The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death…
Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.
— Supreme Court of the United States1Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158 (1944)
Yesterday, in a quiet Philadelphia courtroom, Herbert and Catherine Schaible were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of their 2 year-old son Kent. Kent died on January 24, 2009, from bacterial pneumonia after suffering for about two weeks, according to court testimony.
The Schaibles belonged to the First Century Gospel Church of Juniata Park, a church whose pastor, Nelson A. Clark, preaches against the use of medicine but allows for dental care, seeming to forget that dental medicine is a form of medical care. After the trial, Clark said this:
We are hurting now. That should not have been. That was not what we wanted to hear. Not involuntary manslaughter.
Well, Clark, perhaps you should stop telling your congregation to eschew medical care and be more open to it, especially when a child has a fever and is coughing for more than several days. According to the press, this also isn’t the first time you’ve been at odds with civil authorities. Remember 1991, the measles epidemic that hit Philadelphia that was exacerbated not only by your church but also the Faith Tabernacle of Nicetown? (Nicetown?)
Let’s get one thing straight: true miracles never happen. If you believe that God will miraculously heal you or your child by just “asking for it”, then not only do you need to seek medical attention for your children, but a psychiatric evaluation certainly would not be out of order for you either.
According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Schaibles called an expert witness to assist in their defense: forensic pathologist Cyril H. Wecht, allegedly best known for outspoken criticism of the Warren Commission’s findings regarding the assassination of JFK. Until today, however, I’d never heard the name. But anyway…
Wecht testified in the trial that what killed Kent was a fast-moving strain of pneumonia that developed between 12 and 24 hours before Kent’s death and that Kent would likely still not have survived even if given medical care. This is at odds with other medical testimony, including the statements of the parents, which provide a timeline of approximately two weeks. The parents themselves said they had been praying for Kent for 10 days.
But let’s humor Dr Wecht’s conclusion that this was a “fast-moving” strain of pneumonia. First, we can’t know if Kent would have died even with medical care. Perhaps medical procedures have become so advanced that we still could have helped Kent. He had bacterial pneumonia, meaning it’s possible he would still have responded to powerful antibiotics, but we will never know.
Modern medicine was never given the chance to save him.
However, there’s one important question that needs to be asked of Dr Wecht and his testimony: are there any fast-moving strains of pneumonia that manifest 12 to 24 hours before killing a person? The only thing I’ve found that comes close to this description is MRSA, which can develop into a pneumonia that can kill a person in under 24 hours if it infects an open wound. Somehow I doubt something like that would escape notice of the medical examiner.
“We tried to fight the devil, but in the end the devil won”, Herbert Schaible is alleged to have said.
A lot of people have very, very naive and arrogant thoughts about the devil, Satan, or whatever name you want to give him. According to folklore, Satan has been at a near stalemate with God since before Creation, which implies that Satan is about equally matched with God. Why would he want to see one two year-old child die rather slowly? It seems to me that he would prefer massive destruction on the order of, say, an apocalypse.
And somehow I doubt that God, in the various incarnations I’ve heard of him, would send an innocent 2 year-old child to Hell. So how has Satan won with the death of this child?
In the end we have brainwashed parents who think that prayer is better than medical attention. Time and again, this has been shown to not be true. Too many names have been written into history as deaths caused by the stupidity, arrogance, and naivety of brainwashed pious parents. Some of those deaths were painful and horrific. And preachers leading these congregations teach these parents that they know better than medicine, that God always heals, and if God doesn’t heal then, well, you just didn’t have enough faith or pray hard enough.
Spare me your bullshit, Reverend, and start telling parents you’ve been wrong about this and that parents should seek medical attention for their sick children. As Common Pleas Judge Carolyn Engel Temin said at the end of the trial:
The law is what it is. You have to take care of your children. It’s not enough to pray for them. It’s not enough to feed them and clothe them. You also have to give them care when they need it.
The parents are to be formally sentenced in February and are, in the mean time, out on $150,000 bail.
I’m a guy who is of the belief that when you read stuff intended for women, you learn more and best about what women want and how women think. As such I find myself reading sites like Yahoo! Shine, which has a section on Love and Sex. In that section today was an interesting article about commitment, wherein a woman who had been with her boyfriend for nine – that’s right, nine (9) – years was wondering why he won’t “commit”.
Let me put it this way, if you are a woman, and you think that a ring worth… oh… 1/4th his annual salary, given to you on bended knee, with tears rolling down his eyes as he pops the question is the only way he can truly show sign of commitment, you are basically little more than any guy’s worst nightmare.
For some reason, many, many women have it in the back of their minds that
Marriage = Commitment
Even if you’ve been together for years, living together for most of that time, both of you are faithful to each other and talking about your future together, without the marriage certificate and the wedding rings, somehow the guy is not or has not committed? Somehow I find that very, very hard to believe, and downright insulting to say the least.
So does that mean I’m not committed to my fiancée? Granted we are engaged, and we are planning to get married, albeit three years after our first intention – hey we ran into difficulties. Anyone who tries to tell me I’m not committed to my fiancée until we are married has earned themselves 32 missing teeth.
Our relationship has been built up to the point that when we do get married, nothing about our relationship should change. And that, I feel, is the best way to do things. Now “studies” show that couples who have lived together before getting married are statistically more likely to get divorced. My question is what happened in those individual relationships prior to the marriage. Did they prepare their relationship for marriage by living and acting like they are married?
The question that you need to ask yourself is how important the word “married” is to you. Is it really that important you be able to refer to the man in your life as “my husband”? And if so, why? What are you hoping to gain from getting or being married that you cannot have without the marriage certificate? In actuality, from what research I’ve done, there is virtually no difference – if you build your relationship properly.
In the company that employs me, one aspect of a promotion to the next pay grade is that you have already started doing work applicable to that pay grade. You do the work, then you get the title, not vice versa. Relationships really should be the same thing. After all you wouldn’t call a guy your boyfriend unless he actually acted like a boyfriend right? So why jump for “commitment” into marriage if he’s not acting like a husband? Do you think getting married will make him a husband? Fat chance.
You know, there’s one very simple way the government can reallocate billions of dollars in revenue that quite literally does nothing because it is nothing but virtually permanently labeled tax money, and I’m surprised no one has discussed this at all.
So what’s the solution? It’s quite easy, I promise.
Make all salaries of Federal employees exempt from Federal income taxes and proportionally reduce every Federal employee’s salary to an amount comparable to their current take-home pay.
Okay the accounting and math could be complicated, but when Federal salary disbursements are subject to Federal taxes, it basically becomes virtual money that never leaves the Treasury. This is why income taxes were not intended by the Founders, and why in economics taxes, especially income taxes, are considered a deadweight loss on a market or economy.
And when a government is taxing what it spends, it creates a near permanent deadweight loss that only grows as the size of government grows and more money is disbursed. Hmm… perhaps this is something to be studied further.
Eventually all Federal disbursements should be exempt from Federal income taxes. Actually, all government disbursements from any level of government should be exempt from all income taxes, whether State, Federal, or local. I wonder how much money would actually be freed up in not only the economy but the Federal budget doing this, and it’ll be a real economic stimulus, not a false stimulus paid for with borrowed funds.
There’ve been plenty of blogs written about whether it is better to rent your residence or buy it. In the course of all of these blogs, there’ve also been plenty of misconceptions that have arisen. Now I’m renting my third apartment right now, and I’ve never owned. So right away I guess that disqualifies me from commenting, right? Think again.
Now as I’ve said there’ve been plenty of misconceptions. I’m not going to weigh in on the total "is it better to rent or buy" question, as the actual answer will depend on your circumstances. So instead I’m going to tackle individual arguments, Glenn Beck style, starting with this one:
Renters are just throwing away their money
And so are buyers if there is a mortgage involved. How so? Interest on the loan, taxes on the purchase, other expenses related to the purchase, fees on the loan, private mortgage insurance, closing costs, and so on.
Plus until you pay off that mortgage, you risk foreclosure. And even after owning it, you risk another foreclosable lien against the house if you fail to pay property taxes. So until you pay off the mortgage, you don’t truly own the house — you just own debt. And even after paying off the house, you still have property taxes to worry about — they just become a little easier to pay because you have money freed up from the paid-off loan.
And the minimum down payment that lenders typically require to avoid paying for mortgage insurance is 20%. If you don’t put down that kind of money on a home for the mortgage, you’re throwing away even more money. With mortgage insurance, you never see a dime of that money, and that money is paid to the lender in case of a foreclosure where the house is sold short.
Home owners are at least building equity
First let’s define equity in a home. Equity is the value of the home minus the liabilities against it. Until about 2005, home values and home prices stayed fairly well locked with inflation, not deviating much from it. This means a home that cost $100,000 in 1990 you could expect to cost about $115,000 in 1995, absent any improvements that might elevate its value.
Now even if you make improvements to the home, the value of those improvements won’t count as equity until any liabilities acquired to make those improvements are paid off. This means if you borrowed against the home or took out unsecured debt (such as with a credit card) to improve your home, you haven’t improved your equity situation at all, and possibly only made it worse. If you borrowed against your home to pay off other debts, you haven’t done yourself any favors.
So if you want to increase the equity in your home by making improvements, save up the cash first. Otherwise you’re only adding to your liabilities without actually adding to your equity. And avoid borrowing against your home unless you feel there is little other option.
But going on the mortgage, here are some surprising numbers for you, going on a 30-year mortgage with a 5% interest rate:
After 1 year, you will have not even paid off 1.5% of the balance
It will take 10 years to pay off only 20% of the balance.
It will take 20 years to pay off 50% of the balance.
My, what big equity you’re building there — 20 years until you have 50% equity in the home. And this isn’t counting any other liabilities you might have against the home or any improvements you’ve made to it, only the initial mortgage. You might be building equity, albeit very slowly, but what you’re left with at the end, adjusted for inflation, is likely not much more valuable compared to where you started.
And when you factor in the taxes you’ve paid on the home purchase itself, along with any fees on the mortgage, plus the interest, it’s difficult to see where you come out ahead. And if you fall behind on the mortgage to the point where the mortgage is foreclosed, you lose any and all equity you had in the home in one instant. If you fail to pay the property taxes, you risk having the house seized by the government, meaning you’d again lose any and all equity in an instant.
Renters have free utilities and avoid property taxes
Not quite. First the property taxes on the home or apartment you are renting are already factored into your rent. There may be other taxes as well factored into your rent depending on where you live. Some apartment complexes also incorporate water, sewage, and trash into your rent as well at a flat rate. In these instances you may find your rent goes up because of an increase in price of water and sewage or increased usage across the complex.
I should point out that the complexes including water into the cost of rent are few and far between. Why is this so? It’s unfair to penalize water-conserving tenants for the usages of tenants who are quite liberal on their usage of the water. However most apartment tenants pay their landlord for the water bill, but the bill is still assessed on a per-residence instead of full-complex basis.
Rarely will you also find a complex that will also factor in electricity and heating as those are quite dependent not only and largely on the tenants, but the apartment as well, as where the apartment is located in the complex and in each building may determine its power usage for heating and cooling. Some complexes may provide an option for cable service at a discounted rate to also be a part of your rent, but most complexes will not include entertainment services, preferring to leave the choice of the level of service, the option of cable or satellite, or whether to have television service at all up to tenants. The same with Internet connectivity service.
Back to property taxes, though. As I said, the taxes are averaged out among all tenants and factored into the monthly rent. The benefit of renting, however, in these instances is the fact that you are paying a known quantity each month. You don’t have to worry about a bill from the county or State saying you have a certain amount due by a certain date — i.e. you avoid sticker shock at least with regard to where you live. Your car, on the other hand, is always a different story.
Renters aren’t stuck with a mortgage
Which is easier to get out from under: a mortgage or lease? If you answered "lease" you’d be correct. Now, both are contracts. With a mortgage you have a contract to pay back a loan. With a lease you have a contract of occupation.
Now you could just walk away from a mortgage and hope the lender doesn’t find you, and you can do the same with a lease as well, but it’s easier to legally get out of a lease without owing anything. Most leases will already have an early-termination agreement as part of its language: if you need to cancel the lease early, you can, but typically with a fee involved along with an advance notice (typically 30 or 60 days).
With a mortgage, you have only one option for getting out of the obligation: sell the house. If the home falls into foreclosure, you only evade the obligation if the home sells at auction for more than you owe.
Mortgagers have tax benefits
Ah the mortgage interest deduction, touted by many a homebuyer as a reason homeowners are better off than renters. This will depend on your loan, but first we need to establish a few things.
First, you can only deduct the interest paid on your mortgage if you itemize. If you don’t itemize, you can’t declare the deduction. This is in contrast with student loan interest deductions which don’t require you to itemize. This means that the benefit of the deduction must be taken in contrast with the standard deduction for your filing status. If your mortgage interest deduction along with other itemized deductions is less than the standard deduction, you’d be stupid to itemize.
This means for married couples filing joint, if the mortgage interest deduction is less than about $11,000, and you don’t have other itemized deductions you can take to bring the itemized to more than the standard deduction, why itemize? This means that for a married couple filing joint, you’d need a mortgage of at least about $200 thousand. For married filing separately or single, you’ll need a mortgage of at least about $100 thousand to make the tax benefits worthwhile.
Plus, if your mortgage is "under water" (you owe more than the fair market value), then your deduction is limited according to IRS publication 936. Further the interest deduction is only worthwhile for the first about five years of the mortgage unless you have other itemized deductions you can take or a very expensive house. If it’s the latter, you are likely in the highest tax brackets, meaning your ability to take itemized deductions is further limited plus you may become subject to the alternative minimum tax.
* * * * *
I think that’s good for now as I feel I’ve addressed the more common arguments made. Now is it better to rent or buy? Well this depends on multiple things, first and foremost is your financial situation. If you don’t have the greatest credit, then renting is pretty much your only option anyway. But otherwise which will be better for you really depends on whether you hope or plan to stay in one area for at least the duration of the mortgage. If you cannot see that far into the future, rent.
On YouTube there is a user by the name “TheAtheistAntidote” — which right away should tell you the level of idiocy to which this guy can ascend. Recently he made a video with the title “Atheism void of Liberty (No God = No Liberty)”. That’s right, he is actually attempting to make the claim that without a supernatural “big brother”, you don’t have any liberty whatsoever:
Before rebutting key points in his video, I need to point out one observation from this video. He is basically setting up one giant false dichotic argument here. A false dichotomy, for those unaware of the definition, is when you try to argue on the basis that there are only two, mutually exclusive points of view, and only one can be right. Here, TheAtheistAntidote establishes the false dichotic view of either God or government, God or the state.
As a libertarian atheist… how anyone can assert that false dichotomy is beyond me. But let’s get down to the actual points he was trying to make.
Many will be quick to cite the Islamic world as a society that exemplifies the antithesis of freedom, however, Allah is not regarded as a source of liberty, but an object of submission. Islam itself means submission.
Right away he is making an historical fallacy here. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all regarded as Abrahamic religions, meaning all three are interpretations and reinterpretations of the same God and his will over man. Thus if you are going to try to assert your God as the source of liberty, Allah (the Arabic word for God, by the way) is also a source of liberty. Islam is an interpretation of the will of God, which differs in key ways from Christianity.
Since the dawn of the American experiment, and in fact predating our very colonies, personal liberty and personal freedom have been inextricably linked to the creator God.
Actually before the American experiment, few knew what real liberty actually felt like. Most everyone in the world knew only tyranny to some degree, as they were all subjects to a crown, emperor, dictator, or the like. And they all asserted their power came from a god, otherwise how would they have gotten into power. It must’ve been God’s will that their bloodline rules, right? Google “divine right” for an historical lesson on that concept.
It wasn’t until the rise of the American colonies against the Crown of Great Britain that we started to assert that the Crown does not have any legitimate power not granted to it by the people. With regard to the governments of the various colonies, the assertion was that only the people can grant power to a government. Any such power usurped from the people against the will of the people or by deceiving the people is not legitimate power.
Further any power exercised to oppress the people, or any denomination of the people therein, is not a legitimate exercise of power and is, by its very definition, tyranny.
We are a nation founded on the very premise that God Almighty is the only true source for such liberty, a declaration of unmovable truth inscribed on our very Liberty Bell.
While he is saying this, “Lev 25” flashes on the screen, meaning Leviticus 25, the book of the Old Testament that lays out various Mosaic laws. It’s rather intriguing how Christians will routinely state that the old Mosaic laws no longer apply, yet they have no issue in quoting them to assert their points.
He makes reference to the Liberty Bell. On the bell is inscribed:
Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof
Lev. XXV. v X.
By Order of the ASSEMBLY of the Province of PENSYLVANIA for the State House in Philad
Pass and Stow
Philad
MDCCLIII
“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof”. With this reference inscribed on the bell, it is not saying or asserting that God Almighty is the “true source for such liberty”. Merely it is making a statement that the bell is to proclaim liberty throughout the colonies.
If the state be your only bestower of rights, as the secular extremists among you are forced to insist, then said state can take them away, and history proves that take them away they will.
Actually I think you’ll be hard pressed to find secularists who will assert that the State is the bestower of rights. I’m a secularist, and I have never said that our rights were granted by men or a government. Every time a government has trampled upon the rights of the people, that government has assumed its power illegitimately and has asserted its power through tyranny. The secularization of society may have made it easier to usurp that power, but the power was nonetheless illegitimately usurped from a complacent people.
Reason, human instinct, and all that we know of man prove that the bigger the significance of the state, the lesser the significance of individual liberty. Our founders knew, therefore, that the opposite must be the basis of our American values.
This is one of the few correct statements he makes throughout this video. It’s only a crying shame he’s making it in a video where he’s asserting the true source of individual liberty is with a government that transcends all governments, that being the divine governance of God, assuming you believe in that.
The more important God is in the eyes of free individuals, the less significant the state, and the greater the individual. This is the bedrock of our country.
This is the false dichotomy I alluded to earlier. There is no divine balance scale with God on one side and the State on the other, where the lesser significance of God means greater significance of the State and vice versa. If you want proof of this false dichotomy, all you have to do is talk to Christian and secular anarchists as well as Christian theocrats about their views of God, government, and personal liberty.
It is not a coincidence that as we move away from our God-centered roots, we see more laws governing the conduct of free men. Limitations of speech, property ownership and the fruits of labor spring up like weeds in a garden that once grew lush with God-granted liberty.
He must be ignoring many of the laws that were enacted based on Biblical and Christian principles. These would include laws against consensual sexual actions, including limiting what sexual positions you could use let alone whether you could engage in consensual anal or oral sex or group sex, laws against prostitution, drugs and alcohol purchase and consumption, laws restricting the personal liberties of homosexuals, laws enacted to target homosexuals, and so on.
Those are laws that restrict personal liberty, enacted in the name of Biblical principles and Christian “values”. Do you not see those as laws “governing the conduct of free men”?
Yes we do see the other limitations mentioned, and we are fighting back against the government to see those liberties restored. Going to church and praying it be so won’t make it happen. You must act to make it so.
Our children once whispered before each school day, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on thee, and beg the blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.”
I know, I know avert your children’s eyes from the evil of this generalized acknowledgment of our right-giver, a non-denominational prayer which no child was forced to say, in no way violated our Constitution.
Five citizens filed suit to stop this prayer from being recited in the schools, and the lawsuit was supported by various Jewish organizations, because the prayer was deemed to be contrary to certain religious beliefs. The case in question is Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1961).
Plus the prayer was a prayer undoubtedly created by Christians, prescribed by law over all children, not just Christian children. How is that not a violation of the Constitution?
Public schools are an arm of the government. Anything required by or in a public school is as if the government itself is requiring it. By requiring children in a public school to recite a prayer, the government might as well require everyone open their day by attending church. If you don’t see that as a violation of the Constitution, you are seriously messed up.
You and your children are profoundly less free than your father or grandfather.
Nothing could be further from the truth. All one has to do is study the history of the United States since the Civil War to see how wrong this statement is. This is especially true of the minority races and cultures in the United States.
Let’s go over a few of the ways that people were “freer” in earlier generations: mandatory, government prescribed, segregation in most areas of life including public schools, private businesses, other public services, and even cemeteries; anti-miscegeny laws; inter-racial sex laws; laws and policies specifically targeting homosexuals and minorities. Need I go on?
To say the people today are “less free”, let alone to say “profoundly less free”, than earlier generations should earn the speaker a slap across the face with the thickest history book available. Plus with the advent and technological advances of the Internet, free speech has never been more open, its exercise easier, and the voices of other people in society has never been more accessible.
“If it is not God who grants you your only personal liberty, who in fact does ensure certain unalienable rights?” I ask. “On whose authority outside of man do you lay claim to this personal liberty and freedom that we love and have died for?”
Who, other than Christians, say that God grants you personal liberty? Aside from that, you later assert that if the state grants liberty, the state can later take it away. If God grants liberty, what is there to stop him from taking it away? And who are you to say he will not do that?
At least the government we can stop from taking our liberties away. Who is there to stop God from doing such a thing if he so desires?
I don’t clam to own the liberty I have either. To borrow the words of British comedian Pat Condell, I don’t own this freedom as I know it was handed to me on a platter by those who did earn it with their lives. I am little more than a steward of this freedom, which is why I speak out against the government in whatever way I can to preserve this liberty and freedom for future generations.
Government, if not restrained by fear of God alone, is little more than a sword wielded by the powerful over the weak.
Again with the false dichotomy. I hate to say this, but God cannot restrain the government. Only the people can do that. Will you help keep the government restrained, or will you instead call for further restrictions on the freedom and liberty of individuals in line with your religious beliefs?
* * * * *
Throughout the video, the presenter constantly refers to our rights, freedom and liberty as being “God-given” or “God-granted”, yet he also says that government is not the grantor of rights. These assertions are self-contradictory.
If you believe in God, you believe in a government, a supernatural government whose will, authority, and tyranny you have no choice but to accept and to which you are eternally subject without any hope or possibility of escape. This government is even more tyrannical than the governments of men, as the governor God can find you guilty for crimes of thought, thoughts you may not even realize you had.
And on this trial of guilt there is no jury, no witnesses to cross-examine, no counsel to assist, and no appeal. Any finding of guilt is final, and any sentence eternal.
The idea that without God you have no liberty, or without God you have no rights can be seen as the fallacy it is when taken in this light.
If government does not grant rights, then God does not grant rights. From where then, do our rights originate? Ourselves.
However if government is to be the protector of rights, the protector of liberty, then God, if He exists, is not a grantor of rights and liberty, but the ultimate protector of rights and liberty. For if we have rights because we exist, even God cannot trample upon them, and any laws handed down by God that trample upon our rights as men are also illegitimate on their face.
As we approach the close of the 111th Congress and reflect on major legislative actions such as the health care reform bill, I think we should also reflect on legislation that was certainly key legislation that, arguably thankfully, never made it to Obama’s desk. There is likely plenty to go through, but for now I’ll start with two bills in particular.
Puerto Rican statehood (HR 2499)
Back in April 2010, word started to spread about a vote on legislation that would propose the question of statehood to Puerto Rican residents. When the question has been asked of whether Puerto Rico should become a full State under the United States, Puerto Rico has consistently said No.
Under the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010, HR 2499, a two-part question would be posed to Puerto Rican citizens:
Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status, or
Puerto Rico should have a different political status
Seems pretty benign at first, but those who wrote the bill know that Puerto Ricans don’t like their current political status, so the question was formulated in such a way as to elicit a majority response to the latter option, which then asked voters to consider and select one of four options for a new political status:
Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States
Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.
Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union.
Commonwealth: Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status.
Of these four options, the third option was presumed to be most popular among those most likely to select the second option above. By structuring the ballot measure in this fashion, the hope by those backing this initiative is that a plurality would vote to make Puerto Rico a full State.
So what happened to the bill?
The bill was originally introduced May 19, 2009, by Representative Pedro Pierluisi, the representative of Puerto Rico in the United States Congress, though under the Constitution he does not have any voting rights in the House. He is a member of the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico and is affiliated with the Democratic Party.
On April 29, 2010, the bill was considered in the full House for passage. It would pass the House by a vote of 223 to 169, with 37 representatives not voting and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter [D-NY(28)] voting as Present. The last action reported on the bill occurred on May 19, 2010, where the bill was taken up by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In other words, the bill was basically silently killed without even being assigned a Senate bill number.
Should we worry about this bill being introduced in the 112th Congress next year? The possibility is certainly there. However given how much of a ruckus arose over this bill, I don’t think it would go anywhere if the attempt was made. This bill would have resulted in a tremendous fraud perpetrated on the citizens of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Stripping citizenship without a trial (HR 5327, S 3327)
Recall on May 1, 2010, how a Pakistani-born naturalized citizen of the United States named Faisal Shahzad attempted a bombing in Times Square in New York City. He pled guilty to charges and is now serving a life sentence without possibility of parole. In the wake of that attack came attacks on the Miranda warning by Senator John McCain, among others, but also a call by Senator Joseph Lieberman to look at our expatriation laws.
Expatriation consists of two key things: deporting a person from the United States and subsequently stripping them of their citizenship. Under the current law, a citizen of the United States cannot be stripped of their citizenship while they still live in the United States. Further a person cannot be involuntarily stripped of their citizenship unless they have been convicted of one of several enumerated offenses or conditions, defined in 8 USC § 1481(a).
Further, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Vance v. Terrazas, 444 US 252 (1980), a person cannot be involuntarily stripped of their citizenship unless it can be shown that the crimes or actions were also committed with the intent of relinquishing one’s citizenship.
So basically there is plenty of law and precedent surrounding one simple notion: the government of the United States does not have the power or authority to strip a person of their citizenship unless that person has acted with the express or implied intent of relinquishing one’s citizenship. In other words, you cannot be stripped of your citizenship unless you want that to happen.
Now again, you risk losing your citizenship when you are convicted of various offenses against the United States. However Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) introduced legislation into the Senate that would allow for expatriation for additional offenses against the United States, but with one key difference: no conviction in a District Court of the United States would be required.
I sent an e-mail to Senator Lieberman’s office, but received only a form letter response to my inquiry. I did not pursue it further.
So what of the legislation itself? What happened with it? In short: nothing.
In the Senate, Lieberman introduced the Terrorist Expatriation Act of 2010 as S. 3327 on May 6, 2010. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where no action on the bill has since been taken.
In the House, Congressman Jason Altmire [D-PA(4)] introduced the same bill as HR 5237. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and was subsequently referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law on June 15. No action has been taken since, and I don’t anticipate any action actually occurring between now and January in either the House or Senate on this one.
Will the bill be reintroduced in the 112th Congress? I’m doubtful. With huge pushes by the people for a House and Senate more leaning toward personal liberties, a bill that gives the Department of State the ability to strip a person of their citizenship without the benefit of a criminal trial will likely be seen as an affront to liberty and not tolerated.
A woman who has progressed about 11 weeks into a pregnancy presents in the emergency room with pulmonary hypertension, a potentially life-threatening condition, the risk of which is only exacerbated by her pregnancy. Attempts are made to address the condition while avoiding harming the pregnancy, but those attempts fail.
Attending physicians determine that if the woman is to survive the condition, her pregnancy must be terminated. After going through the necessary administrative procedures, the doctors terminate the pregnancy.
This anecdote is based on an actual situation that occurred at St John’s Hospital in Phoenix, a Catholic hospital. In response to it, the patient was "automatically excommunicated" according to press reports, and the hospital administrator who signed off on the abortion was rebuked by higher Church officials, along with a new rule being enacted that will, in essence, ensure that no pregnancy is intentionally terminated in a Catholic hospital.
In response to this event, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is trying to put pressure on the United States Department of Health and Human Services to have them pressure the Catholic Church, which owns more than 1 in 8 hospital beds in the United States, to relax this rule to allow for emergency situations such as the case that presented in Phoenix.
Yet if you go to pro-life web sites, what will they say? Likely that the ACLU is trying to "force" Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions.
Umm… no.
Let me be clear: I am in no way talking about high-risk pregnancies. A pregnancy may be deemed "high risk" based on an assessment of the risk of complications. What I am discussing in this article is a complication that has developed into a life-threatening emergency that has presented at the ER.
Let’s break down the Phoenix case. Now courtesy of Federal and Arizona privacy laws, there is a lot we cannot know, but there is plenty we can presume based simply on the fact that this was a medical event at a Catholic hospital. Courtesy of the privacy laws, the one crucial aspect of the encounter that is locked away is what caused the doctors to determine that the abortion was necessary.
Presumably there is at least one doctor, who we can only presume is Catholic and anti-abortion, at a Catholic hospital, who determined that terminating the pregnancy was necessary to save the patient. Likely this decision was reviewed by at least one other physician, possibly more. After all, we’re talking about an abortion at a Catholic hospital — they’d want to make sure they were doing the right thing. But one thing is apparent from the scenario: No one was coerced into it, except maybe the patient as her options were either terminate the pregnancy or die carrying it.
The "forcing doctors" line is one of the latest tactics out of the pro-life movement, most recently enacted with a fervor after the Obama administration started talking about scaling back the "provider refusal rule". Remember the pro-life backlash on that one? "They want to force doctors to perform abortions".
Let me make this clear (don’t make me turn up the font): No one is trying to force doctors to perform abortions. No one is trying to force doctors to do anything. The pursuit of the ACLU is in nothing more than ensuring a uniform standard of care across all hospitals that receive public money, including Catholic hospitals.
What this would mean is this: if a pregnant woman presents in an emergency room at any hospital with an emergency condition for which the attending physicians determine that terminating the pregnancy is necessary to save the woman’s life, that hospital will do what it has deemed necessary without fear of punishment or reprisal against the physicians and/or nurses and hospital administrators.
Will this result in doctors and hospitals being "forced" to perform abortions? Not by the government. If a hospital is forced to accommodate an abortion, it will be because the attending physicians and any reviewing physicians determine it to be necessary to save a woman’s life.
Let us not overlook the tragedy here. A woman had little choice but to terminate her pregnancy if she wanted to continue living. The response of the Catholic Church to this woman and the hospital where the abortion occurred is reprehensible at best.
But while there was tragedy, we cannot forget that a woman is alive today because of the extremely difficult decision of her attending physicians. Yet the response by the Catholic Church provides the impression that they would have preferred she died just to preserve a principle of "no abortions performed here".
That, however, would have been a greater tragedy because it would not have been just the woman who died, but the child she was carrying. Let us not overlook or forget that.
“Throughout the centuries we have projected on to the wolf the qualities we most despise and fear in ourselves.”
— Barry Lopez
Wolves are magnificent creatures. Distantly related to domesticated dogs along the evolutionary line, they have shown themselves in the wild to be skilled hunters with a complex social structure in their packs.
Yet for years the wolf has been feared by man, just like other predators such as the cougar, tiger, and lion have also been feared. The general perception of the wolf in the eyes of the modern human is one of a bloodthirsty predator who would kill a man or his livestock without hesitation.
The truth, however, is far different.
The wolves will…”travel together ten or twenty miles a day, through the country where they live, eating and sleeping, birthing, playing with sticks, chasing ravens, growing old, barking at bears, scent marking trails, killing moose and staring at the way water in a creek breaks around their legs and flows on”
–Barry Lopez, Of Wolves and Men
But as history has shown many, many times over, a person’s preconceived notions are rarely swayed by reality. It is in that light that the wolf has been knocked to near extinction. Until reintroduction efforts over two decades ago, the gray wolf was believed to be extinct in the continental United States with the exception of wolves that lived in captivity in America’s zoos and wildlife attractions.
It is because of humans that the wolf was slaughtered in huge numbers. Entire packs were wiped out with both adults and pups killed without any second thought as to the consequences. Today we have deer and game populations that are exploding, resulting in apparently increasing encounters of game animals with urban populations, also increasing the numbers of accidents caused by these animals, both by automobile impacts and automobiles swerving to avoid impacts.
And the solution in many peoples eyes to counter these exploding game populations is by opening up even more the hunting seasons. Instead what we should be doing is embracing the wolf, Nature’s solution to this problem.
“You can’t love nature with a gun”
— Paul Watson
But before that can happen, we need to change our perceptions of the wolf.
And when we have state officials saying they’ll be the first in line to obtain a permit to hunt the wolf, how will that perception change? People refuse to educate themselves about the wolf. I will admit that when I was a child, I had similar notions about the wolf. I didn’t see them for the majestic creatures they were until I opened my eyes and my mind and read about them. I was fascinated.
The wolves need our protection, and they need our protection from idiot politicians harboring the outdated, prejudiced thoughts about the wolf. If you are a farmer, you don’t need to go to great lengths to protect your livestock, nor do you need to shoot every wolf you see. There are options and alternatives to using a rifle to solve any issues, but few will look beyond that.
And the wolf will only suffer again because of that.
In the short time the gray wolf was removed from the endangered species protection, 260 individuals were killed of a census that is believed to have topped 1,700. That’s 15% of a decades-long effort destroyed in a year. And politicians are saying this shows that the States can exercise restraint? Idaho wanted a “controlled” hunt that would have reduced populations down to only a few hundred individuals.
Government agents kill wolves suspected to have attacked livestock, typically from aircraft. To date since state governments and the Federal government started doing this, over 1,300 wolves have been slaughtered. Will shooting wolves stop them from attacking livestock? No it will not. Only a madman would think so. Only better protections of livestock will keep the wolves away — again there are alternatives to rifles and shotguns.
And the utter extinction of the wolf is not an option.
We need to properly educate the populace about the wolf, its place in the food chain and our ecosystem. We need to educate people about the conservation and reintroduction efforts, and why they are important. And more importantly, we need to stop slaughtering animal populations in the name of sport or money. That is how we brought wild bison populations from hundreds of millions down to thousands (some estimates say the populations bottomed out at only a few hundred before conservation efforts were implemented). It is also one reason the gray wolf was almost wiped out, and several other species were driven near or over the line of extinction as a result, such as the Great Auk and the various species of whales, tigers and other wild cats.
Thankfully much of our perception of the wolf has changed, but, as several Republican Senators have recently shown, there is still much to be desired.
The Republican Platform mentions prayer twice. The first mention is on page 44-45:
We will energetically assert the right of students to engage in voluntary prayer in schools and to have equal access to school facilities for religious purposes.
I should note that the Democratic Platform is silent with regard to prayer. A search for the word "prayer" comes up empty, while a search for the word "pray" brings up a quote regarding healthcare.
Contrary to popular conservative belief, reflected in the above quote, no one asserts that students do not have the right to engage in voluntary religious activities in schools. The only dispute is the appropriate time on school grounds.
I’ve already had a lengthy discussion about religion and prayer on school grounds in the article called "God is banished from the classroom?", so I won’t go into it any further here.
The second mention of prayer is on page 52-53:
We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards.
Here is where things start getting clouded and additional discussion is needed to clarify this. Again, no one disputes the right of students to pray, so we don’t need to go into that. However with this statement by the Republican party, now we have times and places to discuss, and it’s clear they are expressing disdain with United States Supreme Court decisions, where these times and places have already been discussed.
Here are the applicable decisions to the individual events listed:
Athletic events: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 530 US 290 (2000)
Graduation ceremonies: Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577 (1992)
Prayer in public schools: Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962), Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963)
Student-led prayer in pubic schools: Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 US 28 (1985)
For the purposes of disclosure, here are the religious affiliations of those who brought the original lawsuits that made their way to the Supreme Court.
Santa Fe v. Jane Doe: Jane Doe was a representative moniker for "Mormon and Catholic students or alumni and their mothers"1According to text of decision for Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 530 US 290 (2000)
Lee v. Weisman: Deborah Weisman and her father Daniel, who brought the case, is Jewish2Hall, Kermit L. "Lee v. Weisman." The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. 2005.
Engel v. Vitale: The original lawsuit was brought by five citizens of the district in question: Steven I. Engel, Daniel Lichtenstein, Monroe Lerner, Lenore Lyons and Lawrence Roth.3Engel v. Vitale, 191 N.Y.S.2d 453 (1959) (Text of Decision) The religious affiliation of each petitioner is unknown.
Abington Township v. Schempp: Edward Schempp was a Unitarian Universalist.4Abington School District v. Schempp. (2010, September 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Madalyn Murray O’Hair and her son, Jon Garth Murray, were atheists.5Madalyn Murray O’Hair. (2010, September 19). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Wallace v. Jaffree: According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Ishmael Jaffree is agnostic.6Freedom From Religion Foundation. "Freethought of the Day, March 28".
All of these cases brought before the Court school-led or school-sanctioned prayer activities involving students. None of these cases involved students wishing to pray on their own time. These cases involved the schools or legislatures establishing time during the school day or during school activities or functions specifically for prayer.
If students want to pray on school grounds, they are welcome to do so, on their own time, and of their own free will. During school functions or normal class time, where the students are part of a captive audience, the waters become quite a bit more murky. Again I’ve already discussed this at length, so I won’t go into it again here.
But the question that needs to be asked is this: in regard to the words "when done in conformity with constitutional standards", from the second quote from the Republican Platform, do they mean constitutional standards stemming from long precedent out of the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts of the United States, or their own interpretation of constitutional standards? And if the latter, what is their interpretation?
In case you haven’t been reading the news, Teresa Wilson Bean Lewis, age 41, was executed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia on September 23, 2010, for masterminding the deaths of her husband and stepson.
Leading to the execution, there have been a ton of questions raised stemming from various misconceptions about capital punishment and the crime for which Ms Lewis was executed, starting with this one:
Why Teresa was on death row to begin with? She didn’t pull any trigger, so why is she there?
The various reports of the crime say that Teresa was the mastermind behind the double murder of her husband and stepson, though the murders themselves were carried out by two other gunmen. Under the laws of virtually every jurisdiction under the United States, including the Federal jurisdiction, conspiring to commit a crime that is actually carried out is the same as if you were a direct accomplice. The fact that she conspired in the murders is no different than if she had pulled the trigger herself. The Code of Virginia spells this out1Code of Virginia 18.2-18, but I’ll sum up the legalese here as it applies to Teresa Lewis.
In the case of a felony, every accessory before the fact may be tried as if they directly committed the crime. In the cases where the person is an accessory to a capital murder, that person shall be charged with first-degree murder, a Class 2 felony, except in cases where the conspiracy is a murder for hire, such as the case of Teresa Lewis, in which case they shall be tried as if they committed the murder themselves. Capital murder, under Virginia law, is a Class 1 felony, punishable by death.2Code of Virginia 18.2-10(a)
That is why she was on death row.
Plus she pled guilty to all charges, including the capital murder charge. Everyone along the entire appeal chain, starting with the Supreme Court of Virginia up to and including the Governor and all Federal courts, upheld the sentence of death.
But she’s a woman!
Equal protection of the law means equal application of the law. Equal application also means equal eligibility for all punishments, including the death penalty.
The gunmen got life, so she should’ve gotten life.
First, Teresa Lewis was deemed to be the mastermind in the plot, not only by the judge at her trial, but also by Governor Robert McDonnell when he reviewed her application for clemency. If you are the mastermind in a plot to kill multiple people, the death penalty is not only warranted, but expected.
Rodney Lamont Fuller struck a deal with prosecutors in exchange for his cooperation, saving himself from death row. Matthew Shallenberger, the other gunman, was sentenced to life out of “fairness”. Their sentences have no bearing on whether Lewis is to be on death row, and either gunman could have been sentenced to death while the other was sentenced to life.
She’s mentally challenged, and executing her would violate the mandate of the United States Supreme Court.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), borrowed on the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of mental retardation as being an IQ of 70 or below, basically issuing a blanket restriction on sentences of death of individuals that meet such a definition. Teresa Lewis did not meet the definition. The lowest her IQ has tested, according to published reports, is 72.
Saying she is mentally retarded because her IQ tested at 72, wherein the accepted definition sets the maximum IQ for mental retardation at 70, allows for a slippery slope. What if an offender takes 15 lives but tests to an IQ of 73? The Supreme Court set a limit, and that limit should be honored.
One of the gunmen confessed to being the mastermind.
In a letter addressed to a girlfriend in 2003, Matthew Shallenberger allegedly confessed to being the mastermind, saying he needed the money and found Lewis to be easily manipulated. Shallenberger committed suicide in prison in 2006, and prosecutors dismissed the letter as being manufactured.
Prior to sentencing, evidence establishing Lewis as the mastermind was submitted to the Court. This is what the judge used in establishing the sentence.
Plus affidavits and letters don’t do much to override a prior finding. The evidence submitted showed Lewis to be the mastermind. The Supreme Court of Virginia stated such in their review of the case and punishment:
[Lewis] was the mastermind of these gruesome crimes, which would not have occurred but for her actions.
* * * * *
The facts established by the Court show that Teresa Lewis was the mastermind in this case. That fact appears to not have been openly and properly challenged in a Court of law, probably because the only evidence that contradicts the assertion arose after the trial and after Lewis had been sentenced to death, and is entirely verbal or hearsay. As such, as often happens in a Court of Law, both to the detriment and advantage of defendants, only those facts properly presented to the Court are evaluated to determine the proper sentencing.
Lewis’s death penalty was automatically evaluated by the Supreme Court of Virginia. They affirmed and accepted the facts determined to exist at the Circuit Court. Those facts, the Supreme Court of Virginia would determine, warrant a sentence of death in this case, and such a sentence is not excessive given the facts.
I find no compelling reason to set aside the sentence that was imposed by the Circuit Court.
This murder was committed for life insurance money, of which Lewis was the sole beneficiary. This means it all came down to her, and she had the power to stop the crime from occurring. She instead chose to facilitate it.
Accordingly, in line with the opinions of the Governor of Virginia and the various courts of appeals that have heard arguments related to this case, I join their opinions that the penalty of death in this case was properly applied.
