of the Creator. Because humans were created in the likeness of God, we have the capacity such a relationship. Genesis goes to depict the reason for human existence. In sum, we exist to serve the Creator by overseeing nature, which implies partnerships with other humans. When natural and holy, these relationships accomplish God’s purposes. For example, the family serves the need its members, establishes and perpetuated human society, and thus fulfills part of the divine plan. Economy and education actually are both natural products of inter- and intra-family relations. However, the complexity of the web of societal institutions creates the artificial need for governmental services beyond the basics. Government is composed of representatives of all related families of a given society, and those representatives serve to fulfill common need of all families. The common and basic needs include protecting the lives and property of those served.

A paternal government cannot exist when families are fulfilling their created functions and roles. Oppressive governments exist as a result of the death of moral relationships. Divorce is the result of moral crimes, and moral crime ends in alienation and death. The artificiality of modern institutionalized society is a major contributor to the alienation and death in society, its families, and the moral decline that produces it. Mutually beneficial godly relationships are the essence life now and forever.

America certainly needs a resurrection that only God and Jesus can perform.