Tag Archives: rule of law

Terror Tuesdays, Kill Lists and Drones: Has the President Become a Law Unto Himself?

By John W. Whitehead
June 18, 2012

“What lies at the nexus of Obama’s targeted drone killings, his self-serving leaks, and his aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a president who believes himself above the law, and seems convinced that he alone has a preternatural ability to determine right from wrong.”—Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran Foreign Service Officer at the State Department.

Since the early days of our republic, we have operated under the principle that no one is above the law. As Thomas Paine observed in Common Sense, “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” Several years later, John Adams, seeking to reinforce this important principle, declared in the Massachusetts Constitution that they were seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”

The history of our nation over the past 200 years has been the history of a people engaged in a constant struggle to maintain that tenuous balance between the rule of law—in our case, the United States Constitution—and the government leaders entrusted with protecting it, upholding it and abiding by it. At various junctures, when that necessary balance has been thrown off by overreaching government bodies or overly ambitious individuals, we have found ourselves faced with a crisis of constitutional proportions. Each time, we have taken the painful steps needed to restore our constitutional equilibrium.

Now, once again, we find ourselves skating dangerously close to becoming a nation ruled not by laws but by men—and fallible, imperfect men, at that. Yet this latest crisis did not happen overnight. Its seeds were sown in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, when fear-addled Americans started selling their freedoms cheaply, bit by bit, for phantom promises of security. From torture at CIA black site prisons and Abu Ghraib abuses to extraordinary renditions, from TSA body scanners and warrantless wiretaps to the PATRIOT Act, Americans have failed to be outraged by the government’s repeated violations of the rule of law. In this way, as the “war on terror” has unfolded beyond our wildest imaginings—from the barbaric treatment of foreign detainees at American-run prisons to the technological arsenal being used by the U.S. government to monitor and control its citizens—our rights have taken a meteoric nosedive in inverse proportion to the government’s rapidly expanding powers.

The New York Times’ recent revelation that President Obama, operating off a government “kill list,” has been personally directing who should be targeted for death by military drones (unmanned aerial assault vehicles) merely pushes us that much closer to that precipitous drop-off to authoritarianism. Should we fail to recognize and rectify the danger in allowing a single individual to declare himself the exception to the rule of law and assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner, we will have no one else to blame when we plunge once and for all into the abyss that is tyranny.

Declaring Obama’s actions “without precedent in presidential history,” the New York Times describes a process whereby every few weeks, Obama and approximately a hundred members of his national security team gather for their “Terror Tuesday” meetings in which they hand pick the next so-called national security “threat” to die by way of the American military/CIA drone program. Obama signs off personally on about a third of the drone strikes: all of the ones in Yemen and Somalia, and the risky ones in Pakistan.

These “Terror Tuesday” sessions run counter to every constitutional and moral principle that has guided America since its inception. It’s not only suspected terrorists whose death warrants are being personally signed by the president but innocent civilians geographically situated near a strike zone, as well, whether or not they have any ties to a suspected terrorist. As an anonymous government official on Obama’s drone campaign observed, “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.” Indeed, Obama’s first authorized drone attack in Yemen led to the deaths of 14 women and 21 children, and only one al-Qaeda affiliate. Incredibly, the government actually justifies these civilian deaths by suggesting that the individuals must be “militants” or “combatants” simply because of their proximity to the target.

No matter what is said to the contrary, the Constitution does not in any way provide for the president to engage in such acts, even under the auspices of his role as Commander in Chief. In fact, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process, intended to protect citizens in the event that the government attempts to overreach its authority, assure every American citizen that before the government can imprison them or put them to death, they have a right to hear the charges being levied against them, review the evidence, and be treated to a fair and impartial trial by a judge or jury.

Thus, perhaps hoping to distract and divert the public’s attention from the core issue at hand—namely, the fact that the president has become a law unto himself—the Obama administration has launched an investigation to discover who leaked the information about the kill list. The media, in typical fashion, have taken the bait. However, no amount of obfuscation can alter the fact that Obama, by his actions, is circumventing the Constitution, especially as it pertains to the rights of American citizens. Indeed, in a decision he claims was “an easy one,” Obama has already killed two American citizens in this fashion: Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric living in Yemen who served as a propagandist for Al-Qaeda, and his 16-year-old son.

Yet with every passing day, the casualties are mounting—not just the innocent women and children abroad blown to smithereens by American missiles, but our Constitution, our increasingly fragile republic and our ability to trust that our government leaders will be accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

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.

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to journalist Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to journalist Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Restore the American Republic to the American People

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNdQTBNWvE&w=560&h=315]

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Rutherford Institute Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Hold Corporations Accountable for Human Rights Abuses in Keeping with the Rule of Law

(WASHINGTON, DC) — The Rutherford Institute has filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that will determine whether U.S. courts are open to persons who are victims of human rights abuses by international corporations. The Institute’s brief in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. asks the Court to reverse a federal appeals court ruling that corporations are not subject to liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a 200-year-old law that allows victims of violations of the law of nations to recover damages from the persons responsible for the violations.

In their brief, Institute attorneys argue that U.S. courts should do all they can to prevent and remedy human rights abuses and that it is contrary to established principles and the rule of law to allow corporations to escape responsibility for heinous crimes that violate established international standards simply because they are not “natural” persons. The Rutherford Institute’s brief in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is available at www.rutherford.org.

“Permitting corporations to escape civil liability for crimes against humanity is a fundamental departure from the constitutional theory of the rule of law upon which the U.S. Constitution rests,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “We have operated too long under a double standard that favors corporations, recognizing them as persons for the purposes of profit but failing to hold them equally accountable for their abuses. The Supreme Court needs to rectify this discrepancy and ensure that corporations are not given carte blanche to operate above the law.”

The case involves a lawsuit by residents of the Ogoni Region of Nigeria, where Royal Dutch Petroleum and its subsidiaries have been involved in oil exploration since 1958. The residents alleged that Royal Dutch, in cooperation with the Nigerian government, began a campaign of repression and terror after residents organized to protest and resist the exploration efforts because of its environmental effects upon the region. According to the complaint, the campaign involved the shooting and killing of Ogoni residents, attacking Ogoni villages, and beating, raping, torturing and arresting residents and destroying or looting of property by Nigerian military forces, allegedly with the aid and assistance of Royal Dutch and its affiliates.

Several Ogoni residents filed suit in a New York federal district court in 2002 under the Alien Tort Statute, which was enacted in 1789 by the First Congress and which provides federal courts with jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Insisting that only natural persons are subject to federal court jurisdiction under the ATS, the corporate defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the district court denied. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, holding that corporations and other “juridical” entities, while considered “persons” under the law of the United States, are not considered persons under the ATS. However, a federal appeals court ruling in another, unrelated, case held that corporations are subject to the ATS.

In light of the conflict between the circuits, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. In weighing in on the issue, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute are urging the Supreme Court to “affirm the foundational principle that corporations are not above the rule of law and are not available as a vehicle to circumvent domestic or international laws that punish participation in egregious human rights violations.”

Can American Values Radicalize Muslims?

by Raymond Ibrahim

Recent comments by U.S. officials on the threat posed by “radicalized” American Muslims are troubling, both for their domestic and international implications. Attorney General Eric Holder states that “the threat has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.” The situation is critical enough to compel incoming head of the House Committee on Homeland Security Peter King to do all he can “to break down the wall of political correctness and drive the public debate on Islamic radicalization.”

To be sure, radicalized American Muslims pose a far greater risk than foreign radicals. For example, it is much easier for the former to get a job in the food industry and poison food — a recently revealed al-Qaeda strategy. American terrorists are also better positioned to exploit the Western mindset. After describing Anwar al-Awlaki as one of the most dangerous terrorists alive, Holder added that he “is a person who — as an American citizen — is familiar with this country and he brings a dimension, because of that American familiarity, that others do not.” (Likewise, American Adam Gadahn is al-Qaeda’s chief propagandist in English no doubt due to his “American familiarity.”)
Sue Myrick, a member of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote a particularly candid letter on “radicalization” to President Obama:

For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalization was not happening inside the United Sates. We believed American Muslims were immune to radicalization because, unlike the European counterparts, they are socially and economically well-integrated into society. There had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we paid them no mind. Today there is no doubt that radicalization is taking place inside America. The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident.

Myrick named several American Muslims as examples of those who, while “embodying the American dream, at least socio-economically,” still turned to radical Islam, astutely adding, “The truth is that if grievances were the sole cause of terrorism, we would see daily acts by Americans who have lost their jobs and homes in this economic downturn.”

Quite so. Yet, though Myrick’s observations are limited to the domestic scene, they beg the following, even more “cosmic,” question: If American Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits — including democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression — are still being radicalized, why then do we insist that the importation of those same Western benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more indigenous or authentic form of “radicalization”?
After all, the mainstream position, the only one evoked by politicians, maintains that all American sacrifices in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) will pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and happily slough off their Islamist veneer, which, as the theory goes, is a product of — you guessed it — a lack of democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression. Yet here are American Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West — and still do they turn to violent jihad. Why think their counterparts, who are born and raised in the Muslim world, where Islam permeates every aspect of life, will respond differently?

In fact, far from eliminating radicalization, there is reason to believe that Western values can actually exacerbate Islamist tendencies. It is already known that Western concessions to Islam — in the guise of multiculturalism, “cultural sensitivity,” political correctness, and self-censorship — only bring out the worst in Islamists. Yet even some of the most prized aspects of Western civilization — personal freedom, rule of law, human dignity — when articulated through an Islamist framework, have the capacity to “radicalize” Muslims.

Consider: the West’s unique stress on the law as supreme arbitrator, translates into a stress to establish sharia law, Islam’s supreme arbitrator of human affairs; the West’s unwavering commitment to democracy, translates into an unwavering commitment to theocracy, including an anxious impulse to resurrect the caliphate; Western notions of human dignity and pride, when articulated through an Islamist mindset (which sees fellow Muslims as the ultimate, if not only, representatives of humanity) induces rage when fellow Muslims — Palestinians, Afghanis, Iraqis, etc. — are seen under Western, infidel dominion; Western notions of autonomy and personal freedom have even helped “Westernize” the notion of jihad into an individual duty, though it has traditionally been held by sharia as a communal duty.

Nor should any of this be surprising: a set of noble principles articulated through a fascistic paradigm can produce abominations. In this case, the better principles of Western civilization are being devoured, absorbed, and regurgitated into something equally potent, though from the other end of the spectrum. Put differently, just as a stress on human freedom, human dignity, and universal justice produces good humans, rearticulating these same concepts through an Islamist framework that qualifies them with the word “Muslim” — Muslim freedom, Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice — leads to what is being called “radicalization.”

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

Originally published by Pajamas Media, February 10, 2011.

U.S. Government vs. State of Arizona, A Constitutional Battle

By Daniel Downs

The federal government is suing Arizona to block the implementation of its new immigration law. The U.S. Department of Justice will argue that the new state law violates the Constitution by claiming authority over immigration policy, which has historically been the jurisdiction of the federal government, according to a Politico news report.

Does Arizona have a constitutional right to police immigration within its borders? Let’s look at Arizona’s new immigration law.

Section 1 of the new law states the intention of Arizona lawmakers:

“The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

Critics of Arizona’s immigration law focus on law enforcements obligation to determine immigration status of any person whose behavior warrants reasonable suspicion. Preceding any so-called racial profiling must be lawful contact between an officer and the illegal immigrant. As stipulated in the law, lawful contact means a police officer must have stopped an illegal for a traffic violation or for other public offense. The same applies to employers hiring known illegals. The law provides two mechanisms for determining whether an employer has knowingly hired illegals: One is a complaint form made available by which the public may report illegal hiring to officials; and the second is employer reporting of new hires to the state and federal government. (Sec. 2, Article 8; Sec. 4-7)

I suspect the federal government may not like Arizona’s intentions to work with federal immigration departments as well as Homeland Security in the effort to enforce strictly federal immigration laws. (Sec. 2-3, 6-8)

Another area of contention is the level of state, county, and local enforcement involvement intended by Arizona’s new law. Because Arizona is a border state with numerous entry points accessible to illegals, the potential for state and federal law enforcement overlap and jurisdictional conflict may be point of serous concern.

The question, however, is whether Arizona’s immigration law is constitutional. Throughout the text of the law, state compliance with federal immigration law is prominent in the various means of enforcing both sets of laws.

Even so, is the Dept. of Justice right? Does the Arizona law violate the U.S. Constitution?

In Section 8, Congress has the power to “provide a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This is the only legal basis for any and all immigration and naturalization law. The federal government has a right and obligation to protect the borders of all and every state by laws defining who may legally cross those border, how they may obtain permission to do so, and by effectively policing those border to prevent illegals from entry, its obligation also requires actual enforcement of laws. If the federal agencies created for that purpose do not, it is the obligation of states like Arizona to protect its citizens from illegals as it deems necessary. Once illegals have crossed their borders, states like Arizona have Constitutional right and obligation to make and enforce laws that protect their citizens from unwanted foreigners. As long as those laws comply with reasonable existing state and federal laws, no constitutional law could be violated.

Only federal bureaucrats, who evade their obligation to enforce existing law while waiting and working to win the votes of those illegals and their sympathizers, are the only ones violating Constitutional law.

If the Obama administration wins, Ohio will also lose the right to uphold the rule of law as well as to protect its citizens from illegals. The argument that states may still protect its citizens against crime, whether committed by illegals or not, is fallacious. It is a rare occasion that law enforcement actually protects a lawful citizen from robbery or assault. Prevention is rare. Prosecution after the fact is the norm. Arizona’s immigration law at least adds a small measure of prevention to the very misleading term “protection”.

Sources: Politico, July 7, 2010 and Arizona S.B. 1070.

Xenia Tea Party A Success for Liberty

On Saturday April 24, the first Tea Party began at 4 pm on the steps to the historic Greene County Courthouse. As historic as justice is for all within the walls of that symbolic building was the success of first local Tea Party in Greene County. It was fitting that it took place in Xenia, the seat of Greene County governance.

If memory serves, the first Tea Party held in Boston Massachusetts initiated the successful resistance to corrupt government, its many threats and usurpation to both the inherent and positive rights of our British colonial ancestors, and finally to the independent sovereign statehood as well as our national compact consisting of both social contract and divine covenant.

Xenia Tea Party was a rally for the restoration of principles upon which the sovereignty our state is secured and federal governance is limited. That is, it was a rally for the restoration of the rule of Constitutional law and of making elected representatives and unelected officials accountable to it for the good of all citizens.

Xenia Tea Party also was a platform to those seeking election to local, state, and federal offices. As a platform without due coverage by the media, ordinary citizens with extraordinary abilities and determination presented their qualifications, ideas, and/or positions on issue. Of course, everyone I heard wants to represent the rest of us in the effort to bring about real change: the restoration of strict Constitutional governance, fiscal responsibility, and personal liberty. The Tea Party also provided stump for representatives of organizations like Ohio Freedom Alliance, Ohio Open Carry rights organization, and Stop Xenia Tax, all of which are working with state and local officials to the same ends.

The candidates included John Mitchel, who is running for the U.S. House of Representatives against incumbent Steve Austria. Mitchel spoke briefly about the continued corruption of our current federal government and a pending investigation of Steve Austria. His priorities are government reform to control earmarks and spending, tax reform for fair and equitable taxing, and imposing term limits.

Scott Rupert is running for Ohio Senate. He is an independent from Northern Ohio. He represents people who value a commonsense approach to resolving societal and political issues rather than party agendas. In other words, Rupert is not a elitist who is out-of-touch with ordinary hard working people. One good reason to vote for him–he says he won’t seek to impose entitlements on us by means of trillions more in taxes and spending. In return, fewer families will likely face bankruptcy and maybe even retain more of their hard earned income.

One of the speakers not campaigning for office was Mickey Denin. In his speech entitled The United States Has Become The Nation It Rebelled Against, he made the following comments:

The colonists’ vision of limited government, taxation without representation was a problem, but so was representation without taxation—that is, voting by those who were at the mercy of the wealthy and thus easy to bribe. Colonial leaders quoted the English jurist Blackstone’s accepted view that if those “in so mean a situation as to be esteemed to have no will of their own” were given the vote, they would be tools of the powerful. Colonists discussed the right level of property qualification, one that would exclude the dependent while encouraging voting by all those with a “stake in society.

Yet in our society today we have large burdensome government, with career politicians who essentially hand pick their successors through the party system. These career politicians have figured out how to bribe the poor to earn their vote. Now nearly half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes and the only stake they have in society what they receive from society not what they contribute to society.

Maybe that is why many liberals are so intent on taking away our guns.

After his discussion about the progress of the movement in Ohio for the right to openly own and carry guns, Josh Diaz of Ohio Concealed Carry gave a rather lengthy talk on why Americans must elect representatives who will at least reduce, if not end, the tax burden imposed by all levels of government.

John Anderson is a libertarian running for Congress. He had a more detailed plan that is worthy of consideration, which can be read by going to johnandersonforcongress.com

While Anderson was the first speaker, Andy Myers of the Ohio Freedom Alliance was the last. He briefly shared the various bills the Alliance has either been passed or are in the legislative process, all of which can be seen at the Ohio Freedom Alliance website.

Not last and not least was the host of the first successful Tea Party in Xenia, Virgil Vaduva, who is also running against incumbent Alan Anderson for Greene County Commissioner. Vaduva has been proving his dedication to upholding and enforcing our laws. For instance, the election laws Xenia officials were violating. His ability to get things done is another of his abilities. For more information about him and his campaign, go to Virgil Vaduva for Greene County Commissioner.

Why Christians Should Be Politically Involved

Many followers of Jesus Christ believe political involvement violates the commission of Jesus. Liberals criticize strong conservative Christians for not sticking to the spiritual work of redeeming lost souls. They suggest that by staying out of politics right-wing Christians will better their nation. Instead, Christians should work to transform government and culture by reforming individual hearts and minds.

During this season of left-wing dominance over American politics, liberal Christians want America to believe that their views represent the best of both heaven and earth or rather the best of both the spiritual and the secular. The problem with liberals is their rejection of the underlying tenets of the gospel.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is supposed to result in a more godly view and subsequent lifestyle. By replacing the rule of God’s law with the rule of pseudo-religious secularism, liberals also reject the power of God over all aspects of life. This is the opposite goal pursued by America’s Puritan founders.

But, what is the gospel? It is often summarized as the good news about God’s offer of forgiveness for past sins based on the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Jew Jesus. His death is the divine means to the complete satisfaction of God justice. Moral crimes against the natural law of the Creator must be punished. The punishment stated in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 set the standard of punish for all sin. The prophet Ezekiel reiterated this when he said, “the soul that sins shall die.” Jesus’ apostle, Paul, expanded on this aspect of God’s law and justice in his letters to the Christians in both Rome and Galatia. As the story of Adam and Eve demonstrates, separation of right relationships, including the natural relationship with God, spouses, and alienation from others, is the essence of death.

If one thinks about it, liberals have been its champions promoting every form of death and its misery imaginable in American society and around the world for decades.

By the pain of death and by his descent into hell for the sins of others, Jesus temporarily suffered the permanent punishment for all our moral crimes against God’s law. By resurrection and ascent to throne of God, Jesus precedes those who accept God’s gracious offer as the federal head or representative. His ascent to God’s throne is also his reward because he was given the authority and legal oversight of his redeeming work, which is why Jesus is Lord over the rule redemptive justice.

The commission given by the resurrected Jesus to his Church was to make disciples of all peoples. At the very least, this commission means Christian are to represent God’s purpose and will to all people. The message of redemption and grace presented by the gospel of Jesus is that justice has been fully satisfied for one purpose only: that individuals and nations may choose eternal life under God’s rule of law.

Yes, it does mean a kind of theocracy; one based on the natural and moral laws of God. A study of the Puritan colonies and early history of state laws gives us an idea of what that would be like.

It also means laws sanctioning the restriction and punishment of immoral and unjust behaviors. In the American colonies, the enactment of such societal laws required citizens educated in the discipline of self-government. As often stated in early American literature, liberty meant the freedom to do what is right. It was the opposite of doing your own thing no matter how right it might feel.

The rule of law is a political principle rooted in the biblical law as well as natural law. Human nature as created by God is the basis for both. Both are the result of human experience with God and other humans in society. Because the gospel represents the fulfillment of the requirements of divine justice, the commission of Christians is to serve the God as ambassadors of His kingly rule. Only kings rule by law over their kingdom of citizens. Citizens are people invited by kings to enjoy the benefits of and the obligations to the King. Those who do so are citizens of good standing and those who don’t are rebels and enemies.

It should be obvious that the Creator of the universe has an unalienable right to rule over all. This is a self-evident right. If humans can do what they will with their creations, the Creator of human nature even more. That is why Darwinian evolution and its resulting atheism (or secularism) has to dominate the view of public institutions. One of the primary means to that end is the fabrication of the wall of separation of church (religion) and state by the American judicial system and its members like the ACLU. This contemporary view, however, is antithetical to the majority decisions of both the U.S. Constitutional conventions and later Congresses. In other words, federal courts and its members continually violate that First Amendment as it was originally argued and defended by eighteenth and nineteenth century Congresses.

Christians cannot separate their “religion” from their social or political involvement. They can not because it is their life. Their lives are politically ordered under the rule of God and His law. Christians are political representatives by definition of their membership in the kingdom of God under the Lordship of Jesus. Christians have no other choice other than to be politically involved. Their involvement must present the purpose and interests of God and Christ rather than their own. That must be first on their list of their priorities followed by family, nation, and self-interests.

Christian are also citizens of the nations in which they were born or now live. Although loyalty to the kingdom of God does not conflict with their being good citizens in their respective nations. Yet, genuine Christians have pledged their lives to the Kingship of God, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and to good citizenship in the divine kingdom. Allegiance to the United States or any other nation is secondary. Loyal citizenship to a secondary political entity is only a problem when a nation’s laws and policies contradicts the law and objectives of the kingdom of God. Just as Americans inherited freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly from those who had fought the arbitrary rule of unjust monarchs for centuries, Americans also have inherited the weaponry by which those rights were won. God’s law was and still is the primary legitimating sword in the fight for liberty and justice.

In his Commentaries on the Laws of England published in 1765, British jurist Sir William Blackstone succinctly summarized the prevailing view of man-made law prior to the rise of secularists in both Britain and America. He wrote:

“No human laws are of any validity if contrary to [God’s Law].” (Vol. I, p. 41)

To reiterate, loyalty to God’s kingdom does not necessarily conflict with good citizenship in America or any other nation. Conflict arises when a nation’s law and practices violate the laws of God and conflict with His objectives.

It must be concluded that American Christians are obligated as citizens and representatives of God’s kingdom as well as members of the American body politic to decisive involvement in shaping political and all other aspects of life according to the divine plan. Anything else is treason.