Treason

From the transcript of the third 2012 Presidential Debate :

SCHIEFFER: "Let -- let me ask you, Governor because we know President Obama's position on this, what is -- what is your position on the use of drones?"

ROMNEY: "Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends. But let me also note that as I said earlier, we're going to have to do more than just going after leaders and -- and killing bad guys, important as that is."

With that statement, Mitt Romney failed to make a commitment to renew hope for liberty in America.

When President George W. Bush instituted the War on Terror in 2001 and Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, the jihadists who flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers achieved their greatest victory. They had, through the use of fear, and by arousing a desire for vengeance, caused the United States to begin to devour itself.

Let me remind the reader that the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as they were passed in order of time, overrode any prior portions of the original Articles, including the powers granted to Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. That was the purpose of amending the document. Thus we have the following :

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The War on Terror, as prosecuted via the USA Patriot Act, violates in numerous places the above three Amendments, and is clearly unConstitutional in that respect. Evidences of warrantless searches and seizures, of indefinite detention without habeas corpus, of arrests based on secret testimony; all these are commonly reported in our daily news, with no resistance to the tyranny by those sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Those hired to protect have been the most egregious violators.

The Obama Drone Policy, of which Romney said, "I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends." has been used to sentence U.S citizens to death without trial. Further, the desire of the current administration to expand the use of drones worldwide against persons who are United States citizens, is an act of treason against the United States, since it gives aid to an enemy whose desire is to destroy our Constitutional protections.

Frequent mention has been made that this election is mostly about the economy. To the average voter, that is probably true, but what is also true is the undeniable fact that the collapse of our economy is inevitable. It will not matter who has won the Presidency. Whether we go forward into ruin under the policies of Obama, or in spite of the 5-point plan of Romney, whoever sits in that chair will face the responsibility for the failure.

America has, however, endured poverty before. The difference was that before, Americans enjoyed liberty under their Constitution. The poverty of free men has a much different feel than the poverty of slaves under tyranny.

It will not matter who wins this election; neither major candidate is a champion of liberty, and Americans will get the government they deserve. America has thrown away a gift from God, and the consequence will be one more chance to seek repentance on our knees.

Barack or Mitt?

I'm not at all in favor of continuing the status quo of the U.S. government. For most Americans, the choice comes down to one of two contenders, with the argument made that failure to vote for one of the two is simply a wasted electoral exercise. There are serious considerations tied to the upcoming election, and there are certain facts which need to be examined before leaping off into the ballot booth.

I. The economy. The Democrat (Socialist) Party incumbent would have us believe that all will be well if we just continue to borrow money. What is not discussed is the fact that money is a portable substitute for goods and services. If money is printed without any backing other than a promise to pay, and the people who own broken promises stop accepting them, the system propped up by that money must collapse. The challenger has offered some ideas that would slow down the breaking of the promises, but not eliminate them altogether. Further, sober number-crunching shows us that as a nation we have already passed the tipping point for economic collapse. The patient is terminally ill, and we aren't making funeral arrangements yet. When he dies, the body will get stinky in a hurry. Get ready.

2. Personal freedom. The status quo is a movement toward greater restriction and control of individuals and their liberty. The Democrat position is that might makes right; individuals must be subordinate to the will of the majority or face being beaten into subjection. The Republican (Whig) position is that the central government has the privilege of dictating uniform laws across the land; if you are not for them, you are against them, and if you are against them, you face being beaten into subjection. Not much choice of outcomes there.

Helping my mother fill out her absentee ballot the other day -- and no, I did not tell her how to vote, but simply made sure she followed the instructions for filling out the envelope -- I was made aware of the number of choices available on this election's ballot. (From the Summit County BOE website).

• Stewart Alexander/Alex Mendoza (Socialist)
• Susan E. Daniels/Jerry A. Veneskey (Write-In)
• Richard Duncan/Ricky Johnson
• Virgil Goode/Jim Clymer (Constitution)
• Gary Johnson/James P. Gray (Libertarian)
• Nelson Keyton/Jay Jennelle (Write-In)
• Barack Obama/Joe Biden (Democrat)
• Jill Reed/Tom Cary (Write-In)
• Platt Robertson/Scott Fall (Write-In)
• Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (Republican)
• Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala (Green)
• Randall A. Terry/Cathy Lewis (Write-In)
• Mike Vargo/Jeff Angeletti (Write-In)

Quite an array. We have a fairly clear idea where the Democrat and Republican candidates stand on things, but what of the others? Let's take a look.

Write-Ins & Independents. Those aren't actually write-ins; they are real ballot choices. I have no idea what they stand for. They don't seem well enough organized to actually be effective presiding over the United States.

Socialist Party : "Socialism and democracy are one and indivisible." That is their party line. Socialist Party USA. Prepare to be assimilated. Ugh.

Libertarian Party : "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." That's a nice sentiment, but, personally, I don't subscribe to it, because I know that God will bring us all into judgment. Libertarianism sounds good as long as the fine print is ignored. God ordained government to hold libertarians in check. Libertarian Party 2012 Platform. Sorry, I don't buy this.

Green Party of the United States : "We are partners with the European Federation of Green Parties and the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas." Wonderful. These folks believe government should control everything -- a sort of Anti-Libertarian party -- with the ultimate authority seemingly the UN General Assembly. 2012 Green Party Platform . Run away! Run away!

Democrat Party : "Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own." That's why Mr. Obama can say that an individual cannot succeed without government help. Democratic National Platform. If you are tempted to vote for these guys, read the platform carefully. They spend more time bashing Republicans and bragging about how they spent borrowed money than setting forward their political theory.

Republican Party : "The American Dream is a dream of equal opportunity for all. And the Republican Party is the party of opportunity." Sounds good, and the Prez/VP candidates seem to be men of good character. But … a part of their planned reforms is "…reversing the undermining of federalism…." 2012 Republican Platform . Sounds good, but not quite good enough.

Constitution Party : "The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries." Constitution Party National Platform. I guess these folks are as close to what I believe as anybody out there gets.

So what happens if I vote for Virgil Goode and Barack Obama wins the election? Maybe I should be asking what happens if Virgil Goode wins?

You see, the election is not in the hands of the people of the United States. This nation has invited the wrath of Almighty God, not through the actions of its rulers alone, but through the wanton disregard, by the people, of God's standards. It is God who sets up kings and takes them down. It was God who placed Barack Obama in Washington as a warning and punishment for America's sins.

So, unless there is wholesale repentance on the part of the people of the United States, it will not matter who sits in the White House. God will have put that person there. Despite that person's beliefs or desires, God will deal with America according to its sins. If our vaunted freedoms disappear because of our personal, everyday lifestyles, that is God's justice.

Make the best decision you can based on the facts that you have, and leave the results in God's hands. He can save, whether by few or by many.

Some Moral Implications of Capitalism

My view of motivation in life is that all of a person's actions are driven by that person's belief system. Every human, whether a devout worshipper of a deity or an atheist, is religious, because there are certain fundamental things which every person simply assumes without proof, and that is the essence of belief. Thus it is that a person's true religion will be revealed in his or her business dealings.

I am a Christian, believing in God Who created and maintains the universe (and thus by logical extension He is not a part of His universe), and Who gave to mankind a set of definitions of right and wrong contained in the Bible. God will, at some future date, judge both the righteousness and the accomplishments (two separate charges) of every person who has ever lived. The Bible assures me of the conditions for my righteousness, and instructs me as to the proper way to attain my accomplishments. For these reasons the arguments which follow may be uncomfortable for many people who do not hold the same beliefs; I can say that because they are at times uncomfortable for me as well.

The Bible begins with a story that is an allegory with respect to human nature. People had been given instruction as to what constitutes proper behavior. They had been given work to do, and were permitted to enjoy their labor and the fruits of their labor, with one restriction -- the property rights of their Creator must be respected. The desire to take what was not rightfully theirs lead to perversion of their assigned task and dissatisfaction with their gain.

That story of the Beginning is a summation of all of human economic history.

God chose one family, that of Jacob the grandson of Abraham, to hold the instructions for morally correct economic activity. Because the members of that family have more often than not followed the instructions, they have tended to prosper financially, and that prosperity has incited jealousy and persecution throughout history. Anyone wishing to know the secrets of economic propriety has only to read the Torah.

At the root level, the instructions teach that God Who created the universe is the ultimate owner and King of His creation. People are both citizens and employees of Project Earth, and the goal of the enterprise is to maximize both the size of the company workforce and its production, using the provided resources. The competition (The Adversary), on the other hand, works to thwart that goal.

Every person born is provided with some capital; each has a function within the company, and each is given, at some time and at some level, abilities, skills, and/or material goods, to invest in the project. I am of the persuasion that the gifts of The Almighty allow the individual to use the given abilities to develop skills to maximize the capital.

Because the capital is a distribution in trust from The Almighty, absolute human ownership of the capital does not exist. Each human is a steward of some portion, small or large, of the capital intended for the operation of the enterprise. Further, the hoarding of capital, whether the withdrawal of land from the production of food, the failure to use a medium of exchange to encourage work by others, or the restriction of the use of new ideas so as to prevent the profiting by others, is a breech of stewardship, thwarting the goals of Project Earth.

Capital is popularly seen as only money, but labor and ideas are equally important kinds of capital. How that capital is utilized within the micro-economic setting, whether through a free-market system or through a planned-market system, will determine its effectiveness because at the core of human nature is dissatisfaction with what we have been given (in trust) coupled with desire for that we lack. Further, the person's view as to the origin of that capital will influence his perceptions respecting ownership, stewardship, and disposition of that capital.

Maximizing the size of the company workforce and its production (which involves employee working conditions) is a basic goal of the project, so treatment of the employees is a critical concern of the owner. Thus rules were formulated -- don't steal reputations, or money, or spouses, or anything God gave to another employee for any reason. In this is seen the importance to the owner of individual workers, and the need to protect and take care of them. It is also the reason for lower, middle, and upper management, positions which God assigns and uses to govern various branches of the company (nations and kingdoms). Politics is thus a subset of economics, and war is destructive to both.

Profit is the result of attaining the goals of the company. The amount of profit is not necessarily significant to a particular work-shift since the company is a long-term operation, but profit is the goal. Jesus told several parables to illustrate that concept. Profit will result in people having more satisfying lives. Therefore, employees of Project Earth who do not invest in the company in some way (again, amount is not the critical factor) will be condemned for that failure. Extending this concept to monetary investment has encountered some resistance among those who fancy themselves morally pure, since the love of money is the root of all evil.

Profit from the loaning of capital is not wrong in itself, but when it impacts the welfare of the employees, particularly through mortgage interest on their homes, clothing, or food, it endangers the goals of the company. For this reason banking is one of those shadow activities with questionable morality. Usury involves the loaning of capital coupled with holding collateral hostage (a mortgage situation). It is described by the Bible as being evil. The collection of interest on money is not intrinsically evil, and may be legitimate where business lending is needed, but no collateral may be held. The antidote to personal mortgage lending is charitable giving; in the words of Jesus, lending without expecting to be repaid.

Investment is quite different from usury in that the purchaser of a share of an enterprise has no anticipation of a repayment except through sharing the increased profits (or losses, as that may be) of the company. If a business venture is formed through selling 1 share of stock to each of 100 investors, each investor is owner of a 1/100 share of the entire business, with the right to collectively dictate how the business is to be run, and to collect 1/100 of the business profits set aside to be paid to the owners (dividends). No individual shareholder can hold the company assets hostage as collateral. If, through the collective decisions of the shareholders, the business fails, they have no recourse, since it can be argued that the failure was a result of inattention by the shareholders to properly control the management of the work at hand. It can also be argued that the minority shareholders are not necessarily responsible for either the success or failure of the business when there is one stakeholder who controls a majority interest.

In the case of Project Earth, God is the majority shareholder, and He delights in profit-sharing with His employees. For that reason He distributes, as He sees fit, the dividends which each employee then is able to plow back into the enterprise. Dissatisfaction with the type and quantity of capital gain distributed by the King is a symptom of rebellion, but the desire to emulate the King, by donating capital to those who might in some way have less, is encouraged and rewarded by Him, often through a grant of a more diverse and profitable form of capital.

You cannot give to others that which you do not have. Profit from the investment of capital is the engine behind charitable giving. However, reliance on charitable giving to meet the needs of those who lack essentials will rarely bring about the satisfaction the recipients would prefer. If the recipients of such charity fail to find a suitable investment venue in turn, their gift will merely extend their misery. Coveting what another person has is evil, whether the covetous person has little or much. Those who have are expected (but not obligated) to share with those who have not; God will judge the adequacy of their donation. Those who receive a gift are expected to be satisfied with what the donor shares; God will judge the level of their thankfulness. Jesus implied that equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of participation; opportunity would be provided regardless the amount of capital a person would start with. Equality of results is not guaranteed.

What is the function of upper management (the government) in all this? It is to provide oversight of the conditions under which the size of the company, the amount of production, and the level of profit, can be maximized. While the ability to govern is a form of capital, management is not ownership; when management attempts to judge the actions of the shareholders, particularly with regard to disposition of the profits, it risks being replaced by new management more conducive to the desires of the owners. Management which reduces production by starving the enterprise of workers (either through reduction in actual numbers or by discouragement of inflows of new investment capital) and/or resources (by refusing to make them available) is being subversive and will be judged accordingly.

Applying these concepts to individual action leads to the conclusion that surplus capital should be invested in gainful enterprises whenever possible in order that it might be multiplied and ultimately used to provide for those whom God might direct to the individual for assistance. Again, you cannot give to others that which you do not have, and failure to invest carries greater condemnation than investing and failing.

Alas, Babylon!

When the book with the above title was published just over 50 years ago the Cold War raged; the United States was the champion of freedom and Godless Russian Communist atheism was seen as the enemy of that freedom. The worm has turned. To everything there is a time and a season. Last night was Christmas Eve in Russia : the readers of ITAR-TASS 50 years ago would have stopped their breath in wonder.
---------------

Medvedev congratulates Russian believers on Christmas
Photo ITAR-TASS

MOSCOW, January 7 (Itar-Tass) — President Dmitry Medvedev has congratulated Orthodox believers and all Russian citizens marking Christmas.

“The Christmas days give us eternal light of belief and fill us with joy and hope. This is the time of good thoughts and good deeds, care about family and unknown people who need our helping hand,” he said in his congratulatory message.

“Sharing with you the joy of this holiday I wish you health, happiness and all the best. Let the light from the Star of Bethlehem bring happiness, love and harmony to every family and prosperity to our country,” Medvedev said in his message.

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
You undertake not to copy, store in any medium (including in any other websites), distribute, transmit, re-transmit, broadcast, modify or show in public any part of the ITAR-TASS website without the prior written permission of ITAR-TASS.

---------------
We need only contrast this with the attention paid to Christmas in Washington this past December -- a tree with an Obama Ornament on it.

“12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning? and cut down to the ground, which didst cast lots upon the nations?

13 Yet thou saidest in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, and exalt my throne above beside the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the Congregation in the sides of the North.

14 I will ascend above ye height of the clouds, and I will be like the most high.

15 But thou shalt be brought down to the grave, to the sides of the pit.

16 They that see thee, shall look upon thee and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, and that did shake the kingdoms?

17 He made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof, and opened not the house of his prisoners.

18 All the Kings of the nations, even they all sleep in glory, everyone in his own house.

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch: like the raiment of those that are slain, and thrust through with a sword, which go down to the stones of the pit, as a carcass trodden under feet.

20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in the grave, because thou hast destroyed thine own land, and slain thy people: the seed of the wicked shall not be renowned forever.

21 Prepare a slaughter for his children, for the iniquity of their fathers: let them not rise up nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with enemies.

22 For I will rise up against them (saith the Lord of hosts) and will cut off from Babel the name and the remnant and the son, and the nephew, saith the Lord:

23 And I will make it a possession to ye hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts.” Isaiah 14:12-22(Geneva 1560)

Issue 2

I was asked to put together a brief explaining the reason for Issue 2. Issue 2 is a referendum on Ohio Senate Bill 5. SB 5 changed the Ohio Revised Code with regard to what was and was not permitted in bargaining between public employers (AKA “taxpayers”) and public employees. A “YES” vote is a vote to keep the changes. A “NO” vote is a vote to reject the changes.

SB 5 has been opposed by the unions. There are a number of important reasons for their opposition. New section 4113.80 prohibits discrimination in laying off employees. Section 4117.80 was changed to remove from collective bargaining certain items. New section 4117.081, which applies only to public schools, prohibits public schools from bargaining with unions over certain workplace rules, fixes at 85% the maximum amount the public might be required to pay for public school employee health care insurance premiums, and specifically exempts personal safety equipment from the prohibition. Section 4117.09 was changed to prohibit requiring non-union public employees to pay union dues, or to require union membership. Section 4117.26 was added to define public employee compensation as anything of value given to the employee in exchange for service.

While most private employees would see these changes as making public employee pay and benefits conform to the “real world”, the requirements that teachers agree individually in writing to pay union dues is rightly viewed as a major attack on union power. The unions have resorted to lies about what the bill contains, and many of the people who say they are opposed have simply been mislead or are otherwise ill-informed. Few of the opponents of Issue 2 will flatly admit that it challenges the feathering of their own nests.

The Official Argument and Explanation for Issue 2 (one page) can be found on the Ohio Secretary of State’s website. A synopsis of the critical changes follows; text in red has been added to (underlined) or deleted from (struck through) the existing ORC.



Sec. 4113.80. (A) As used in this section, "public employer" means the state or any agency or instrumentality of the state, and any municipal corporation, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision or any agency or instrumentality of a municipal corporation, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision.
    (B) "Age," "ancestry," "color," "disability," "military status," "national origin," "race," "religion," and "sex" have the same meanings and shall be construed in the same manner as in Chapter 4112. of the Revised Code.
    (C) When determining whether to lay off an employee as part of a reduction in force, a public employer shall not consider the race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of the employee in violation of Chapter 4112. of the Revised Code or any applicable federal law.

Sec. 4117.08. (A) All matters pertaining to wages, hours, or and terms and other conditions of employment and the continuation, modification, or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement are subject to collective bargaining between the public employer and the exclusive representative, except as otherwise specified in this section and division (E) of section 4117.03 4117.081 of the Revised Code. Any existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement that was modified, renewed, or extended from a prior collective bargaining agreement that does not concern wages, hours, and terms and conditions shall not be a mandatory subject of collective bargaining and shall not be subject to any impasse procedure without the mutual agreement of both the public employer and exclusive representative. The inclusion of a provision in a previous collective bargaining agreement shall not be used as a basis for the provision being determined to concern wages, hours, and terms and conditions.
    (B) The following subjects are not appropriate subjects for collective bargaining:
    (1) The conduct and grading of civil service examinations, the rating of candidates, the establishment of eligible lists from the examinations, and the original appointments from the eligible lists are not appropriate subjects for collective bargaining;
    (2) Health care benefits, except that, subject to division (E) of this section, the amount of the cost of those benefits for which a public employer and the public employees of the public employer pays is an appropriate subject of collective bargaining;
    (3) The payment of a contribution by a public employer to the public employees retirement system, the Ohio police and fire pension fund, the state teachers retirement system, the state highway patrol retirement system, or the school employees retirement system on behalf of an employee, contributor, or teacher, as applicable, that the employee, contributor, or teacher otherwise is required to pay;
    (4) The privatization of a public employer's services or contracting out of the public employer's work;
    (5) The number of employees required to be on duty or employed in any department, division, or facility of a public employer.
    (C) Unless a public employer specifically agrees otherwise in an express written provision of a collective bargaining agreement, nothing in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code impairs the right and responsibility of each public employer to:
    (1) Determine matters of inherent managerial policy which include, but are not limited to areas of discretion or policy such as the functions and programs of the public employer, standards of services, its overall budget, utilization of technology, and organizational structure;
    (2) Direct, supervise, evaluate, or hire employees;
    (3) Maintain and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations;
    (4) Determine the overall methods, process, means, or personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted;
    (5) Suspend, discipline, demote, or discharge for just cause, or lay off, transfer, assign, schedule, promote, or retain employees;
    (6) Determine the adequacy of the work force;
    (7) Determine the overall mission of the employer as a unit of government;
    (8) Effectively manage the work force;
    (9) Take actions to carry out the mission of the public employer as a governmental unit Hire, discharge, transfer, suspend, or discipline employees;
    (2) Determine the number of persons required to be employed or laid off;
    (3) Determine the qualifications of employees;
    (4) Determine the starting and quitting time and the number of hours to be worked by its employees;
    (5) Make any and all reasonable rules and regulations;
    (6) Determine the work assignments of its employees;
    (7) Determine the basis for selection, retention, and promotion of employees;
    (8) Determine the type of equipment used and the sequence of work processes, except as provided in division (F) of this section;
    (9) Determine the making of technological alterations by revising either process or equipment or both, except as provided in division (F) of this section;
    (10) Determine work standards and the quality and quantity of work to be produced;
    (11) Select and locate buildings and other facilities;
    (12) Establish, expand, transfer, or consolidate work processes and facilities;
    (13) Transfer or subcontract work;
    (14) Consolidate, merge, or otherwise transfer any or all of its facilities, property processes, or work with or to any other municipal corporation or entity or effect or change in any respect the legal status, management, or responsibility of such property, facilities, processes, or work;
    (15) Terminate or eliminate all or any part of its work or facilities.
    The employer is not required to bargain on subjects reserved to the management and direction of the governmental unit except as affect wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment, and the continuation, modification, or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement. A public employee or exclusive representative may raise a legitimate complaint or file a grievance based only on the violation of the express written provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.
    (D) During negotiations between a public employer and an exclusive representative, the parties shall consider, for purposes of determining the ability of the public employer to pay for any terms agreed to during collective bargaining, only the financial status of the public employer at the time period surrounding the negotiations. When determining whether the employer can pay for those terms, the parties shall consider the employer's inability to pay. The parties shall not consider either of the following when determining the ability of the public employer to pay for those terms:
    (1) Any potential future increase in the income of the public employer that would only be possible by the employer raising revenue, including, but not limited to, passing a levy or a bond issue;
    (2) The employer's ability to sell assets.
    (E) The provision of health care benefits for which the employer is required to pay more than eighty-five per cent of the cost is not an appropriate subject for collective bargaining. No public employer shall agree to a provision that requires the public employer to pay more than eighty-five per cent of the cost paid for health care benefits.
    (F) Notwithstanding division (C) of this section, equipment issues directly related to personal safety are subject to collective bargaining.

Sec. 4117.081. (A) This section applies only to school districts, educational service centers, certain conversion community schools established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, and STEM schools established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code.
    (B) No public employer to which this section applies shall enter into a collective bargaining agreement on or after the effective date of this section that does any of the following:
    (1) Requires the public employer to employ a minimum number of total personnel or any category of personnel;
    (2) Restricts the authority of the public employer or a district or service center superintendent to assign personnel to school buildings or restricts the authority of a building principal to designate the responsibilities and workloads of personnel assigned to the building;
    (3) Establishes a maximum number of students who may be assigned to a classroom or teacher;
    (4) Prohibits the public employer from making reductions in teachers or nonteaching employees for any applicable reason specified in division (B) of section 124.321 or section 3319.17 or 3319.172 of the Revised Code or in a policy adopted under section 3319.171 of the Revised Code;
    (5) Restricts the authority of the public employer, when making personnel reductions, to determine the order of layoffs;
    (6) Restricts the authority of the public employer to acquire noneducational services from another public or private entity through competitive bidding;
    (7) Restricts the authority of the public employer to acquire any products, programs, or services pursuant to section 3313.841, 3313.842, 3313.843, or 3313.845 of the Revised Code;
    (8) Otherwise relinquishes, impairs, or restricts the managerial rights and responsibilities of the public employer described in division (C) of section 4117.08 of the Revised Code.
    (C)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(2) of this section, each collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this section between a public employer to which this section applies and its employees shall comply with all applicable state or local laws or ordinances regarding wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of public employees.
    (2) A collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this section may include a provision that conflicts with an applicable law or ordinance, if the provision establishes benefits that are less than the benefits conferred by the law or ordinance and division (A) of section 4117.10 of the Revised Code does not require that the law or ordinance prevail over the conflicting provision. Any provision of the agreement that conflicts with an applicable law or ordinance and does not meet these requirements shall be void.
    (D) Notwithstanding division (A)(5) of section 4117.11 of the Revised Code, a public employer to which this section applies is not required to, and may refuse to, collectively bargain on the continuation, modification, or termination of a provision of an existing collective bargaining agreement.

Sec. 4117.09. (A) The parties to any collective bargaining agreement shall reduce the agreement to writing and both execute it.
    (B) The agreement shall contain a provision that:
    (1) Provides for a grievance procedure which may culminate with final and binding arbitration of unresolved grievances, and that are based on the disputed interpretations of the express written provisions of the agreements, and which is valid and enforceable under its terms when entered into in accordance with this chapter. No publication thereof is required to make it effective. A party to the agreement may bring suits for violation of agreements or the enforcement of an award by an arbitrator in the court of common pleas of any county wherein a party resides or transacts business.
    (2) Authorizes the public employer to deduct the periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments of members of the exclusive representative upon presentation of a written deduction authorization by the employee so long as the employee organization has filed and maintained its financial report outlining the organization's expenditures.
    (C) The No agreement may contain a provision that requires as a condition of employment, on or after a mutually agreed upon probationary period or sixty days following the beginning of employment, whichever is less, or the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement, whichever is later, that the employees in the unit who are not members of the employee organization pay to the employee organization a fair share fee. The arrangement does not require any employee to become a member of the employee organization, nor shall fair share fees exceed dues paid by members of the employee organization who are in the same bargaining unit. Any public employee organization representing public employees pursuant to this chapter shall prescribe an internal procedure to determine a rebate, if any, for nonmembers which conforms to federal law, provided a nonmember makes a timely demand on the employee organization. Absent arbitrary and capricious action, such determination is conclusive on the parties except that a challenge to the determination may be filed with the state employment relations board within thirty days of the determination date specifying the arbitrary or capricious nature of the determination and the board shall review the rebate determination and decide whether it was arbitrary or capricious. The deduction of a fair share fee by the public employer from the payroll check of the employee and its payment to the employee organization is automatic and does not require the written authorization of the employee. The internal rebate procedure shall provide for a rebate of expenditures in support of partisan politics or ideological causes not germaine to the work of employee organizations in the realm of collective bargaining. Any public employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets or teachings of a bona fide religion or religious body which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization and which is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code shall not be required to join or financially support any employee organization as a condition of employment. Upon submission of proper proof of religious conviction to the board, the board shall declare the employee exempt from becoming a member of or financially supporting an employee organization. The employee shall be required, in lieu of the fair share fee, to pay an amount of money equal to the fair share fee to a nonreligious charitable fund exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code mutually agreed upon by the employee and the representative of the employee organization to which the employee would otherwise be required to pay the fair share fee. The employee shall furnish to the employee organization written receipts evidencing such payment, and failure to make the payment or furnish the receipts shall subject the employee to the same sanctions as would nonpayment of dues under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
    No public employer shall agree to a provision requiring that a public employee become a member of an employee organization as a condition for securing or retaining employment. Any agreement that purports to require that employees join any exclusive representative is void and unenforceable.
    No public employer shall agree to a provision that provides for the payroll deduction for any contributions to a political action committee using any other method than the method prescribed in sections 3517.082, 3517.09, and 3599.031 of the Revised Code.
    (D) As used in this division, "teacher" means any employee of a school district certified to teach in the public schools of this state.
    The agreement may contain a provision that provides for a peer review plan under which teachers in a bargaining unit or representatives of an employee organization representing teachers may, for other teachers of the same bargaining unit or teachers whom the employee organization represents, participate in assisting, instructing, reviewing, evaluating, or appraising and make recommendations or participate in decisions with respect to the retention, discharge, renewal, or nonrenewal of, the teachers covered by a peer review plan.
    The participation of teachers or their employee organization representative in a peer review plan permitted under this division shall not be construed as an unfair labor practice under this chapter or as a violation of any other provision of law or rule adopted pursuant thereto.
    (E) No agreement shall contain an expiration date that is later than three years from the date of execution. The parties may extend any agreement, but the extensions do not affect the expiration date of the original agreement.
    (F) No public employer shall agree to a provision that requires the public employer, when a reduction in force is necessary, to use an employee's length of service as the only factor to determine whether to lay off the employee.


Sec. 4117.26. (A) As used in this section, "compensation" means wages, salary, and other earnings paid to a public employee by reason of employment. "Compensation" includes all of the following that are provided by a public employer to a public employee:
    (1) Allowances for food or drink;
    (2) Allowances or stipends for clothing;
    (3) Compensation in addition to base salary for labor performed or services rendered by the public employee, including any additional compensation paid for attending an event that occurs outside the public employee's normal work schedule;
    (4) Payments for length of service;
    (5) Allowances for dry cleaning services;
    (6) Insurance coverage, including health insurance, vision insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, or life insurance;
    (7) Anything of value given to a public employee by a public employer for labor performed or services rendered by the public employee that is not generally offered to any of the public employer's employees that are not subject to a collective bargaining agreement, unless they are de minimis.

Hands Off Libya!

In the 2000 Presidential election, I voted for George W. Bush. At the top of the list of reasons was his statement in the campaign that his hero was Jesus Christ. Such a statement, in the political climate of the time, was a bold and brave position -- it bespoke personal courage. A second reason was his avowed fiscal proposals which closely approximated my own, such as allowing private citizens to partially control their Social Security accounts, in short, granting them true ownership of their retirement funds rather than having the government hold those funds in trust. A third reason was his position on the role of the United States as a "nation-builder" -- he stated in his campaign that such activity had to come to a stop.

That last reason was one which I greatly cheered. I have always respected George Washington's view that the United States should avoid foreign entanglements. The Federal government was intended to provide a mechanism for the sovereign States to

"insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the[ir] common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

It was not intended as a proxy for them to wage war on other governments. I had hoped that Mr. Bush would pursue a course away from the use of American military might in an offensive capacity, particularly those actions which advanced the political will of other foreign powers. The toadying of Mr. Clinton to the European Union in countering the efforts made by an American ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism had been particularly disappointing.

The post-9/11 response of the United States was, to me, a missed opportunity. Rather than turning our gaze upon ourselves and seeking the guidance of God to react in a manner that would starkly contrast the position of a nation based on Christian principles as opposed to terrorists with Islamic principles, we sank to their level. Rather than turning to God Almighty as our protector and avenger, we, as a nation, directly disobeyed His command to not seek revenge on our own.

True, we wreaked revenge on the Taliban in Afghanistan for their support of terrorists. Nevertheless, the Taliban were not destroyed, and when American policy shifted, from winning the hearts of the people by helping them, to the surge of combat forced by those who had fixated on destroying bin Laden, we undid all the good which we had previously boasted. We are in a no-win situation in that country, desperately seeking a way out.

True, we removed Saddam Hussein from power, but into the vacuum moved more Islamic radicals, particularly those allied with the Iranian regime. Our troops are moving out of Iraq, and the "democracy" that we supposedly instituted there will quickly increase the power of the Shiite mullahs as soon as our troops are gone. However, as with all democracies, the rights and freedoms of individual Iraqis will be curtailed in favor of the will of the heathen mob.

Currently, there is pressure on the United States to "do something" militarily to intervene on behalf of the anti-government forces in Libya. The reasons given are that a number of U.S. nationals are unable to get out of that country and may be endangered by the fighting, and, besides, the oil must be kept flowing. There is also pressure on the United States to "do something" about the pirates operating out of bases in Somalia. The instant another "hot spot" develops, pressure will rise for the United States to "do something" militarily to resolve the problem. Of course, the moment any such "something" is done, our nation will be vigorously condemned by the most vocal of our enemies, and weakened by having disobeyed God.

The United States was not "built" by some other nation intervening in the affairs of the States. Our Constitution was not forced upon us by a cabal of other nations that wanted to see us free. Our liberties have been dribbled away by decades of voters apathetic to the basic problems we face, but they were gained through the mortal sacrifice of thousands of citizens who wanted to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Until the peoples of other lands have that same drive and zeal, no amount of American military might can make and keep them free. We are stupid to waste our resources chasing dreams induced by the drug called pride.

What should our response be to the violence in Libya? I would say, stay out of it. U.S. military intervention will not win us any lasting friends, and in the end will not serve any national security purpose since a "democratically" elected government there will have the same attitude toward us as that of the Afghans and Iraqis. Besides, anyone caught up in the chaos in Libya was probably there mainly to assist those who oppose American policy; there were few other reasons for American nationals to be in a country which was antagonistic toward us. Let the Libyans sort it out themselves. It is the only way they will gain any lasting appreciation for their freedom once they grasp it. If American nationals want to privately take sides in the fighting over there [shades of the Spanish Civil War?], let them, but do not spend any effort to extract them when the going gets tough. Also, any attempts to prosecute that warfare on American soil should be dealt with as an ordinary crime; "freedom fighters" carrying the war to America are simply terrorists of a different stripe.

What of the Somali pirates? Our navy was created to protect American shipping, but it has no business doing the dirty work for other nations. The Constitution has the solution embedded in Article 1, Section 7 :

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".

All Congress has to do is resolve that the pirates are a menace, and then start issuing hunting licenses. The sinking or recapture of the vessels used by the pirates as "mother ships" would soon make the pirates more cautious as to who they might attack, and the ability to sell the prizes would attract both investors and privateer sailors.

Our military personnel are too valuable to be used as a sop to foreign powers that want us to solve their problems for them. Under strict interpretation of the Constitution, they were intended only for defense. To the Founders, the concept of a standing army was distasteful (note the 2-year limitation on military appropriations in Article 1, Section 7); the army of King George had been a primary aggravation to the signers of the Declaration. The Constitution was a compact between the States, and the chief reliance was to be upon the Militia (again note Section 7) --

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".

That would imply use only within the borders of our own country. The need to impose command structure on the varied elements pushed the Congress to further institutionalize the military, and with that extension of control by Congress, the tasking of our military became a political problem.

It is high time to carefully disengage our troops from overseas combat and retask them to true national defense. It is high time to cease meddling in the internal power struggles of other nations and allow them to gain their own liberty with self-respect. We have no business building other nations.

n.b. There are those who immediately raise the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act as objections, but those laws permit use of the military for law enforcement if so authorized by Congress. The defense of our own borders does not require any change in our current laws, rather, it simply requires the will of Congress to do something. While the President serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, his dereliction of duty in the face of a Congressional declaration would be an act of treason. In any event, upon the President's failure to act, or the failure of Congress to act, the command of the Militia (as contrasted to the National Guard, which is part of the Army) devolves to the governor in most States.

Sick Semper Tyrannosaurus

What is this plot by the British to control free speech in the United States? Undoubtedly the American media is too busy with election results to post the following:

White House Must Shut Down Hate Videos on You Tube

In it, we read that, "Baroness Neville-Jones, the security minister, called on President Barack Obama's administration to 'take down this hateful material' in cases where servers were based in the US. She said websites that 'incite cold-blooded murder' would 'categorically not be allowed in the UK'". As well, we read, "The Home Office confirmed yesterday that pressure was being put on the White House to remove the sermons. A spokesman for the US State Department would say only that it had 'significant legal authorities' to act 'where activities on the internet pose a clear threat to the public'".

Two hundred thirty some years ago 13 colonial legislatures and their armies rejected the things that would not be allowed in the UK.

Once upon a time, in a newly formed nation that styled itself The United States of America, the representatives of the people put forward a Constitution that was designed to prevent the government from having power over the people. One of the first things the young nation did was reinforce the chains on government by instituting a law that Congress -- the only authority in the United States which could legitimately pass rules for all the people of all the States -- "shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …"

Freedom is at best an uncomfortable luxury. It requires the exercise of responsibility, both personal and communal. A free people must practice self control, and self denial, of desires to force others to view thoughts, expressions, and events in the same manner as does the majority. Personal freedom is the antithesis of democracy.

In the desire to be comfortable we, as a nation, have sunk to pitiful degradation of our liberties in that we commonly discuss what are viewed as necessary restrictions on speech. Congress has seen fit to put limits on political speech through "campaign finance reform", and on unpleasant -- perhaps humiliating or aggravating or frightening to the hearers -- speech through "regulation of hate speech". Let it be remembered that no man is free unless all are free; free to believe and express their beliefs freely no matter how offensive the expression.

The only legitimate limitation we have historically placed on the freedom of expression is the requirement that each person be responsible for his or her actions. In the Christian tradition, each individual makes the decision to carry out a good or an evil deed. "The Devil made me do it" is not a valid defense before the Judgement Seat of God, and was never held to be a valid defense by our Founding Fathers. The Paganization of America has brought us to the point where it is acceptable to think that someone or something else is responsible for a person's lack of self control.

If indeed a "spokesman for the US State Department would say only that it had 'significant legal authorities' to act 'where activities on the internet pose a clear threat to the public'", then that spokesman has committed treason against the Constitution of the United States by giving them "Aid and Comfort" (Article 4, Section 3) and needs to be punished by Congress as stated in that section. No such "significant legal authorities" exist in our Constitution.

The mutterings and screechings of Al Quaeda may be incitement to mayhem when weak-minded people listen to them. The British Members of Parliament, however, have every power under their own laws to cut off access to You Tube in Great Britain. That they are too cowardly to do so against the wishes of their constituencies is no reason for the government of the United States to violate its own charter of legitimacy.

Amendment One

Congress shall make no law

• respecting an establishment of religion,
• or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
• or abridging the freedom of speech,
• or of the press;
• or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
• and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is unique. No other nation limits the powers of its government to regulate the free expression of the people to such an extent. People refer to this amendment's provisions as the rights to freedom of the press, and of speech, but the broader implications of this restriction on Congress are often overlooked.

The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect the rights of the people and the States from encroachment by the Union. The oft cited letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists provides a window into the thinking of the Founding Fathers.

The fear of repression by the State of minor sects was expressed by the Danbury Baptists thusly [emphasis is mine]:

"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. " (Danbury Baptist Association, 10-7-1801)

To which Jefferson replied,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (T. Jefferson, 1-1-1802, Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists).

Note that Jefferson's comment about "separation between Church & State" is an afterthought to his insistence that government should not interfere in the rights of the people to express themselves, and is not a restriction on those rights, as was asserted by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States (1878). [For an interesting discussion, see A Wall of Separation].

As to social duties, he wrote, "Every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. His position appears to be that the natural rights of man, those freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, make the accomplishing of the social duties possible.

The Founders were well aware of the history of abuses by government toward religious observance, and specifically included the ban on prohibiting the free exercise of religious faith. Many of the European immigrants to the United States have made their pilgrimage because they suffered persecution by the "State Church", or officially recognized religious sect, of their homeland. The nation of Switzerland, vaunted as a pioneer in "democracy", is still a prime example of a European nation which boasts of religious freedom, but which taxes its citizens to subsidize the three recognized major sects.

In the early 1800's, S. H. Frohlich, a Swiss anabaptist leader who suffered intense persecution by the official State church, wrote his treatise Matrimony According to the Word of God. In it he explained why government has no business regulating marriage; while he probably never read Jefferson's writings, he would have undoubtedly agreed with Jefferson's position respecting the First Amendment to our Constitution.

One of the great dangers of democracy is the tendency of a majority to tyrannize a minority, especially in regard to belief systems and practices. The Constitution of the United States thus is specific about protecting personal expression from government. It is for this reason that I oppose all legislation that attempts to criminalize speech, whether in the form of "hate speech", or restrictions on personal opinion in political campaigns. Such legislation clearly violates the First Amendment. I stand with Jefferson in the sentiment, that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions".

Uncle Samson

The story of Samson is not just a historical tale, but is a parable for students of human nature. If you recall, Samson was a hero of faith, chosen by God from before birth to guide and protect his fellow citizens. Because he was the biggest and baddest dude in town, he took advantage of his natural abilities and lived life to the full. His tale is full of fabulous escapades; he was the unstoppable hero of his day.

Enter Delilah. Samson knew she worked for the Philistines, and he delighted in toying with the danger. He was God's man, even when he didn't act like it. He knew in his heart that he was unstoppable, because no matter how dim the prospects, Samson had always won in the end.

Eventually Samson told Delilah his secret. He no longer took seriously the special calling he had from God. While he slept on her knees, she shaved his head. Then she did what she had done several times before -- she woke him with the news that he was under attack.

Samson jumped up, ready to do his hero thing once again. The story tells us, "He didn't realize that the gift from the LORD had been withdrawn." [Yes, I know that's a loose paraphrase, but so is my whole telling of the tale.] His enemies poked out his eyes, and put him to work as a slave.

The Founding Fathers, though they differed among themselves in exactly what they believed, all had a staunch faith that God (or as some of them put it, following the pattern of John Calvin, Divine Providence) had taken an interest in their fledgling country. He had brought it through the War for Independence, and in their minds, had commissioned them to launch a Union with a backbone of law -- a Republic, with equal justice under the law, and chains upon the government to keep it from eating the peoples' freedoms.

Over 200 years have passed since that Union was launched with ratification of the Constitution by the first 9 States. The Union has grown to 50, and the Constitution has been amended 27 times. Some of the amendments -- the first 10, and numbers 13-15, 19 and 26, have clarified the rights of individuals under the law. Some, like the 16th and 17th, which permitted the imposition of taxes on individuals and made possible the control of elections by national political parties, have had serious unintended consequences.

Like Samson, Uncle Sam has grown careless about his special calling. Our Congress has flirted with an attractive prostitute, the foreign investors on whom it has relied to finance living life to the full. The people trusted Congress with the national credit card, and Congress has run up the bill so high that it cannot be paid in our lifetimes, nor in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren. It has mortgaged us to the tune of $12,400,000,000,000 -- yes, 12.4 million million dollars -- and is at this moment considering raising its credit limit another 1.9 million million dollars.

The interest alone, paid on T-bills in the first 3 months of fiscal year 2010, was $145,000,000,000. As the risk of our default rises (we are spending much faster than we are taking in tax dollars), the interest rate demanded by our foreign creditors must rise. Our spending, except for national defense, and maintenance of our obligations to our Social Security system, must be frozen in order to avoid financial catastrophe, slavery, and war.

There are those who believe that Uncle Sam can simply wake up, and like Samson, say, "I will go out as at other times before, and find a way out of this mess." They do not realize the depth of the problem. Like Samson, they refuse to face the reality that because of our lack of good stewardship, the gift from the LORD has been withdrawn.

There are those who think that our current situation is similar to that which was faced in the Great Depression. They are wrong. In the Great Depression, we were our own creditors. In this Super Depression, we owe our mortgage to the Chinese and other foreign creditors.

In the very near future, life in America will change drastically. As a Union, we may or may not survive. Will we trade California, or Alaska, or the Pacific Northwest, to escape our mortgage and avoid war with China? On our present course, we cannot pay what we owe. Historically, the Masters of China have shown no compunction when it comes to enslaving hundreds of millions of their own citizens, or even killing tens of millions at a time.

We cannot go back to what used to be, and we have never gone this way before. God is calling America to repentance. Will we return to following our Constitution, or will we sleep in the lap of our Delilah until the Philistines are at the door?

Diagramming the 2nd

Joonyah says that the problem with liberals is that they have forgotten their Basic English. He has submitted this example, which you will never see in a public school :

I think it would make a neat T-shirt, but woe to the child who wears it to English class.

For those who have forgotten, the diagram clearly points out that the militia is

1. necessary to the security of a free state, is
2. defined as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and
3. cannot be infringed by Congress.

Since the 2nd Amendment was passed subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution by the original 9 States, it clearly supersedes the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and the prohibition with respect to troops in Article 1, Section 10.

Regarding Roe v. Wade

It is not possible to know in advance what sorts of legislative challenges will face the Congress in 2011 and forward, and therefore to set out numerous specific promises of action risks opening the door to the disappointment of the voters who anticipate a given set of behaviors.

My position with respect to the Constitution is this : at the age of 17, and several times thereafter, I gave my word that I would uphold that document and defend it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I intend to stay true to my word. There are those who claim that the Constitution is a document which must be interpreted in view of changing times, but I strongly disagree, for the freedoms from government oppression outlined in that document can only change if the definition of freedom itself is altered.

I have outlined in brief a number of points which I will endeavor to uphold. Some of those may be subject to minor flexibility, since I do not claim to have already formulated the optimal solutions to all problems facing the United States. I fully intend to faithfully represent those who will have chosen me to represent their interests, and I expect that at times they and I will have differences of opinion; should I be in opposition to the desires of a majority of my constituents, they may expect a strong personal protest before I carry out their wishes against my own judgment.

There are, however, several positions upon which I intend to stand resolute regardless the desires of the majority of those whom I represent. These are the protection of the unborn, the end of deficit spending by the United States, and the right of the people to know in advance what their representatives are deciding for them.

I will not vote for any legislation which includes Federal funding for abortions. It is my belief that life begins at conception, and, that once begun, a life should not be ended by men without conviction of a capital crime under due process of law. That is a religious and moral belief, and runs counter to the religious belief utilized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade when it arbitrarily decided that life begins for the unborn some 55 days after conception.

In deciding that case, the Court stated,

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

Then, rejecting the implications of personhood 'within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment', the majority of the Court proclaimed,

"...the word 'person', as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

To which Justice Rehnquist rebutted in his dissent,

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and 'has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.'

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

The majority of the Court, however, preferred to abandon the republican guarantees of legal impartiality for the democratic dogma that the few must obey the many, and that might makes right, claiming,

"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes 'viable', that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."
...
"In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."
...
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling point', in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth."
...
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Based on the Court's own decision and the advances that have occurred in medical practice in the 37+ years that have passed since the decision, it has been the fault of the State legislatures and attorneys general that no new legislation protecting the unborn from murder has been passed and successfully withstood court challenge. With the ability of science to bring an unborn child to term outside the womb, and the relatively rare occasion when physicians cannot rescue both mother and child in the event of complications, the day will soon arrive (if it is not already here) when the State may, meeting the requirements of the Roe v. Wade decision, proscribe abortion at any stage of development of the child "except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

The Court's position of continued support for Roe v. Wade is strangely paralleled with that of the Catholic Church v. Galileo; when the Law attempts to regulate scientific or technological matters, it invariably ends up looking foolish.

In any event, the Court has held that it is the responsibility of the States and not the Congress to regulate abortion. I will not support any legislation which takes from the States that responsibility, and I will absolutely not support any Federal funding for abortion.

31

This week has been hectic (do I hear an echo?), with a push to finish some of my work, Work Night at church, and tonight, company for dinner. Thankfully, there are some dedicated volunteers out there doing my job for me. That is why the numbers are increasing.

The problem of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio.

A major hindrance to getting petition signatures on nominating petitions is fulfilling the signature requirements sections of the ORC. From the 2010 Candidate Guide, for US Representative (p5) :

Signature Requirements (R.C. 3513.05, 3513.257):

1. Major party candidates: 50 signatures
2. Minor party candidates: 25 signatures
3. Independent candidates: Based on the number of votes cast in the
congressional district in the last general election for governor:

Number of votes cast:	Number of signatures:
Fewer than 5,000	25, or a number equal to 5 percent of the vote (whichever is less)
5,000 or more	1 percent of vote

and (p19) :

Petitions for a candidate for party nomination must be signed and circulated by persons who are members of the same political party as the candidate. (R.C. 3513.05)

What we are finding frustrating in a small way is the number of people who agree with my positions, but who were disillusioned by the choices they had in previous primaries and opted to vote an issues-only ballot in those elections. By doing so, they de-registered themselves from any party affiliation, and they are not eligible to sign a party petition.

This is reasonable, since the parties themselves exist for their own benefit, and it would be ridiculous to allow people who did not share the same platform viewpoints to take part in choosing the candidates for the election. Open primaries may seem like a very egalitarian thing, but the party primary system was designed as a way for large groups of like-minded people -- the parties -- to make decisions among themselves. The decision-making process would be corrupted by including people who might have a vested interest in weakening the party's position.

Nevertheless, Ohio law needs to be amended to enfranchise those who wish to be able to have input at the base level of politics. There should be no difference in the requirements for major party, minor party, or independent candidates. This would allow presentation at the time of the general election of a slate of candidates that would cover a wide range of position options. The resistance to such a plan comes from the parties themselves, because their power to control the electoral process would be diluted by such an open arrangement.

Impetus for change will not come from the Legislature, since it is dominated by the Republican and Democrat Parties. Change will only come from an initiative by the people, and working groups to produce such initiatives should be started, using blogging sites as 21st Century "taverns" for modern patriots to gather in, for discussion and refining of the process.

Makin' yer mark

It has been a hectic week, but the petition signing is under way. Between wrapping up a work project, and the death and funeral of Carl Demiter, there was no time to spend on the petitions.

It would be possible to get the entire 50 signature complement from one ward in Norton, but hopefully we can get signatures from other areas as well. It would be nice to be able to file by the end of this next week.

Have to be careful what I write here from now on, lest I run afoul of McCain-Feingold. There are too many laws designed to keep power out of the hands of the people.

Stai tooned.