Issue 1 Could Bankrupt Ohio

Of the issues on May’s primary ballot, the most distressing is Issue 1, the so-called Ohio Third Frontier. No matter how you look at it, it just doesn’t make financial sense.

The idea, so the folks who back it say, is to create an atmosphere for economic growth in Ohio, and heaven knows we need whatever economic growth we can generate. Growth is the word here, and government spending never, I repeat never, generates any economic growth. If anything, government spending creates economic depression. Combined with government regulation and direction of the economy, government spending always ends in economic disaster. Always.

Issue 1 will allow the State of Ohio to issue bonds in the amount of 700 million dollars to support the start of small businesses. Sounds like a great idea until you look at it.

Problem one is that the money is to be raised in the form of bonds. Selling of bonds produces money which must be paid back to the lender. Did you get the words “must be paid back”? With the state already a billion dollars in debt, high unemployment, tax revenues down, businesses leaving the state, and the federal government on the verge of going broke, why would anybody in government want to increase the debt by 70-percent?

Problem two is that people in government don’t understand economics and finance, and that applies from the municipal level all the way to the top. The idea that government has the ability to create income producing jobs is just a hiccup short of total idiocy. The government, without a doubt, can create jobs, but the jobs government creates are not economically productive. No government job ever created produced anything but expense. To pay the expense of government created jobs, government taxes the working public. Taxes decrease investment which ultimately decreases employment.

Problem three is that government has no idea how to pay back the principle and interest on the $700,000,000. Ohio’s economic problem is not only that of Ohio, but that of the United States as well. The debt incurred by the Ohio government is so already large, a billion dollars, that adding more borrowed money to it will make it impossible to pay those bonds off because of an eroding tax base. Help from the federal government will not be forthcoming as the United States government has a financial debt now which will only become worse and is driving the country into bankruptcy. If you think that can’t happen, take a look at Greece. Once a great nation, Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy, and frankly, their bankruptcy can destroy the world economy.

Problem four is the total lack of imagination and sense of reality on the part of government, in this case, the State of Ohio. Making of loans, grants, whatever you choose, will not better the State’s economy. Only increased business and increased employment, along with decreased government spending at all levels, will pull this economic crisis out of the fire. Ironically, to increase tax revenues at all government levels, government must lower business and personal taxes. Decreasing the cost of doing business by lower tax rates, will increase return on investment and in turn increase production. Increased production will create more jobs. More jobs will create more consumer purchasing power resulting in more sales. More sales create more profit for everybody.

So what do lower tax rates have to do with increased tax revenue? Say a business has a profit of $100,000 a year. With a 15-percent tax rate it pays $15,000 in taxes a year. If such a business, with a lower tax rate of 10-percent, increased sales by 50-percent, increasing profit to $150,000 a year, that business would still pay $15,000 in taxes, but the side effects would be staggering. Increased sales require increased production, which requires more raw materials, which would require increased employment, which would require…well, you get the idea, all of which raises the tax base and hence increases tax revenue. The end result is more money for investment in, and improvements to, the business.

What government doesn’t understand is that investment in business is based on profit. Business won’t go where there are high tax and labor costs. Don’t believe it? Look at current production in the United States, once the world’s greatest manufacturer, and compare it with countries such as China, India, Japan, Taiwan, and others. Business goes where the best return on invested money can be realized. And that certainly is not in Ohio.

Issue 1 on this May 4’s ballot will not help manufacturing and business. Realize that its passage will add seven hundred million dollars to the state debt for a project, Ohio Third Frontier, which as been in place since Taft was governor and has consistently failed to alleviate the business loss and unemployment which has plagued Ohio for years. A yes vote on Issue 1 will accomplish one thing, an increased deficit in the state budget.

Vote No on Issue 1.

New Philadelphia Clever Airport Project To Be Discussed

At last night's City Council, Darrin Lautenschleger, Public Works Committee Chairman, announced a meeting of his committee on Wednesday, May 19, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in the Nisley Building, 150 East High Avenue, New Philadelphia, Ohio.

This meeting will discuss the enlargement of the runway at the New Philadelphia Airport. This is an important meeting as it will discuss, among other things, taking of private property, both homes and businesses, for use by the City by the use of eminent domain, closure of access roads which are currently serving the cemetery and Schoenbrunn Village, elimination and/or moving of existing grave sites located in the city cemetery.

This is an important meeting which will effect not only homeowners and businesses in the city, but future city finances. If you have questions on how the city is planning to pay its 20-percent share of this eight to ten million dollar project, this is the meeting to attend.

Right-to-Carry 2010 - The Second Amendment Revisited

The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), ruled that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”

Self-defense is a fundamental right. The U.S. constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. RTC laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry firearms for protection.

There are 40 Right-to-Carry states. Thirty-six have “shall issue” laws, requiring that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature. Three have fairly-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems. Vermont respects the right to carry without a permit. Alaska and Arizona, two of the “shall issue” states, have permit systems for the purpose of permit reciprocity1 with other states, and have allowed concealed carrying without a permit since 2003 and April 2009, respectively. Of the 10 non-RTC states, eight have restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems, and two—Illinois and Wisconsin—have no permit system and prohibit carrying.

More RTC, less crime: Since 1991, 23 states have adopted “shall issue” laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 90 million.2 There are more RTC states, gun owners, people carrying firearms for protection, and privately owned firearms than ever before. In the same time frame, through 2008, the nation’s murder rate has decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low.3 Preliminary data reported by the FBI indicate that rates fell further in the first half of 2009.

RTC reduces crime: Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard concluded, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”4

RTC success: Former Colorado Asst. Atty. Gen. David Kopel: “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”5 An article on Michigan’s law: “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded.... National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”6

RTC permit-holders are law-abiding: Florida has issued more carry permits than any state (1.5 million), but revoked only 166 (0.01 percent) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.7

Background: Before 1987 there were 10 RTC states: (Ind. Me., N.H., N.D., S.D. and Wash. had “shall issue” laws. Ala. and Conn. had fairly-administered discretionary-issue systems. Georgia’s “shall issue” law was interpreted as such in some jurisdictions. Vermont allowed carrying without a permit. In 1987, Florida enacted a “shall issue” law, and gun control supporters predicted “Wild West” shootouts would ensue. However, through 1992 Florida’s murder rate decreased 23 percent, while the U.S. rate rose nine percent; thereafter, murder decreased nationally and in Florida.8 Then-Florida Licensing Division Director John Russi noted, “Florida’s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation....[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.”9 In a 1995 letter to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, “From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems.”

29 RTC states since 1987: 21 had prohibited carrying; nine (*) had restrictive discretionary-issue systems. 1989: Oregon, Penna. (Phila. added in 1995), and West Virginia (in Georgia, a judicial ruling enforced “shall issue” statewide); 1990: Idaho and Mississippi; 1991: Montana; 1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee, and Wyoming; 1995: Arkansas, Nevada*, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah,* and Virginia*; 1996: Kentucky, Louisiana,* and South Carolina*; 2001: Michigan*; 2003: Colorado*; Iowa* (by fairly administering its discretionary system), New Mexico, Minnesota,* and Missouri; 2004: Ohio; 2006: Kansas and Nebraska.

Citizens can defend themselves. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, criminologist Gary Kleck concluded “robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.”10 In the 1990s, Kleck and Marc Gertz found guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually.11 The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country,” said, “The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. . . . I cannot fault their methodology.”12 A study for the Justice Dept. found 34 percent of felons had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and 40 percent had not committed crimes, fearing victims were armed.13

The right to self-defense has been recognized for centuries. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right;” English jurist Sir William Blackstone observed that the English Bill of Rights recognized “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” as intended “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights,” the first of which is “personal security.”14 Sir Michael Foster, judge of the Court of King’s Bench, wrote in the 18th century, “The right of self-defense . . . is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society.”15

The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), recognized that the right to arms is an individual right, stating that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” In Beard v. U.S. (1895), the court approved the common-law rule that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and concluded that, when attacked, a person “was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” In the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (1986), Congress stated that it did not intend to “place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to . . . personal protection, or any other lawful activity.”

Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

National RTC reciprocity: Sen. John Thune has introduced S. 371 and S. 845, the “Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009.” Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) has introduced H.R. 197, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009.” Essentially, these bills propose that a person with any state’s carry permit be allowed to carry in other states.

Nonsense from Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.): Sarah Brady: “the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes;” former HCI Chair, the late Pete Shields: “put up no defense - give them what they want;” Brady Center’s Dennis Henigan: self-defense is “not a federally guaranteed constitutional right.”16 In 1999, HCI claimed that between 1992-1997 violent crime declined less in RTC states than in other states.17 (HCI previously claimed RTC caused crime to rise.) HCI erred in categorizing 31 states as having RTC during the period, since only 17 of the 31 had RTC in 1992. HCI calculated crime trends from 1992 to under-represent the impact of RTC laws; by 1992 many states had RTC for many years and had already experienced decreases in crime. HCI misclassified Alabama and Connecticut as “restrictive,” and credited restrictive laws for crime decreasing in some states, though states that had restrictive carry laws had had them for many years, and crime did not begin declining in those states until the 1990s, for reasons unrelated to guns.

Nonsense from Violence Policy Center: In 1995, VPC claimed Florida’s RTC law “puts guns into the hands of criminals.”18 The claim was false, since the law permits a person to carry, not acquire, a firearm. VPC claimed “criminals do apply for concealed carry licenses,” without noting that such applications are rejected. Contradicting itself, VPC noted that criminals requested that their rejected applications be reconsidered. “To set the record straight,” Florida Secy. of State, Sandra B. Mortham, said, “As of November 30, 1995, the Department had denied 723 applications due to criminal history. The fact that these 723 individuals did not receive a license clearly indicates that the process is working.” She added, “the majority of concealed weapon or firearm licensees are honest, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of lawful self-defense.”19 In 2001, VPC claimed that there are more women murdered with handguns, than criminals killed in self-defense.20 However, the value of handguns for self-defense is not in how many criminals are killed, but in how often people use handguns to prevent crimes, and how often criminals don’t attack, fearing potential victims are armed. VPC also undercounted the number of criminals killed in self-defense by counting only those noted in police reports, thus excluding defensive homicides later determined to have been justified.

McDowell math: In 1995, anti-gun researcher David McDowell claimed that gun homicide rates increased in Miami, Jacksonville, and Tampa after Florida’s 1987 RTC law.21 But homicide rates fell 10, 18, and 20 percent, respectively, in those metro areas from 1987 until 1993, the most recent data at the time.22 To show an “increase,” McDowell calculated Jacksonville and Tampa trends from the early 1970s, when rates were lower than in 1993, but calculated Miami’s from 1983, since earlier rates were higher and suggested crime had decreased. None of McDowell’s homicides was committed by a carry permit holder, and he did not indicate which homicides had occurred in situations where a permit would have been required to carry a gun. McDowell once claimed D.C.’s murder rate decreased after its 1977 handgun ban; in fact the rate tripled.23

The 43:1 claim: Based upon a small study of King’s County (Seattle), Washington, gun control supporters claim a gun at home is “43 times more likely” to be used to kill a family member than a criminal.24 To reach that ratio, defensive gun uses are undercounted by counting only cases in which criminals were killed. Most often, when guns are used to defend against criminals, the criminals are only scared off, captured or wounded. Kleck has called the 43:1 ratio and its variants “the most nonsensical statistic in the gun control debate.”25

1. “Permit reciprocity” is the term given to a law that allows a person to carry a firearm within a state, if he has a carry permit issued by another state, and such permit meets the requirements of the state in which the firearm is carried.
2. BATFE, firearm manufacturing, export, and import reports, www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm.
3. For 2008, see FBI, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2008prelim/table_1.html and factor in an estimated one percent increase in the U.S. population between 2007-2008. For data for 1991, see BJS, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/.
4. Lott, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right To Carry Concealed Handguns,” 1996.
5. David Kopel, “The Untold Triumph of Concealed-Carry Permits,” Policy Review, July-Aug. 1996, p. 9.
6. “Should Michigan keep new concealed weapon law? Don’t believe gun foe scare tactics,” Detroit News, 1/14/01.
7. Florida Division of Licensing, Monthly Statistical Report (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html).
8. Note 3, BJS.
9. Testimony before the Michigan House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, 12/5/95
10. Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 171.
11. “Armed Resistance to Crime,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 150-187.
12. “A Tribute to a View That I Have Opposed,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.
13. J. Wright and P. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, 1986, p. 155.
14. Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, The Independent Institute, 1994, pp. 17, 54.
15. Dowlut, Knoop, “State Constitutions and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Okla. City Univ. Law Review, 1982, p. 183.
16. Brady: T.om Jackson, “Keeping the battle alive,” Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93; Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, N.Y.: Arbor House, 1981; Henigan: USA Today, 11/20/91.
17. Handgun Control, Inc., “Concealed Truth.” (www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr).
18. “Concealed Carry: The Criminal’s Companion.”
19. St. Petersburg Times, 1/11/96.
20. “A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense.”
21. “Easing Concealed Firearm Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States.”
22. Note 3, BJS.
23. Ibid.
24. A. L. Kellermann, “Protection or Peril?, New England Journal of Medicine, 1986.
25. Note 11, pp. 177-178.

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. Reprinted by permission

Defense Against Iran Atomic Missiles 50% Effective

A lot of things which are printed in the Times-Reporter don’t make a lot of sense to me. Today was no exception. To the T-R’s credit, stories of a national or international nature are not generated by the T-R staff, but are reprinted from various news agencies. However, today there was a doozie.

The Pentagon was quoted in the T-R as being “very confident” that the United States could defend itself against an Iranian missile attack. Now that is scary enough, but the implication is that finally somebody in Washington is considering that Iran might be developing an intercontinental missile which could reach the US. It seems that the same people may have figured out that Iran is working on an atomic bomb. The government doesn’t mention atomic bomb. They now call it a nuclear capability. I’m glad to hear that the Obama administration is concerned about the US getting nuked by the Iranians. Up to this point this was not a major concern because, after all, Obama was pushing for sanctions in the UN and telling the world that he would really be disappointed if Iran didn’t quit developing atomic bombs and the missiles to send them to other countries.

Now with this in mind, we aren’t to worry as the Defense Department has confirmed that we have 25 long-range interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California as part of the system which is going to protect us from incoming missiles. That should let us all sleep well at night. Unless of course, you look at a world globe. Great locations for interceptor bases if you are going to try to shoot missiles from Russia or North Korea. Between the United States and Iran, where the shortest missile route is over the Atlantic, no bases, at least as far as the Associated Press article indicates. We had some in Europe but, as I recall, Obama shut those down.

But not to worry, we do have the 25 missiles should we need them. Whoops. One small problem. There have been 14 tests of these interceptor missiles. Testing is important you know. Lets you know how things work. Eight of the 14 worked, six failed. No big deal, however, as they failed because of software “glitches.” But don’t worry. According to the AP story, “US officials say the system should still work in the event of an attack.” Wonderful.

That close to half of those tested failed does not fill me with confidence. With a failure rate of close to fifty-percent, why isn’t the government looking into the reasons with the same ferocity that it is attacking Toyota? Could it be that Washington doesn’t have the same commitment to our national defense that it has to supporting General Motors and Chrysler?

The sad part about our missile defense is that if it fails, we die. Not a couple of hundred, but millions. Obama cut back on missile defense system research. Instead of requesting NASA, our missile experts, to aid in correcting and improving the defenses of our country, he assigned them the task of determining why brakes failed in some 200 Toyota automobiles. If you want to talk insanity, this is it.

Where Does The Money Go?

Budgets are strange things. They are not always what the figures would indicate. It would seem that especially with government they could get it right. After all, look at what we pay those clowns in Washington to get it figured out right. But there are a number of reasons why it just doesn't work. Figures don't lie, as the adage goes, but liars figure.

Three men go into a motel. The clerk tells them that there is only one room left but they can have it if they want it. There are two twin beds and a hideaway couch that makes up into a third bed. There is also a free continental breakfast in the morning. It is late at night, the only room left in town, so the three decide to take it. How much they ask. Well, the clerk says, we have a special because of the rotten economy so I'll give it to you for $30 for the night. Must have been in Appalachia. The guys agree and ante up ten dollars each.

The next morning they stop by the lobby for breakfast, cold cereal, warm milk, weak coffee, and hard bagels. The day clerk has been looking at their bill and had discovered that the three men were overcharged. The room was really only $25 for the night and he had to return the extra five to get the books to balance. Now there was a problem. The only change he had was ones and fives and he didn't know how to divide the refund evenly. He finally hit on a solution. He told the men that they had been overcharged for the room, was sorry for the mistake, and gave each one of them a dollar back. The three were pleased as the room wasn't all that bad and now it only cost them nine dollars each. The clerk, on the other hand, was happy as he had two dollars left over from the five, which he kept as a tip. Story closed. But was it?

Check out the math. The three men paid nine dollars each for the room. Three times nine is $27. The clerk kept the extra two dollars. Twenty-seven plus two equals 29. Wait a minute. What happened to the extra dollar?

Let's take another example, we'll stay with the hotel business, if you don't mind. A man and his wife from Pittsburgh pulled into a motel in a small western town. The man talks to the desk clerk and finds out that the motel charge is $100 a night. There is only one room left and to hold the room until he and his wife can check it out after they have had lunch, he gives the clerk a hundred dollars, refundable if the room isn't suitable after they look at it. The man returns to the car, gets his wife and they walk down the street to the local diner

Shortly after they left, the laundry man, who takes care of the hotel linens, arrives with a load of clean linen. The driver tells the clerk that the bill for this delivery is $100. The clerk gives the driver the $100 deposit. The driver leaves, and needing gasoline, stops at the gas station on the next block, fills the tank, and pays the bill, which comes to $100, with the money the hotel clerk gave him. The gas station owner breathes a sigh of relief as he owes the uniform supplier for the past week's uniforms, takes the $100 and pays off the uniform man. The uniform man's wife sees the money change hands and reminds him that they still owe the caterer $100 for their daughters wedding reception, grabs the money and dashes across the street and around the corner to the caterer and gives him the cash that pays off the rest of their bill. The caterer, who is getting low on supplies calls in an order to the local market, asks for a rush grocery delivery, which he gets, and pays the delivery man the hundred dollars which brings the caterer's bill up to date. The delivery man takes the money back to the store where the store manager tells him to keep the hundred as it is payday and the delivery boy did rightfully earn it. The delivery boy asks for a couple of minutes off and dashes down the street to the hotel and pays the hundred dollars to the hotel clerk who had loaned him that amount the day before for a room used by the delivery boy's parents. As the delivery boy left the hotel, the Pittsburgh couple returned from lunch and approached the desk. The man explained that they had changed their minds, were not going to stay over night, and requested their deposit back. The clerk agreed and gave them their one hundred dollars back, at which point the couple left never to be seen again.

The merchants of the city were ecstatic at the next business meeting. Would you believe it, said the chairman of the finance committee. We thought times were tough, but our records show a $700 increase in business yesterday alone.

In both of these cases, there is fallacy based on a poor understanding of mathematics, accounting, business, and the true value of money. In the case of the three men at the motel, the mathematics of determining that a dollar had disappeared is obviously false, although when viewed with a bureaucratic eye, seems to make sense. In the second, the hundred dollars brought no increase in the economy, no profit to those involved, and in the last analysis, created a false sense of security and profit where there was none.

Government at all levels, from federal to municipal, has lost the knowledge of what finances are all about. On a daily basis decisions are made by government which are destroying our economic system. There is a lack of understanding by policy makers about how money works, how its value is created, and the danger of false fiscal policies which are running rampant at all levels.

The United States, the financial giant of the world two years ago, is slipping into a third country status because of misjudgements by the Obama administration. We cannot afford out of control spending. In New Philadelphia we can no longer afford the lack of planning on the part of the Administration if we are to survive these critical times. There are no contingency plans for a possible financial collapse. Spending is based on hopes of an improving economy. It isn't happening. This should be no secret given the daily reports of increased bankruptcies, foreclosures, increasing unemployment, the start of real inflation, and the threat of increases in federal income taxes.

The government at at all levels is failing in its financial responsibility. Inactivity on the part of the citizen to hold government responsible is a major cause of this failure. It is your country, your state, your city, and it is being lost because you, as a citizen, are allowing it.

Get involved. Take our country back. Take our city back. We're losing our birthright. Get involved.

America's War On Islamist Terror...Or It It?

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Washington, D.C., on March 5, 2010, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

“YOU ARE HEREBY commanded to show cause.” The general studied the document in his hands. It was a writ of habeas corpus. A federal judge was presuming, in the midst of war, to order him to report to the courthouse the following morning and explain the basis on which the U.S. Army was holding a prisoner of war.

Habeas corpus: “You shall have the body.” It is known as “the Great Writ,” an inheritance from the Magna Carta and British common law that was formally established in the American colonies in the 1690s. When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, it became part of our fundamental law, enshrined in Article I, Section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The writ, in short, is a time-honored bulwark against tyranny.

But to return to our story: Louisiana had only been a state for about three years when, in early 1815, General Andrew Jackson authorized the arrest and detention of Louis Louailler. “Old Hickory” had just saved the Republic by defeating the British forces of General Sir Edward Pakenham in the decisive Battle of New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent, which formally concluded the War of 1812, had actually been signed by British and American foreign ministers over two weeks earlier. But news of the treaty did not reach the U.S. in time to forestall the battle. It was the one great American victory of the war.

Just as Jackson hadn’t known about the formal armistice, neither did he know what the British army would do. Would it regroup and attempt another assault? So he imposed martial law. That did not please Mr. Louailler, who took to the newspapers to attack Jackson’s decision. Perceiving this as an incitement, Jackson had Louailler arrested. Supporters of the imprisoned man appealed to the Honorable Dominick Augustin Hall, the U.S. District Judge in Louisiana.

Hall, being a jurist, had no responsibility for national security—a responsibility assigned by the Constitution to elected officials. The judge’s only duty was to ensure that any litigants properly before him were afforded due process. But Judge Hall was of a mind that he, not General Jackson, personified the rule of law—security or no security.

General Jackson was of a different mind. Instead of responding to the writ as directed, he had Judge Hall arrested and, after a time, escorted by troops several miles outside the city limits and set free.

We’ve come a long way from Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama—and an even longer way from Louis Louailler to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas bomber.

* * *

It has become fashionable these days to invoke the “rule of law” as if it means the rule of lawyers—and in particular, the rule of judges. But that has never been the term’s meaning. In the U.S., the rule of law is embodied in the Constitution and resides in the statutes, treaties, rules, and regulations adopted pursuant to the Constitution. The rule of law does not refer either to judges or to elected officials, who are themselves servants of the Constitution.

It has also become trendy in recent years, especially among our legal elites, to declaim piously that “the Constitution is not suspended in wartime.” And, of course, no true patriot believes that the Constitution could ever be suspended. But the Constitution is not—nor has it ever been—the imposition of judicial rule. Indeed, the Constitution imposes strict limitations on the judicial power, just as it does on Congress and the executive branch. It has never been the case that where judicial power ends, anarchy begins.

General Jackson may have been wrong to lock up Louis Louailler in 1815. In fact, the military court that tried Louailler acquitted him. But Jackson was not wrong in determining that it was his decision to make—not as a tyrant, but within the constraints of military protocols in war time. When formal word of the peace treaty reached New Orleans, Jackson immediately reinstated civilian control. But until that time, he—not the civilian courts—was responsible for keeping order. In the state of war, those courts were inadequate for that task—unless one believes that Judge Hall, with his writs, was a match for His Majesty’s armed forces, then thought to be the mightiest on earth.

In doing as he did, General Jackson was applying a principle stated with clarity almost a century later by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case of Moyer v. Peabody:

When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process.

When the life of the state is imperiled, that is, the Constitution does not become suspended; it adapts. In times of armed conflict, it imposes the laws and customs of war, which—under those circumstances—are as consistent with the rule of law as judicial processes are in peacetime.

On this point, it is worth pausing to recall why we have a Constitution. After achieving independence, our country proved unsuccessful in governing itself under the Articles of Confederation. Paramount among the reasons for this was the attempt under the Articles to provide national security by committee—something that proved utterly ineffective in dealing with threats from England, Spain, and the Barbary Pirates. The Constitution remedied this potentially fatal weakness by placing all executive power, including the power of commander-in-chief, in a single elected official—the president—who could act with great energy and dispatch.

The Framers of the Constitution understood that the rights we cherish would be little more than parchment promises unless we could defend ourselves and defeat our enemies. Moreover, they understood that—given human nature—we would always have enemies. Unlike opponents of the war against Islamist terror today, they did not believe that we would be able to define our enemies out of existence by not uttering their names—or rationalize them out of existence by insisting that their hostility is somehow our own fault. Nor did the Framers believe that we would be able to indict our enemies into submission in our civilian courts. They believed that we would have to defeat them, which means being able to enforce the protocols necessary to wage war successfully.

These protocols are the laws of war, and they are older than the U.S. itself. They include requiring combatants to wear uniforms, to carry their weapons openly, to be part of a regular armed force, and, most importantly, to refrain from intentionally targeting civilians. They also define wartime powers and privileges. Enemy combatants, for example, may be captured and detained until the conclusion of hostilities. Fighters who adhere to the laws of war are entitled to various protections upon capture. By contrast, fighters who flout the laws of war—such as non-uniformed terrorists who target civilians—are unlawful combatants and may be prosecuted by a military commission for war crimes.

This is not a judicial system, and it is not intended to be. But it is every bit a legal system. And throughout our history—at least until recently—this has been well understood. Since 9/11, however, anti-war lawyers have challenged the idea of a separate legal status for unlawful combatants. Here they are up against not only common sense but history.

* * *

President Lincoln, of course, suspended habeas corpus upon the outbreak of the Civil War. (Not as often mentioned is the fact that Congress—which was out of session at the time—later endorsed Lincoln’s action.) When Lincoln’s action was eventually brought before the Supreme Court, the issue was not whether habeas corpus could be suspended in case of rebellion—as we have seen, that is clearly provided for in the Constitution—but which elected branch of government could suspend it. Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded in the case of Ex parte Merryman that because the Suspension Clause is in Article I, it must have been understood as a power of Congress rather than the president—a reasonable interpretation, though hardly indisputable. What was unreasonable about the decision was Taney’s claim that if the courts were open and functioning, even in wartime, federal judges—not the political branches—should have the final word on what actions could be taken in defense of the nation. That claim had no constitutional support—it was a power-grab pure and simple, and a foolish and undemocratic one.

At the time Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the survival of the Union hung in the balance, with Confederate sympathizers sabotaging railways and otherwise impeding the movement of Union forces and supplies. It is for just such exigencies that the Suspension Clause exists. As Lincoln reasoned in a message to a special session of Congress on July 4, 1861, if the writ of habeas corpus—“fashioned with such extreme tenderness to the citizens’ liberty”—were as sacrosanct as Taney contended, it would allow “all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated.” Taney’s claim is preposterous on its face. What of the President’s obligation “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”? What of the central purpose of government “to provide for the common defense”? What becomes of our rights if the structure so carefully crafted to defend them vanishes?

President Roosevelt grappled with similar challenges during World War II. In June 1942, when the outcome of the war was anything but clear, eight German saboteurs were captured after landing on the coasts of Long Island and Florida. They had been sent by Hitler to commit acts of terrorism against civilian infrastructure, and Roosevelt decided to make an example of them. He wasn’t concerned with the fact that the federal courts were open and functioning. Nor was he swayed by the fact that one of the saboteurs was an American citizen. He directed that all eight of them be detained as enemy combatants and tried by a military commission. Nor did he perceive the need to festoon the proceedings with trappings of a martial setting: the trial took place in an FBI conference room in what is now the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building.

The saboteurs’ defense lawyers naturally cried foul, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court and claiming that this military commission violated the Constitution. Upon hearing of the petition, Roosevelt summoned Attorney General Francis Biddle and directed him to tell the Chief Justice that he did not care what the Supreme Court thought; that the Constitution made him, not the justices, responsible for the lives of the American people and the successful prosecution of the war; and that he would not be releasing the prisoners, regardless of the Court’s disposition of the case.

This provided a judicial “king has no clothes” moment of clarity such as we have not had in the ensuing 68 years. The fact is that courts have no power to enforce their edicts. Roosevelt was willing to bet, if it got down to brass tacks, that the American people would agree that the president they had elected—and who would have to face their judgment again in the next election—should be prosecuting the war, rather than a tribunal of unelected judges. In the event, the Supreme Court agreed, and in the case of Ex parte Quirin it upheld all of Roosevelt’s actions. Most of the saboteurs were subsequently executed, following military trial, approximately seven weeks after their capture.

How do we get from the decisive actions of Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt to the Obama administration’s stunning mishandling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Recall that this terrorist tried to detonate a chemical bomb on an airplane—an attack that would have killed all 288 innocents onboard and an untold number of Americans on the ground. Recall that he was a trained operative of al Qaeda—a transnational terrorist network with which we are at war. Recall that he was a Nigerian national sent from Yemen to attack us, and had no claim whatsoever on the protections of civilian due process. What’s more, our intelligence community tells us that Yemen is now one of the prime launch points of Islamist terror. Abdulmutallab had spent four months there. He knew the training camps, the trainers, and the identities of other terrorists (evidently, scores of them). In light of these facts, his capture alive should have been one of the great intelligence coups of the war. Instead, he was questioned for a mere 50 minutes before being given Miranda warnings and a lawyer—at which point he invoked his supposed right to remain silent, was consigned to the civilian justice system, and was charged in an indictment that gave him plea-bargaining leverage in any further negotiations over what he would tell us.

This approach was not only unnecessary, it was wrong. The terrorist could and should have been designated an enemy combatant and interrogated without the interference of a lawyer or the complications of a civilian prosecution. Even if one believed—as the Obama administration says it believes—that it is important to our reputation around the world to endow him with the rights of the Americans he was trying to slaughter, there was no legal requirement that that be done immediately. He could have been turned over to civilian authorities two or three years from now, once his intelligence reservoir was fully tapped. We’d have lost nothing in the meantime except the ability to introduce any confession at trial—and no confession is needed when a terrorist tries to bomb an airplane in front of nearly 300 witnesses.

* * *

Robert Jackson—the U.S. Attorney General from 1940-41, a Supreme Court Justice from 1941-54, and the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials—wrote the following in a 1948 Supreme Court case, Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp.:

The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities, nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.

The Constitution of Justice Jackson—like the Constitution of Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt—is that of a free, self-governing people. Such a people does not surrender control of the most fundamental political decisions—such as those concerning national defense—to officials who are not politically accountable. Nor should our elected officials voluntarily surrender control of those decisions. We must reject the idea of entrusting our security to judicial processes or we shall eventually find ourselves neither secure nor free.

(Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Mi.)

Important Second Amendment Request

Ohio: Concealed Carry Reform Legislation to be Heard Next Week

Friday, April 09, 2010

Please Contact the Members of the Senate Judiciary - Criminal Justice Committee Today!

On Wednesday, April 14, at 10:30 a.m. in the South Hearing Room, the Senate Judiciary - Criminal Justice Committee will again be hearing testimony on Senate Bill 239, which would make numerous pro-gun improvements to Ohio’s gun laws.SB239, sponsored by State Senators Shannon Jones (R-7) and Tim Shaffer (R-31), would eliminate the current confusing standards of carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle. In addition, the proposal would also allow permit holders to carry a firearm for self-defense in a restaurant that serves alcohol, provided they are not consuming, thus eliminating another “victim zone” in Ohio.

As reported earlier, Ohio has overly burdensome stipulations regarding how a concealed firearm must be carried in a motor vehicle. Current law specifies that a firearm must be either be:
1.) In a holster secured on the person.
2.) In a closed case, bag, box, or other container that is in plain sight and that has a lid, a cover, or a closing mechanism with a zipper, snap, or buckle, which must be opened for a person to gain access to the handgun.
3.) The loaded handgun is securely encased by being stored in a closed glove compartment or center console, or in a case that is locked. A locked case does not need to be in plain sight (an unlocked case does).
SB239 is a critical step forward to help assure that Ohio permit holders or permit holders of other states are not arrested for accidentally carrying their firearm in a prohibited manner.
Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary - Criminal Justice Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to support SB239. Contact information for the committee can be found below.

State Senator Tim Grendell (R-18), Chair (614) 644-7718 SD18@senate.state.oh.us

State Senator Jim Hughes (R-16), Vice Chair (614) 466-5981 SD16@senate.state.oh.us

State Senator Nina Turner (D-25) (614) 466-4583 SD25@maild.sen.state.oh.us

State Senator Kevin Coughlin (R-27) (614) 466-4823 SD27@senate.state.oh.us

State Senator Keith Faber (R-12) (614) 466-7584 SD12@senate.state.oh.us

State Senator David Goodman (R-3) (614) 466-8064 SD03@senate.state.oh.us

State Senator Joe Schiavoni (D-33) (614) 466-8285 SD33@maild.sen.state.oh.us

State Senator Bill Seitz (R-8) (614) 466-8068 SD08senate.state.oh.us

State Senator Shirley Smith (D-21) (614) 466-4857 SD21@maild.sen.state.oh.us

(Reprinted by permission of NRA)

Water/Sewer Rates Challanged In City Council

Possible water and sewer rate adjustments were discussed at a special New Philadelphia City Council meeting held Wednesday, April 7, 2010. By city ordinance, the city’s Service Director is mandated to recommend to City Council changes in the rate structures for water and sewer usage within the city. As the first step to this year’s recommendation, the City Administration in last night’s special meeting, sponsored two presentations to this end.

A presentation by Jeannette Wierzbicki, of W. E. Qiocksall and Associates, a local engineering and consultant firm, provided an overview of current water and sewer rate policies as well as recommendations concerning rate increases for the future. Wierzbicki, reporting on water usage and revenues for last year, 2009, brought some interesting facts to light. There are, according to her report, 8,119 users of city water to whom charges are made. If you check your water bill, you will notice that you are charged by the cubic footage of water you use. If you are interested, there are 7.481 gallons in one cubic foot. Current rates are charged on a block usage basis, for example, 0 to 400 cubic feet, 500 to 700 cubic feet, 800 to 2000 cubic feet, and so on.

Using Wierzbicki’s figures, the majority of water users in the city, 77%, fall into the 0 to 700 cubic foot level of consumption, and pay 48% of the revenue collected by the water department. Interestingly enough, 38 users of city water, 0.05% of the total, use 21% of the water for which charges are made, but pay only 14% of the total revenue collected by the water department. Sewer charges are based on water consumption, and the charges are similar, the same percentages apply.

The Quicksall group made three recommendations. The first was to make no changes to the current billing system and keep the current structure, which decreases the charge per cubic foot as water and sewer use increases. The second was to keep the current system with some modifications. Everyone would pay a minimum bill but then pay a water use charge, depending on how much water was used, on the top of that. The third recommendation was that everyone pay a minimum charge regardless of usage, plus a charge based on the actual cost to produce the amount of water used.

According to Wierzbicki, the advantage of the second option is that the minimum fee would remain constant and water charges would be based on a sliding fee per cubic foot based on the amount of water used; the higher the usage, the lower the cost per cubic foot.. With the minimum fee was based the fixed costs, wages, benefits and other expenses which will not change regardless of how much water is used, the water department could meet its expenses, regardless of consumption. Mid-range users would bear the brunt of the increase while low end users, those less than 500 cubic feet, would not experience a cost increase while high end users would experience a decrease in cost.

The third option, Wierzbicki’s recommendation, would charge a common minimum rate for water and sewer, with a set cost per cubic foot of water used. The minimum rate would be determined as in the second option, based on fixed costs. The result of such a structure would increase the costs to the larger user while decreasing the costs to the mid range user which makes up about fifty percent of the cities water customers.

No decision was made by City Council at this meeting on water rates, rather the design of the meeting was to provide Council members with background information on revenues, expenses, and alternatives, so they may make educated decisions on water revenue questions in the future.

A second presentation, made by Dr. Timothy Wolfe, a chemist from MWH, an engineering and consultant firm from Columbus, Ohio, concerned the scaling problem being experienced by consumers of New Philadelphia water. Wolfe explained that while the scaling problem was major concern, not only to the people of the city but to the water department as well, the problem was one of economics, not health. Wolfe stated that the present system used to treat water in New Philadelphia, does so with good results as far as purification is concerned, but during the process decreases the amount of oxygen in the treated water. While this does not affect the water as far as human consumption or use is concerned, it does decrease the ability of the water to hold the chemicals which cause the scaling problem the city is experiencing. The solution, which Wolfe said would cure the problem, is the installation of equipment which would add carbon dioxide to the water, replacing the oxygen lost in the purification process.

Mr. Ricklic, City Water Superintendent, told council members that scaling in water meters was costing the city large amounts of revenue as scaling causes them to report lower water usage than is actually used. When asked for an estimate of what the loss might be Ricklic did not provide a figure but said meters that had been tested have shown up to a 50% error. The cost of the equipment to prevent the scaling problem was not available, but estimates from Wolfe and Ricklic ranged from “a couple of hundred thousand” to “somewhere around half a million.”

The unanswered question, the important, overriding question, is how is the equipment necessary to correct the scaling problem going to be paid for? Revenues are down, unemployment is up, and the depression shows no signs of improving in the foreseeable future. This was not covered in either presentation, nor should it have been. It is the responsibility of the Administration, and City Council, to seriously address the financial issues the City faces before any such legislation is considered.

Both presentations were worthwhile and should have provided council members with the information they need to understand the proposal for water and sewer rate adjustments in the near future. The Administration was well represented before Council by Ms. Wierzbicki and Dr. Wolfe.

The Enemy Within

Sometimes it is difficult to put into words thoughts which live within not only our minds, but also within our hearts. For the past few days I have had this problem, writer's bloc I guess, because or two loves I have. One is freedom. One is country. Today we have reached the point where we are about to lose both.

Our enemy is not from abroad, he is from within. He comes not with guns and bombs of the terrorist, but with promises of a good life made possible by the generosity of the government. Our enemy is in fact the government as it steals our pride, responsibility, and self reliance with lies of its caring, paternalism, and protection. Destroy pride, remove responsibility, break up the family, eliminate religion, and you conquer all.

In her book, Uncle Sam's Plantation, Star Parker relates that she, as a black woman, was trapped in the welfare system. Living in the Watts area of Los Angeles, she was addicted to drugs, an alcoholic, had children by a number of men, had four abortions, and was getting no where. As she tells it, she was in church one Sunday and the pastor laid it on the line. He told the congregation that each and every one had the responsibility for their own lives, their own future, and if not satisfied with their lot, there was no one to blame but themselves. It struck home, she writes, and the following day she went to the welfare office and took herself off the welfare roll. This was not done without a fight. The welfare office at first refused to remove her name, and it was only after a prolonged argument that she succeeded. She started her own business in Watts, was burned out by blacks during the Watts riots, restarted again, and this year is running for the United States Congress in southern California. In her book, she is adamant that the policies of the government are to subjugate poor people into a new kind of slavery, that of government welfare and dependence.

The enemy we are fighting is a government which is striving to enslave us all by controlling our very existence. The mortgage crisis could, and should, have been avoided. The mandate that everyone was entitled to own a home was a dream, but a dream unrelated to any reality. If you can’t make the payments, you are not entitled to own anything. Bad loans were made, many on threats by the government to the banks, the bubble burst, and in order to "protect" homeowners, the government took over the banks, again by threat Did the government learn from this? Evidently not, as it has a new program to help pay mortgages and buy homes for people who still can’t afford the payments. Who does this help? Not people in debt because they are still in debt, but in debt now to the federal government.

The automotive industry was on the verge of bankruptcy. Chrysler and General Motors were in deep trouble. The reasons? Oh, there was competition to be sure from other automobile manufacturers, but costs to Chrysler and GM were soaring. Steel rose to the point that foreign made steel was less expensive than that made in neighboring states. The cost of labor was out of control because of union demands and government made labor laws which prevented true negotiation on wages and benefits. These companies should have moved into bankruptcy and used the ability to start over and renegotiate contracts. The government, in another successful seizure of public properties, "bought" stock in GM and Chrysler and now controls those companies. Two interesting things happened after those government takeovers. Ford is working its way out of its financial problems and is prospering. On the other hand, Toyota, the largest competitor of GM and Chrysler, is being harassed by the federal government for “major, life threatening equipment failures.” Hogwash! The Big Three auto companies have had more severe equipment failures percentage wise in the past which never raised an administration eyebrow. Toyota is experiencing an all out effort by the government to protect GM and Chrysler, and union workers to whom it feels indebted. The full power of the pro-administration media has been unleashed to destroy Toyota. They cite the number of recalls involved and the figures are indeed staggering. It’s not that there are that many malfunctioning cars, it is that Toyota has out sold the Big Three because it made a better product for less money.

For those out of work, the government has increased the length of unemployment compensation, government welfare, if you will. This is certainly going to help. You can see by the figures the number of unemployed who are rushing back to work instead of staying at home and collecting your tax dollars. Give somebody something for nothing and expect them to better themselves? Get real. This is another step to instill in the people of this country a feeling of total dependence on the state for all their needs. Without incentive, folks don’t work. Get paid to stay home, stay home they will. Hungry people work. Those on public welfare don’t. It’s that simple.

Now the government is going to make loans to students. How wonderful. What it will come to is a complete subjugation of not only students, but of curriculums taught at universities and colleges. You want to stay in business, teach as you are told. You want to go to school, follow the wishes and desires of government. Teaching today is for the most part liberal. Follow the party line, don’t make waves, and when you get tenure you can do nothing and eventually retire on a government pension. Want to pass? Don’t worry. If you can’t succeed nobody is going to tell you. Everybody passes. If you are intelligent, motivated, then you worry. School policy is to teach to the least successful and let the motivated fall by the wayside. Failure is not only not an option, it is accepted and mandated.

This is the enemy we are fighting. This is the enemy who is winning. His allies are complacency on the part of the citizen, ignorance brought about by poor education, slavery brought about by laziness and lack of ambition. The leaders of this enemy are those power thirsty politicians who infest our nation, Barry Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Sherrod Brown, and Zack Space, who no longer represent the United States citizen, rather enjoy the power of their positions and want to keep it. A lack of commitment on the part of the citizen put them into power, gave them the ability to steal our freedom, curtail our liberty, and destroy our way of life.

The choice between liberty and slavery, between freedom and communism, lies with each of us. It takes commitment to fight for what we believe. It takes courage to stand against the tyrants who plan and work for the takeover of our country. History is sure in its judgment. Freedom is hard to win, difficult to keep, and easily lost.

Wake up. Communism is just around the corner. Do you want to give your freedom away? If you don’t fight for it, you will. And, as it was in the past, there will be no United States of America to save us.