Category Archives: politics

Pro-Life Governor Signs Late-Term Abortion Ban to Save Lives

(Columbus, OH) – On July 20, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed H.B. 78, the Late-Term Abortion Ban. This new law, supported by Ohio Right to Life, is the most important piece of pro-life legislation that Ohio has passed in years and is part of an overall national strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade. The legislation was advocated for by its sponsors Rep. Joe Uecker (R -Loveland), Rep. Kristina Roegner (R-Cuyahoga Falls) and Senator Peggy Lehner (R- Kettering).

“In order to protect life, it takes compassionate leadership from our elected officials. By signing this critical pro-life legislation, Governor Kasich demonstrated to all Ohioans that the health and welfare of mothers and their unborn children are of paramount importance to the state of Ohio,” said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director for Ohio Right to Life. “According to the Department of Health, an abortion took place in Ohio last year when the baby was 35 weeks old. From now on, these babies and their mothers will be protected,” said Gonidakis.

This legislation bans post-viability abortions except when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Up to this point in Ohio, a woman could legally have an abortion up to and through her ninth month of pregnancy. With today’s signature by Governor Kasich, babies who can live outside of their mother’s womb will no longer be subject to death by abortion.

The bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives earlier this year with an astounding 65 to 33 bi-partisan vote. Last week, through the leadership of pro-life Senate President Tom Niehaus (R-New Richmond), Senator Scott Oelslager (R-North Canton) and Senator Shannon Jones (R-Springboro),the bill passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

The U.S. Isn’t Broke

By Gary Palmer

Despite what you have heard from the politicians in Washington and from the hand-wringing media about whether or not to raise the debt limit, the United States is not broke. Our nation has abundant assets; we simply refuse to use them.

As sensible as the Cut, Cap and Balance Act that just passed the U.S. House of Representatives may be, it should be obvious that with Republicans only in control of the House, there is practically no chance of getting it passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate and signed by the President as part of a deal to raise the debt limit. In fact, the Democrats, along with President Obama, are insisting any legislation that includes spending cuts must also include substantial tax increases to raise federal revenue.

In an already weak and stagnant economy, the last thing we need is a major tax increase that would further slow an economic recovery. What the nation desperately needs now is legislation that will help get our economy growing again.

Consequently, what the Republicans should be pushing for in exchange for raising the debt limit is passage of legislation that will authorize the sale of oil and gas leases on federal land as the means to raise federal revenue. In other words, if Obama and the Democrats want to raise revenues, they should get it out of the ground instead of out of our pockets.

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management, there are 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation. This is three times more than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. The Green River Formation covers about 11 million acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, with about 80 percent of the recoverable oil in a 1,225 sq. mile area of western Colorado.

The federal government owns or manages 73 percent of the lands that contain significant oil shale deposits in the West and 80 percent of the recoverable oil in the Green River Formation. In addition, there are several billion barrels more offshore. In fact, only about 15 percent of the U.S. coastal waters have been opened to exploration. Including the known oil reserves in Alaska and other areas of the nation, the U.S. has oil reserves worth trillions of dollars.

And that is just the oil reserves. The U.S. has an estimated 284 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. Together, it is estimated that there are enough oil and natural gas reserves on federal lands alone to power 65 million cars for 60 years and heat 60 million households for 160 years. In addition, the U.S. has 261 billion tons of coal that is recoverable using current mining technology, enough to last 249 years.

Opening some of these reserves for recovery would provide the federal government with additional revenue, hundreds of thousands of jobs to our economy, less U.S. dependence on foreign oil, lowered energy costs to help make U.S. businesses more competitive, and lowered household energy costs for utilities and gasoline. It is estimated that just allowing permits for offshore exploration and drilling to return to levels before the BP spill, including approval of backlogged permit requests, would generate 400,000 jobs and add $45 billion to GDP over the next two years.

Lowering energy costs would have a tremendous effect on household incomes, particularly for low income families. Americans are now spending 12 percent of their household income on higher energy costs for gasoline, electricity and heating. Since 2002, the household energy costs have more than doubled, rising from $2,180 per year to $4,410. Households with incomes below $50,000 annually, which is half of all U.S. households, are estimated to be spending 20 percent of their disposable income on energy costs; households with incomes less than $30,000 are spending 23 percent.

The federal government is actually adding to our debt problem by providing payments to states to help low-income households pay their rising energy costs. As of April 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services has spent almost $3.9 billion thus far in the current fiscal year on subsidies to help low-income households pay their energy bills, including $58.3 million in Alabama.

If the Obama Administration and the leadership of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate insist that any agreement to cut spending must be coupled with higher revenues, then the Republicans should put revenues from oil, natural gas and coal reserves on the table.

Given the enormous amounts of revenue that could be generated, opening up these reserves should be part of a common sense solution on the agenda of every member of Congress who truly cares about the American people. This would generate direct revenue from royalties and add hundreds of thousands of new jobs, generate billions in tax revenues for state and federal government, add hundreds of billions of dollars to the GDP over the next ten to 15 years and provide significant relief from high energy costs for millions of low- and middle-income households and for senior citizens on fixed incomes.

If members of Congress are looking for a way to ease the political pain of raising the debt ceiling, tying the increase to reducing energy costs and boosting an economic recovery would be a great way to do it while also continuing the fight for spending cuts.

Gary Palmer is president of 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.

Dealing with the Debt Limit

By Representative Steve Austria

With the national unemployment reaching 9.2 percent recently, it is clear that the borrowing and spending policies of this Administration have not worked. Since January 2009 took office, the national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion. And now, our federal treasury has literally reached its limit. With the debt ceiling limit set to be reached August 2, I am working tirelessly with my Republican colleagues to pass a bill that will ensure the federal government remains open and pays its bills and obligations. Earlier this year I joined my colleagues in voting NO to raising the debt ceiling when it was offered as a standalone bill as we should not be giving out a blank check that puts the tab on our children and grandchildren. As the negotiations continue, there must be three structural changes within the compromise: 1) the spending cuts must exceed the debt limit; 2) we must cut up the credit card and stop the egregious Washington borrowing and spending; and 3) we must do this all without increasing taxes on hardworking Americans and job creators.

I have long-opposed this Administration’s spending spree and huge expansion of government in our lives, which in the past 18 months has included the $2 trillion government takeover of health care, the $1 trillion “stimulus” package, and countless “bailouts.” I have supported putting our country back on a Path to Prosperity by helping our job creators and I support the efforts to balance the budget.

It is time to take America in a new direction. Right now, Republicans control the House of Representatives, which is only 1/3 of the federal government, but we are committed to representing the American people. And for our families in the 7th District of Ohio, I know times are tough, but please be assured that I will continue to work to reverse the wasteful Washington spending that has plagued families and small businesses in Ohio.

Youth and Their Well-Being(?) – U.N. Agenda

By Tyler Ament

The draft outcome document for the High-Level Meeting on Youth proves troubling for those who want to maintain the unity and mutual understanding of families.

In the draft, governments and Heads of State:

“Reaffirm the World Programme of Action for Youth, including its fifteen interrelated priority areas, and call upon Member States to continue its implementation…”

Now, if one wishes to implement the WPAY, one can simply take a look at the implementation guide drafted by the UN Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs. This is where the trouble starts.

It is a good thing to desire the well-being of youth, but that also means it is a horribly wrong thing to use such language to break apart the foundation of youth development that is the family.

On the topic of health, pg. 54 of the implementation guide speaks of “how governments can promote the sexual and reproductive health of young men and women” and cites two steps:

1. Eliminate any policies that prevent young people under 18 or unmarried youth from using reproductive health services, including requirements for parental consent.

2. Support youth-based organizations that disseminate info on sexual and reproductive health.

Translation, keep parents out of their kids’ health decisions by leveraging the government, and replace a family discussion with info from the local “services” provider who has a direct financial and ideological interest in keeping parents out of the discussion.

Where did well-being go? Western society knows what happens when kids only have one parent to raise them, what will happen if we encourage it to be none?

This article was originally posted on the international law blog Turtle Bay and Beyond on July 23, 2011

57,000 Young People Protest Message at UN Conference on Youth

“We do not agree with much of the document produced by governments for the High Level Meeting on youth,” says Tyler Ament, Director of the International Youth Coalition. “We also do not agree with the messages being put out by UN agencies like sex rights for young people and other objectionable ideas.”

Ament and his colleagues will present a Youth Statement to the UN and the World that has been signed by 120,000 people including 57,000 under the age of 30. “The Youth Statement recognizes the rights of parents and calls for policy makers to return to basics and get away from dangerous ideas that are harmful to young people,” says Ament.

Other speakers include Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, the largest youth pro-life organization in the country; Leah Darrow, a former America’s Top Model contestant turned chastity speaker; Thomas Peters, creator of the American Papist blog, which is one of the most popular Catholic blogs on the web.

Acceding to Rutherford Institute’s Demands, Ohio Dept. of Education Removes Letter of Admonishment From John Freshwater Record

(Mount Vernon, Ohio) The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has agreed to remove a “letter of admonishment” from the professional record of Christian teacher John Freshwater. In its letter, the ODE stated that it is investigating The Rutherford Institute’s charges that the admonishment against Freshwater was issued in defiance of Freshwater’s due process rights and in violation of the Department’s own rules. Institute attorneys insist that the ODE’s issuance of the admonishment violated Freshwater’s due process rights because the teacher was not given proper notice or an opportunity to defend himself against the charges. The Institute also argues that the ODE exceeded the scope of its authority by issuing the letter in violation of the prescribed statutory procedures. The Rutherford Institute came to Freshwater’s aid in the wake of a bitter and protracted legal dispute regarding Freshwater’s display of allegedly Christian posters in the classroom and his encouraging students to think critically about scientific “theories” such as evolution.

“I’m pleased that the Ohio Department of Education has decided to step back and review this situation,” stated John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “The right to basic due process—especially the right to defend oneself against charges—is too important to be short-circuited by any government agency.”

John Freshwater was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board’s resolution claims that Freshwater improperly injected 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 claims that he failed to remove “all religious articles” from his classroom, including a Bible. Throughout his 21-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, John Freshwater never received a negative performance evaluation. In fact, 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.

However, school officials were seemingly unswayed by the outpouring of support for Freshwater. The Ohio Department of Education issued its admonishment against Freshwater on March 22, 2011, based on charges that a student was injured after Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, permitted students to touch a live Tesla coil. However, as Institute attorneys pointed out, the administrator who investigated the initial incident ultimately concluded that the allegations had been overblown and that there was “a plausible explanation for how and why the Tesla Coil had been used by John Freshwater.”

With the help of The Rutherford Institute, Freshwater is appealing his 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 religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

VIPR Searches and the American Citizen: ‘Dominate. Intimidate. Control.’

By John W. Whitehead

The transition to a police state will not come about with a dramatic coup d’etat, with battering rams and marauding militia. As we have experienced first-hand in recent years, it will creep in softly, one violation at a time, until suddenly you find yourself being subjected to random patdowns and security sweeps during your morning commute to work or quick trip to the shopping mall.

Perhaps you have yet to experience the particular thrill, and I use that word loosely, of being manhandled by government agents, having your personal possessions pawed through, and your activities and associations scrutinized. If so, not to worry. It’s only a matter of time before more and more Americans will experience such a military task force knocking at their door. Only, chances are that it won’t be a knock, and they might not even be at home when government agents decide to “investigate” them. Indeed, as increasing numbers of Americans are discovering, these so-called “soft target” security inspections are taking place whenever and wherever the government deems appropriate, at random times and places, and without needing the justification of a particular threat. Worse, not only is this happening with the blessing of the Obama administration but at its urging.

What I’m describing–something that was once limited to authoritarian regimes–is only possible thanks to an unofficial rewriting of the Fourth Amendment by the courts that essentially does away with any distinctions over what is “reasonable” when it comes to searches and seizures by government agents. The rationale, of course, is that anything is “reasonable” in the war on terrorism. And by constantly pushing the envelope and testing the limits of what Americans will tolerate, the government is thus able to ratchet up the level of intrusiveness that Americans consider reasonable.

The latest test of our tolerance comes from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the same agency that continues to make headlines with its intrusive airport searches of travelers. Thanks to TSA Chief John Pistole’s determination to “take the TSA to the next level,” there will soon be no place safe from the TSA’s groping searches. Only this time, the “ritualized humiliation” is being meted out by the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) task forces, comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and explosive detection canine teams.

At a cost of $30 million in 2009, VIPR relies on 25 teams of agents, in addition to assistance from local law enforcement agencies as well as immigration agents. And as a sign of where things are headed, Pistole, himself a former FBI agent, wants to turn the TSA into a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.” To accomplish this, Pistole has requested funding for an additional 12 teams for fiscal year 2012, bringing VIPR’s operating budget close to $110 million.

VIPR is the first major step in the government’s effort to secure so-called “soft” targets such as malls, stadiums, bridges, etc. In fact, some security experts predict that checkpoints and screening stations will eventually be established at all soft targets, such as department stores, restaurants, and schools. Given the virtually limitless number of potential soft targets vulnerable to terrorist attack, subjection to intrusive pat-downs and full-body imaging will become an integral component of everyday life in the United States. As Jim Harper of the Cato Institute observed, “The natural illogic of VIPR stings is that terrorism can strike anywhere, so VIPR teams should search anywhere.”

For now, under the pretext of protecting the nation’s infrastructure (roads, mass transit systems, water and power supplies, telecommunications systems, and so on) against criminal or terrorist attacks, these VIPR teams are being deployed to do random security sweeps of nexuses of transportation, including ports, railway and bus stations, airports, ferries and subways. VIPR teams are also being deployed to elevate the security presence at certain special events such as the Democratic National Convention.

Incredibly, in the absence of any viable threat, VIPR teams–roving SWAT teams, with no need for a warrant–have conducted 8,000 such searches in public places over the past year. These raids, conducted at taxpayer expense on average Americans going about their normal, day-to-day business, run the gamut from the ridiculous to the abusive.

The question that must be asked, of course, is who exactly is the TSA trying to target and intimidate? Not would-be terrorists, given that scattershot pat-down stings are unlikely to apprehend or deter terrorists. In light of the fact that average citizens are the ones receiving the brunt of the TSA’s efforts, it stands to reason that we’ve become public enemy number one. And how does the TSA deal with perceived threats? Its motto, posted at the TSA’s air marshal training center headquarters in the wake of 9/11, is particularly telling: “Dominate. Intimidate. Control.”

Those three words effectively sum up the manner in which the government now relates to its citizens, making a travesty of every democratic ideal our representatives spout so glibly and reinforcing the specter of the police state. After all, no government that truly respects or values its citizens would subject them to such intrusive, dehumanizing, demoralizing, suspicionless searches. Yet by taking the TSA’s airport screenings nationwide with VIPR and inserting the type of abusive authoritarianism already present in airports into countless other sectors of American life, the government is expanding the physical and psychological scope of the police state apparatus.

VIPR activities epitomize exactly the kind of farcical security theater the government has come to favor through its use of coded color alerts and other largely superficial yet meaningless maneuvers. It’s an ingenious plan: the incremental ratcheting-up of intrusive searches (VIPR searches are not yet widespread), combined with the gradual rollout of VIPR teams permits the normalization of TSA activities while inciting minimal resistance, thereby muting dissent and enabling the ultimate implementation of totalitarian-style authoritarianism. And you can be sure that once VIPR has accrued a sufficient bureaucracy, it will be virtually impossible to eradicate.

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.

Americans Want Spending Cut Not Increased to Pay Down National Debt (corrected)

By Daniel Downs

The current debate in Washington over increasing the debt ceiling is one of perspective. The federal government, like the rest of us, spends nearly twice as much as its income. The difference between the bureaucrats and us is many American don’t keep increasing their debt to pay for it. Washington bureaucrats apparently disagrees. Yet, it seems they also believe serious spending cuts are in order.

The confusion may lie in the political rhetoric. Washington bureaucrats want us to believe they believe spending cuts are necessary while they silently increase spending to compensation for the so-called spending cuts. In other words, politicians must raise the debt ceiling again to pay for the increases in spending in order to cut spending that will balance the national accounts. The end result thus will be tax and spend as per plan.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, most Americans would not like the above plan. “Republicans … tilt heavily in favor of reducing the deficit primarily if not exclusively with spending cuts (67%) as opposed to tax increases (3%). Fifty-one percent of independents share that preference. Democrats are most inclined to want equal amounts of spending cuts and tax increases (42%), though more favor a tilt toward spending cuts (33%) than tax increases (20%).”

The problem with the Gallup Poll is the deficit. The deficit is the difference between spending and income. Yet, the underlying problem is not the deficit. It is the continued borrowing to pay on the ever-increasing debt.

And, if Washington Bureaucrats would stop trying to tell us how to spend our money for such things as health care, televisions and light bulbs, the federal government could cut spending by hundreds of millions if not billions. One small example is light bulb regulations. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates a $30 million reduction in federal spending the regulation requiring only the manufacture and consumption of the new squiggle-looking, mercury containing, energy efficient light bulbs were eliminated.

Besides all that, Michelle Bachmann claims the government already has enough revenue to pay on its debt. Her logic is reasonable. The rest of us don’t seek more debt to pay for more debt. We are supposed pay down the debt before get new loans–Treasury I.O.U.s, Fannie Mae backed mortgages, and the like. As the position of those she represents, politicians and their professional cronies must quit trying to spend America’s money it does not have. Such behavior seems to approach something similar to taxation without representation about which the Feds are expert practitioners.

Republicans Are Inconsistent with Obama, But Democrats Are Hypocritical

By Daniel Pipes

While it is certainly true that Democrats cut Obama slack on policies where they would slam Bush or McCain, as a fair-minded Republican I note that the reverse holds true as well: Republicans slam Obama and go easy on Bush. I will establish both points in my areas of expertise, the Middle East and Islam.

Obama & Bush – sometimes it matters less what the policy is than who implements it.
Start with Democratic inconsistency: Although Democrats raged against American forces fighting in Iraq and muttered about their role in Afghanistan, there were more American troops in the combined Iraq-Afghanistan theater under Obama in late 2009 than had ever been the case under Bush – and Democrats were silent about this. Democrats derided Bush for damaging America’s reputation among Muslims and Obama placed huge emphasis on establishing a new tone vis-à-vis Muslims. But his efforts had precious little impact, with polls showing Muslims seeing him about the same as Bush; and Democrats are silent. Finally, Democrats bemoaned the clandestine CIA drone program operating in countries where U.S. troops are not based, such as Pakistan. But the Obama administration authorized more targeted killings in its first year than did the Bush administration in its final year. Specifically, there were thirty-six operations in 2008 and fifty in 2009.

Republicans, however, also are inconsistent: they mock Obama’s insistence on trying diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran, but Bush did the same, authorizing 28 meetings with representatives of Tehran at the ambassadorial level or higher. Republicans excoriate Obama for setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan but said not a peep when Bush did the same for the much larger undertaking in Iraq in the status of forces agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops by the last day of 2011. Conversely, Republicans give Obama little credit for keeping the Iraqi mission basically in place, only speeding up the timetable.

On a positive note, Republicans did stand with Obama on increasing troops to Afghanistan and they did applaud his taking out Osama bin Laden. In contrast, it is hard to imagine any comparable support by Democrats for a President McCain. Although Republicans have problems with consistency, Democrats are blatantly hypocritical.

Originally published by the Daniel Pipes Blog on July 11, 2011.

The Price of Being the Enemy

by Gary Palmer

The evidence is undeniable – global warming is now a major problem for practically every person in America, including the people of Alabama. If you don’t believe it, check your monthly utility bill or the price of gasoline to see that global warming is a big problem in terms of what it costs you.

Technically, the problem is not global warming. It began with cooked up statistics that leftist politicians and environmentalists used to push an agenda that will devastate our economy and do nearly nothing to impact the global temperature. A formidable array of politicians and scientists have bought into the proposition that human activity is bad for the planet.

This belief is not new. In their book The First Global Revolution published by the Club of Rome in 1998, authors Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider make the case for using predictions about worldwide environmental catastrophe to force nations to change economic and governing policies.

King and Schneider wrote, “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.” They concluded, “All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.”

Hmmm. Based on that statement it would be logical to conclude that, if people are the enemy, policies that punish people are not necessarily bad as long as the policies can be billed as helping save the environment.

Needless to say, that would not go over well with most Americans who are opposed to such schemes as Cap and Trade. Even though the Cap and Trade bill died in the U.S. Senate last year (after passing in the House), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the full support of the Obama Administration, is in the process of implementing it anyway. If the EPA succeeds in this effort, the impact on the American economy will be devastating.

A Heritage Foundation analysis of the Cap and Trade bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives projected that the GDP for the United States would decline by a cumulative $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035. Heritage also projected that net job losses would approach 1.9 million by 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. The irony of the job losses is that they will hit manufacturing and mining particularly hard, eliminating thousands of union jobs.

Additionally, the Tax Foundation projected that the total burden of the Cap and Trade bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 would cost the average family of four over $1,200 per year. Moreover, this burden is regressive across income levels, consuming a significantly higher percentage of low income households’ income. According to the Tax Foundation, the Cap and Trade bill will cost households in the bottom 20th percentile of household income $617 per year or about 6.2 percent of their income.

Even though the U.S. Senate rejected the Cap and Trade bill, the Obama Administration is using the EPA to implement it anyway and at significant cost to low- to middle-income families. Perhaps as a way to justify new, more costly regulations, the EPA released a report earlier this year claiming that the Clean Air Act of 1990 will avert 230,000 premature deaths and add $2 trillion to our economy by 2020. The estimated economic benefits in the EPA report range from $250 million to $5.7 trillion, making it appear that the estimators could not come up with anything close to what the economic benefit might be, so they split the difference at $2.7 trillion.

Claiming that 230,000 lives were spared a premature death as a result of the EPA’s actions is in the same genre as justifying the billions of dollars wasted with the Stimulus Bill by claiming it saved an unspecified number of jobs. No one can prove that environmental regulations have saved lives any more than it can be proved that implementing cap and trade regulations will save the planet, but we can see the proof of the impact that these regulations are having on our household income.

High utility bills and the price of gasoline are just part of the price you pay for being the enemy.

Gary Palmer is president of 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.