EXCERPT:

It was a year and one-half ago we told you that $800 billion in stimulus wasn’t enough. That is now proving to be the case. Get ready for another liquidity barrage, called quantitative easing. It will also mean real interest rates will rise again. The backbone of most all nations of the world is debt not gold, silver or a basket of commodities. Greece is being blamed, but all told, 19 nations are on the edge of bankruptcy. In fact, central banks in these countries are among the biggest speculators. In the euro zone countries cannot print money so they sell bonds in spite of the rules of the bailout. Many are having a hard time selling bonds. Thus other nations are secretly doing so.

There is talk of another Northern European currency backed by gold. If that happens the dollar will fall because it won’t be able to compete. Those in the southern tier will have to return to their own currencies and do as Argentina did ten years ago. Those long dollars do not get too comfortable.

In high school, the only sports I played to any significant extent were soccer and basketball. A lot of my friends went snowboarding or skiing, but it was a long drive to the mountains and I could not really afford all the equipment, which cost hundreds of dollars. So I never spent much time on the slopes. However, I have always been fascinated by winter sports. The Winter Olympics in Vancouver was the first of two major international sporting events this year, the other being the soccer World Cup, to be held in South Africa in June. Both events feature the best athletes in the world in their respective sports and enthrall millions across the globe.

However, after watching the Germans steer their bobsleds, the Russians twist and turn in figure skating, and the French ski down steep mountain slopes, I began to realize that the true reason that many athletes from cold-weather countries succeed in this frosty quadrennial competition is not climate or topography or even, dare I say it, talent, but rather privilege, economics, and wealth. Of all the stunning statistics that were tossed around during the fortnight of games in British Columbia, one stat was not mentioned, although its omission is hardly surprising. Of the 238 total medals that were up for grab in Vancouver, over 50 percent were won by eight of the world’s wealthiest nations. The United States, Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Russia, France, Germany, and Italy—industrialized market economies, who together make up the world’s main economic council of wealthy nations, the exclusive Group of Eight, or G8—took home 130 medals and nearly half of the first-place finishes. In addition to the success of the G8 nations, China, widely considered the second wealthiest nation in the world after the U.S., and South Korea, another powerhouse economy in Asia, took home just under 10 percent of remaining medals. It is also worth mentioning that Norway, which the International Monetary Fund places three positions higher than the United States in GDP at purchasing power parity per capita, and Switzerland, which also ranks in the top ten and is just one place behind the U.S., brought home approximately 9 percent and 3 percent of the Winter Olympics medals respectively. If you are doing the math, that means that 72 percent, nearly three-fourths, of all the medals in Vancouver were won by twelve incredibly wealthy nations. While similar patterns were displayed in Beijing and other summer Olympic games, one must remember that the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics were a competition where poorer nations like Ethiopia, Romania, Jamaica, Kenya, and Ukraine walked away with a half-dozen gold medals each. With the exception of Austria, hardly a nation of impoverished citizens, and Yugoslavia, the Winter Olympics has never been held outside of these twelve countries since the competition began nearly ninety years ago.

The lack of success among underdeveloped nations in the Winter Olympics is not for want of trying. Take, for instance, the story of Tugba Karademir, the young figure skater from Turkey, where the capital city Ankara has the country’s only real ice rink. Karademir’s father and mother, who is a certified aerospace engineer, immigrated to Canada and accepted jobs doing menial labor just so their daughter could have a chance to compete in the Olympic Games. While geography could be considered a significant challenge to athletes wanting to ski in the Pacific islands or snowboard in the heart of Africa, a large number of events occur indoors or on manmade ramps and tracks, and more often than not, poorer countries do not compete because they lack the finances to compete in sports that require such a large amount of equipment. Is it surprising that most kids in Brazil have never played ice hockey but are always seen with a soccer ball at their feet? Or that children in Cuba play baseball with a simple wooden bat instead of curling? Or that the best skiers in your dorm usually come from the most privileged families? Understand that I am not insinuating that there is a vast conspiracy in winter sports against poorer nations, but that among all of the athletic competitions in the world, it is the most inherently unequal. While I enjoyed watching ice hockey and the rest of the winter games, as a liberal and a lover of equality, they pale in comparison to the World Cup, where 32 nations from across the globe compete on a much more equal playing field in a truly international competition, where success is determined not by how much equipment you or your country can afford, but by your skill kicking a ball on a field of grass.

Martin Surridge is the associate editor of Religious Liberty TV and a freelance journalist who writes for the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. He is currently working on his M.A. in Teaching at Walla Walla University.

China has recently been calling for an international one-child policy as an answer to global warming, with perhaps the most chilling observation from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm, being a statement from Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC), “Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society. . . . . She admitted that China’s population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.”

The issue of “gender imbalance” in China has occurred as female babies are disproportionately aborted in response to the policy. We will be watching these developments closely.  RLTV Editor

 Editor

EXCERPT:

The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.

None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.

Read the full article at: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

The Declaration, drafted by Chuck Colson, Dr. Robert George, and Dr. Timothy George, is in direct response to the recent gay marriage debate and is designed to provide a common base of support for activities such as the Catholic Church’s recent high pressure lobbying of Congress to eliminate language from the national health care bill that would have funded abortion.

 While they have claimed they will commit “civil disobedience,” essentially this amounts to refusing to perform activities inconsistent with their faith while enjoying non-profit 501(c)(3) status, and signals a willingness to withdraw from providing humanitarian public services if the government makes such activities a prerequisite for non-profit status or funding. In other words, a Catholic adoption agency may shutter its doors rather than provide services for same-sex couples.

Although the groups have not been able to agree on fundamental theological issues, their unity around these points held in common may initially seem to be an admirable step forward in reasserting the Christian voice in America’s culture wars.  

So far so good – churches shouldn’t be compelled by the government to do things that violate their sincerely held beliefs.  However, the Declaration does not stop with three issues that many American Christians would easily agree upon as protective of their faith. In the midst of the statement on promoting a “thriving marriage culture,” the writers tuck in an ominous sentence that seemingly comes out of nowhere, “But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.” (Emphasis added.)

 The writers do not clearly define what they mean by a “thriving marriage culture.” Since same-sex marriage is merely a hindrance to achieving this goal, there must be something beyond defining what constitutes marriage. Culture is a broad sweeping concept, and passing laws would affect not just adherents but everybody in society.

And what does it mean to “rebuild” such a marriage culture? Despite the imperfections of modern family life, what laws could be passed to restore a “thriving marriage culture”? There are two things that families could use more of: money and time. Tax breaks might help families by relieving a portion economic stress but such changes might only increase family budgets by at most 10% and would require cuts in government services benefiting low income families. Time is a much more valuable commodity and if the supply and demand chain were broken one day a week, families would have opportunity to relax because there would be no reason for the majority of people to go to work that day.

Declaration signers know that it is impossible to pass a law requiring people to “be nice.” However, things can be done to help families. If they are to reinvigorate a thriving marriage culture, sweeping changes must be made across the board to empower families. Right now, with 24/7 commerce it is difficult to give employees a uniform day of rest that they can count on each week so that they can plan family time.  (See http://www.keepsundayspecial.org.uk/research/index.php?id=38 for the secular health and safety benefits of a uniform day of rest.)   Promoting the family time inherent in Sabbath rest would appear to promote a thriving marriage culture, and would at least require economic penalties against those businesses who required their employers to lose this family time by engaging in commerce.

Such efforts are underway in Europe where Germany has passed a national day of rest for most sectors of the economy. (See http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,462439,00.html to read where the law is being used as a mechanism to block a minority group from practicing its faith.)

In America we are quickly reaching the critical point where expansion of freedom is viewed by some as a threat to religious liberty. Advocates for religious freedom who once took an almost permissive approach so long as the rights and safety of innocent third parties were protected are now actively calling for those types of freedoms to be curtailed.

It is a delicate balancing act, and churches do well to protect their integrity. But if they are also using the power of this unity to “reform laws” and “rebuild the culture” then we are witnessing the emergence of a new threat to liberty. After all, if the problems we face are resulting from too much freedom, a restoration of a prior culture would mean a rollback in freedom.

From a strictly human perspective, the document is troubling as well. It focuses on human power to effect changes in human laws which will in turn effect the hearts of the people – an approach that Christ repeatedly rejected in His earthly ministry. If Christians want to rebuild a moral culture, they must be willing to preach the gospel but rely on the power of God to change hearts – they should not hide behind the power of government.

We are dancing on shifting sands. It may be tempting and even seem safer to join the crowd and push for new laws to change society. It can be frightening to run the risk of appearing in favor of “immorality” if you stand for the principles of separation of church and state, and try to protect the rights of both the religious and the secular.  It is true that there are tremendous forces coming at churches from the left but the answer is not for the people of faith to become the threats themselves. Those on left and right should seek to protect themselves and their organizations from those on the opposite side, yet not force their will on the rest of society.  

I am afraid we are seeing the emergence of a snowball effect – the forces now assembling will do whatever it takes, and say whatever they need to in order to gain power, adherents, and confidence and will eventually threaten the well-being of all who refuse to conform.

We have no reason to doubt that those who drafted and are signing the Declaration are sincere and trying to do what they believe is best for America.  There are many good reasons why it may seem a good idea, but we should raise a voice of caution regarding the unintended consequences of this approach.  Christians tempted to set aside theological differences, which include differences in how grace and salvation are viewed so significant that they led to the battles of the Reformation and Inquisition, and unite on points held in common in order to change society should recall the unholy results of such unions. From a Christian perspective, government and even church edicts cannot change hearts, only God can.

As we are admonished in 2 Timothy 3:5, “They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!” (New Living Translation)

If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.

You and I as human beings are creatures of incentives and disincentives. We respond to incentives and disincentives. Our behavior is affected by them, sometimes very powerfully. Policymakers who forget this will do dumb things like jack up taxes on some activity and expect that people will do just as much of it as before, as if taxpayers are sheep lining up to be sheared.

Remember when George Bush (the first one) reneged under pressure on his 1988 “No New Taxes!” pledge? We got big tax hikes in the summer of 1990. Among other things, Congress dramatically boosted taxes on boats, aircraft and jewelry in that package. Lawmakers thought that since rich people buy such things, we should “let ‘em have it” with higher taxes. They expected $31 million in new revenue in the first year from the new taxes on those three things. We now know that the higher levies brought in just $16 million. We shelled out $24 million in additional unemployment benefits because of the people thrown out of work in those industries by the higher taxes. Only in Washington, D.C., where too often lawmakers forget the importance of incentives, can you aim for 31, get only 16, spend 24 to get it and think that somehow you’ve done some good.

Want to break up families? Offer a bigger welfare check if the father splits. Want to reduce savings and investment? Double-tax ‘em, and pile on a nice, high capital gains tax on top of it. Want to get less work? Impose such high tax penalties on it that people decide it’s not worth the effort.

Right now in both state and federal legislatures, much attention is being given to the question of how to deal with deficits due to recession and declining revenues. At the Mackinac Center, we believe that government ought to deal with such circumstances the way you and I and families all across the state deal with similar circumstances: curtail spending. That’s especially true if we want to stimulate a weak economy so it will produce more jobs and more revenue. When the patient is ill, the doctor doesn’t bleed him.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev may discuss his proposal to create a new world currency when he meets counterparts from Brazil, India and China this month, Natalya Timakova, a spokeswoman for the president, told reporters by phone today. Russia’s proposals for the Group of 20 meeting in London in April included studying a supranational currency.

“We need some kind of universal means of payment, which could create the basis of a future international financial system,” Medvedev said in a June 1 interview with CNBC. “Naturally, because of the crisis in the American economy, attitude to the dollar has also changed.”

Regional reserve currencies are an “unavoidable” part of “regionalizing” the global financial system, Deputy Finance Minister Dmitry Pankin said in Moscow today.

Read the full article at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3X76sjV801Y&refer=worldwide

 Click here for a print-friendly PDF version of this article.

Introduction

The main purpose for writing this article is to respond to the relentless attempts in recent times to legislate in the European Union, Sunday as an official weekly rest day. The lobbyists championing this cause have been among other associations, the Roman Catholic Bishops (COMECE), some Protestants church representatives and certain Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).[1] I will now provide a synopsis of the background on this issue and show how it has developed to the present day.

The Working Time Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993, Article 5, second paragraph stipulated that a minimum weekly rest period ‘shall in principle include Sunday.’[2] Sunday as a weekly rest day was enshrined into European Community Law, but it was annulled by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after a legal challenge from the United Kingdom government on 12 November 1996.

Based on the Court’s application of Article 137 (ex Article 118a) of the Treaty of the European Union, it was concluded that in so far as the Council was concerned “the connection between the health and safety of workers and the requirement that the weekly rest period ‘shall in principle include Sunday’ in the second sentence of Article 5 of the Directive, had not been established.”[3] There was no satisfactory explanation given “why Sunday, as a weekly rest day, is more closely connected with the health and safety of workers than any other day of the week.”[4] And accordingly the ruling was that the sentence be annulled.

In September 2004, the Commission submitted a proposal to review Council Directive 2003/88/EC. The European Parliament voted the submission at its first reading in May 2005. After a three year period of stalemate, an agreement was only reached in June 2008 at which seven MEPs supported by Catholic Bishops initiated an amendment aiming yet again at attempting to include a Sunday weekly rest day clause previously annulled. The new amendments were not entertained even after the first and the second reading in the House of Parliament due to procedural reasons.[5] And since then, five parliamentarians on 2 February 2009 launched a Written Declaration to lobby the House for its adoption. A majority of 394 MEPs need to sign, before 7 May 2009. The main purpose of the Declaration is to call on “the Member States and the EU institutions to protect Sunday, as a weekly rest day in the forthcoming national and EU working time legislation in order to enhance the protection of worker’s health and the reconciliation of work and family.”[6] I will now proceed to argue that the attempts to enshrine Sunday as a weekly rest day in the European Community remains unlawful, in spite of the launch of a Written Declaration initiative.

Background

The European weekly rest day legislation initially was linked more to the health and safety measures of employees in the work place. The legal basis for it was the Treaty of the European Community Article 137 (previously Article 118a). The Community organisation was to support and complement the endeavours of the Member States to improving primarily ‘the working environment to protect workers’ health and safety.[7] To accomplish its objectives, the Council was to “adopt by means of directives, minimum requirements for gradual implementation…”[8]

The Council of the European Community adopted a Resolution on 21 December 1987 entitled “Safety, hygiene and health at work.”[9] There was no link made between the protection of the worker’s health and safety and Sunday as a weekly rest day nor was it raised as an issue. This argument is supported by the Council’s own affirmation when it officially adopted the measure as a formal Directive on 12 June 1989. It stated that “the objective of this Directive is to introduce measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.”[10] However, Sunday as a weekly rest day with a sociological connotation in Europe began to emerge when the Commission requested the Economic and Social Committee (hereafter ECSOC) to appraise the elements of the Community Charter of Basic Rights. [11] In order to expedite time, ECSOC’s recommendation was for a list to be drawn of basic social principles to be enacted and adhered to by all Member States.

Furthermore, the Community Institutions were to “take the procedural steps necessary to ensure that the scope of these basic principles and rights is interpreted with due respect for the standards already recognised in other international social legal instruments.”[12] The International Labour Conventions 14[13] and 106[14] were cited and reference was made to the weekly rest period but no particular day was suggested. Further, the Council of Europe, Social Charter, Article 2(5) stipulated that “The weekly rest period shall, whenever possible, coincide with the day of the week established as a day of rest by the traditions or customs of the country or district.”[15] Article 2(5) again did not specify the actual week rest day but left it to each country to determine.

The International Labour Convention 106 noted that “The traditions and customs of religious minorities shall, as far as possible, be respected.”[16] The short guide to the Social Charter provided an addendum on respect of Article 2(5) that cited Sunday as the day which all states that had ratified the Charter should incorporate as an official day of rest. At this point, not all Member States had ratified the Charter and therefore the European Parliament could not legislate it. It was left to the discretion for each Member State to decide on the issue.

On 5 October 1990, the Council approached ECSOC for its opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the organisation of working time. ECSOC made reference to health as defined by the World Health Organisation which was to be understood as signifying the physical, mental and social conditions and in so doing linked the worker’s health and safety measure to Sunday as a weekly rest day.”[17] In justifying this stance, ECSOC stated that “in countries with Christian traditions the day of rest has to be Sunday.”[18]

The European Parliament debate on the subject of organisation of working time pertaining to Sunday as a rest day followed. I will now provide brief extracts of some arguments put forward by MEPs.

Van Dijk (NL) argued that “The premise that night work ought in principle to be forbidden is, in my opinion, much more important than preserving Sunday as a day of rest. After all, you do not get sicker through working during the day on Sunday than on Mondays, but the same cannot be said of about night work.”[19]

Pronk [PPE]-(NL) said “It remains a day for the family. It is a day of rest in our increasingly hectic societies. We have tabled amendments on this point. We consider it important to preserve that day of rest. After all, one cannot sacrifice everything to society. Certain values remain that we always keep sacrosanct.” [20]

And, Van Der Waal (NI)-(NL) said “I do not wish to plead for EC regulations of Sundays. Sunday legislation is eminently a matter for Governments of Member States and ought to remain so. But it would be important if, in the Directive before us, it were clearly stated that Sunday, as the Christian day of rest, as God’s day, merited a place apart in the internal market.”[21]

However, Papandreou, a Member of the Commission (GR) argued “I do agree, of course, that the week end is the usual acceptable time for rest but given that the proposal is concerned with the health and safety of workers and that there is no direct connection between heath and safety and the weekend. I do not think that we can rightly establish this assumption in the proposal.”[22]

After considering all the arguments, Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 inserting Article 5b which included the provision that the minimum rest period ‘shall in principle include Sunday”.[23]

The Sunday weekly rest day in Europe was by law anchored into the European Union in 1993. It must be noted that recital 10 stated that “with the respect to the weekly rest period, due account should be taken of the diversity of cultural, ethnic, religious and other factors in the Member states.”[24] It was “ultimately for each Member State to decide whether Sunday should be included in the weekly rest period, and if so to what extent.”[25] Here again the issue of Sunday law legislation was left for the Member States to decide. But no sooner was the Council Directive in operation, that it faced a legal challenge from the British Government.

Legal Challenge

In March 1994, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland brought an action under Article 230 (ex Article 173) of the Treaty for the annulment of Working Time Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993.[26] The UK Government requested the European Court of Justice to annul the Directive in its entirety or failing which in the alternative to repeal selected provisions which included Article 5, second paragraph (the minimum weekly rest period shall ‘in principle include Sunday’). However, the Council’s rebuttal was that the UK application was unfounded.

The UK Government based its legal challenge on four pleas alleging, (1) defective legal basis (2) breach of the principle of proportionality (3) misuse of powers and (4) infringement of essential procedural requirements.[27] In the first instance, the applicant observed that “Directives adopted under Article 118a(2) of the EEC Treaty must have a genuine and objective link between health and safety, on the one hand, and the situation to be governed by those Directives, on the other.”[28] However, it argued that “In the present case, the link between health and safety is too tenuous for the Directive to be properly based on Article 118a of the EEC Treaty. Thus, for example, the link between the rule of Sunday rest … on the one hand, and on the other, health and safety of workers is as remote as the link between the health of employees and generous conditions of pay.”[29]

However, the UK and the Council of the European Union both recognised the social dimension of the Directive as it comes under the title of Social Policy. Whereas the UK saw a dichotomy between Article 118a, health and safety on the one hand and the social dimension on the other, the Council did not. The UK argued that “the legislator should explain that numerous elements of the Directive were concerned with improvement of the living and working conditions of employees and/or with the social dimension of the internal market rather than with health and safety considerations.”[30] The Council stated however that “any measure adopted on the basis of the Article 118a will thus necessarily pursue a ‘social’ objective” due to Chapter 1 of Title VIII of the Treaty which includes Article 118a.[31]

The most crucial point to bear in mind, especially as relates to the current debate to legislate Sunday as an official weekly rest day by the European Parliament is to seriously consider the legal reasoning and subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice delivered on 12 November 1996.

The European Court of Justice in this leading case considered both arguments and counter arguments from the UK (applicants) and the Council of the European Union (respondents) respectively. It summed up that “In order to deal with those arguments, a distinction must be drawn between the second sentence of Article 5 of the directive and its other provisions.”[32] There was a clear intention by the Court to seek to separate Article 5 second sentence.

The Court concluded in its judgement as follows:

“As to the second sentence of Article 5, while the question whether to include Sunday in the weekly rest period is ultimately left to the assessment of Member States, having regard, in particular, to the diversity of cultural, ethnic and religious factors in those States (second sentence of Article 5, read in conjunction with the tenth recital), the fact remains that the Council has failed to explain why Sunday, as a weekly rest day, is more closely connected with the health and safety of workers than any other day of the week.”[33]

Based on the above the Court upheld the UK government’s alternative claim and annulled the second sentence of Article 5.

Article 5b Annulment and its Compliance

Subsequently, the European Community institutions immediately complied with the judgment of the Court of Justice. At its sitting, the European Parliament on Thursday, 12 December 1996 adopted a Resolution on Sunday work. The adopted measures called:

“Member States and social partners in their transposition of the working time Directive to pay due regard to the traditions and cultural, social, religious and family needs of their citizens and to recognise that special character of Sunday as a day, as usually all family members are free on that day; reaffirms the right of workers to a weekly day of rest…” And also “Member States to recognise that in a multi-cultural society there are also religious communities who may have preference for an alternative rest day.”[34]

Here again, it is important to note that the European Parliament reiterated the discretion of Member States but significantly stated it was imperative that each Member State in their consideration of Sunday as a weekly rest day should take due regard to minority religious groups who may have an alternative rest day.

The Commission concurred with the European Court of Justice for it noted “Article 5 (weekly rest): the second sub-paragraph of Article 5, which refers to Sunday rest, is deleted. This formalises the decision of the European Court of Justice.”[35]

Directives 93/104/EC and 2000/34/EC were both codified.[36] The changes came into force on the date of the Directive’s publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.”[37]

Attempts to reinstate Article 5b of Directive 93/104/EC

Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time without Article 5 subparagraph two was in operation. In 2008, during the revision of the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, seven MEPs supported by Catholic Bishops (COMECE) initiated two amendments aiming at including a Sunday weekly rest clause.

The first amendment was a new recital (6a) which sought to explain that “the likelihood of sickness in companies that require staff to work on Sundays is greater than in companies that do not require staff to work on Sundays. The health of workers depends, among other factors, on their opportunities to reconcile work and family to establish and maintain social ties and to pursue their spiritual needs. Sunday, as the traditional weekly rest day, contributes to the objectives more than any other day of the week.”[38]

What then followed was the current proposal amending Article 5(2a) to include “The minimum rest periods referred to in the first paragraph shall in principle include Sunday.”[39] It should be noted this would constitute the introduction of the previously annulled Article 5(2). The justification for these amendments lay in “… Eurofound findings demonstrate that absenteeism and sick-leave increase significantly in companies working on Sunday…””[40]

The amendments aimed at including the protection of Sunday as a weekly rest day were neither debated nor voted on by the European Parliament for procedural reasons.[41] However, the Catholic Bishops appealed to churches and various organisations to stay mobilised on the Sunday issue.

Law Infringement

On 31 January 2000, Jorge Hernandez Mollar (PPE DE), a European Member of Parliament in a written question (E-0170/00) to the Commission sought clarification on the Community’s position on the subject of weekly rest days on religious grounds.

Given the influx of immigrants from Maghreb countries working in various EU states, inquired what provisions were in place considering that “the rest days generally given are Fridays and Saturdays, allowing them to keep these days sacred.”[42] And furthermore, that they be the opportunity “to extend the regulation of weekly rest days on religious grounds and introduce the necessary coordination with the practice usually followed in the Member States of the EU of keeping Sunday as a day of rest.”[43]

The legal response from Mrs Dianantopoulou on behalf of the Commission on the 15 March 2000 reiterated that it was not for the European Parliament or Council to legislate but rather to support and complement Member States.[44] . To the contrary, the Commissioner underlined legal obligations the European Community was expected to adhere. She wrote:

“On 25 November 1999, the Commission adopted a package of two legislative proposals and a proposal for a programme to combat discrimination in the Community based on Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty.”

“One of these initiatives is a proposal for a horizontal directive to combat discrimination, inter alia, on grounds of religion. Article 12 of this proposal requires Member States to encourage social partners to contribute to the implementation of the principle of equality of treatment by adopting collective agreements, codes of conduct, research or exchange of experiences and good practice aimed at preventing discrimination.”[45]

The ethos of the European Union is therefore to fight religious discrimination. To ignore the annulled Article 5(b) of the Council Directive 93/104/EC as argued by the Court of Justice would be tantamount to an infringement of the Community Law on discrimination.

Submissions

• In the light of the annulment of Article 5(b) of the Council Directive 93/104/EC, I argue that as long as Article 137 (ex Article 118a) is linked to health and safety measures, Sunday law legislation whatever form it may take will be anchored into the European Union by default and thus render it as unlawful. Notwithstanding it is for this reason UK and the Council seemed to have invoked the sociological approach, which seems to provide the current preoccupation on the part of those intending to anchor Sunday law in the European legislation.
• European Member States by law are to decide whether to have Sunday as a weekly day of rest and not the European Community institutions or any other religious group or associations. It is the Member States who must “pay due regard in particular to diversity of cultural, ethnic, and religious factors in those Member States.”[46]
• Religious discrimination is prohibited by European Community law. According to Case 13/63 Italy v Commission “Discrimination may consist not only in treating like cases differently but also in treating different cases alike.”[47] And as such to enact a law that treats the minority groups, who worship on alternative days such as Fridays and Saturdays in the same way as those who worship on Sundays is to discriminate against those minority religious groups.
• Sunday as a weekly rest day violates the human rights against those who may want to worship on an alternative day. Article 9(1) of the Convention provides “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion...”[48] But also continues “freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society… for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”[49]

The Convention has three measures to test the limitations of Article 9 and these are:

(1) when prescribed by law

(2) legitimate aim and

(3) and when is ‘necessary in a democratic society’

Legislation of Sunday as a weekly rest day in the European Union fails on all three counts.

Conclusion

I sincerely applaud efforts to enhance the protection of workers’ health and safety at their workplace and the reconciliation of work and family life, but there is no correlation between these objectives and the need for a legally instituted Sunday rest day.

In my view, the attempt to enshrine Sunday Law in Europe currently in progress through the Written Declaration procedure still remains unlawful. This issue was last before the ECJ in 1993 and it was decided that although the Working Time Directive was properly adopted and in keeping with the Treaty, the second sentence of Article 5 was not, and so was annulled.[50]

The Written Declaration is merely repetition, wrongly adopted and at variance with Article 137 (ex 118a) of the Treaty of the European Union and as such manifestly falls outside of the scope of the Directive. Those pushing for this motion are misdirected in arriving at the inference that their efforts to amend the Directive would be successful by a mere explanation as to why Sunday as a weekly day of rest contributes more than any other day of the week to the health and safety of workers. The fact remains that the explanations submitted with the Written Declaration are repetition of the arguments rejected in previous attempts to amend the Directive and therefore must fail even today.

MEPs are earnestly requested to consider the fundamentals upon which the Union is founded as follows:

• “The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States”.[51]
• “The right to equality before the law and the protection of all persons against discrimination constitutes a fundamental right and is essential to the proper functioning of democratic societies”.[52]
• “The right of individuals not to be discriminated against on arbitrary grounds has long been recognised by International Organisations, the European Union and its Member States”.[53]

My concern is that those advocating for this proposal have again failed to consider the implications of this Legislation. It remains unclear how this law would be monitored, enforced and whether there will be penalties for non compliance. Europe is a multi- cultural and diverse region.

Removing the cloak on this issue, it appears to me that this is just another attempt to use Parliament to make laws which benefit only (Sunday worshippers) and to discriminate those that do not fall within this Criterion. In my view it is clear that accepting the proposed amendment will only serve to infringe the rights conferred by Article 9 (1) of the Convention and will thus discriminate against those that worship on alternative days. None of the measures put in place by the Convention to test the limitations of Article 9 have been established.

Whilst it is wholly appreciated to provide legal protection to ensure that every individual has the right to observe any day of their choice for worship it is entirely inappropriate to force a doctrinal position on all Union Citizens. This matter deserves a full debate engaging all the parties concerned and in particular the minority groups so that the legal position is made clear and that the possible future religious ramifications of this proposed Legislation are considered in light of the aims and objectives of the European Union.

I respectfully ask for a stay of the Written Declaration for reflection and consultation.

[2] Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol.36, L307, 12 December 1993

[3] Case-84/94 United Kingdom v Council of the European Union, Industrial Relations Law Reports, Vol.26, No.1, January [1997] IRLR 32.

[4] Case 84/94 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union. Court of Justice of the European Communities Reports of Case before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. ECR 1-5805 and 1-5806, para, 37.

[5] http://www.comece.org/comece.taf?_function=news&_sub=&id=1&langauge=en 18/12/2008

[6] European Parliament Written Declaration DC763921EN.doc

[7] Nigel Foster, Blackstone’s EC Legislation 2005-2006 (Oxford: University Press, 2005), 16^th Edition, p.42

[8] Ibid

[9] Official Journal No. C28/1 (88/C28/01) 3^rd February 1988 – The Council Resolution of 21 December 1987.

[10] Official Journal of the European Committees No. L183/1 (89/391/EEC), 26 May 1989

[11] Official Journal of the European Communities No. C126/4 (89/C126/04), 23 May 1989.

[12] Ibid

[13] Convention 14 Weekly Rest (Industry), 1921, Article 7, International Labour Conventions and Recommendations, Vol.1, 1949-1951, International Labour Office, Geneva, International Labour Organisation. (This Convention came into force on 19 June 1923).

[14]Convention 106, Weekly Rest (Commerce and Officers), 1957, Article 6, International Conventions and Recommendations 1952-1976, Vol. 11, International Labour Offices, Geneva, International Labour Organisation, p.91

[15] European Social Charter, collected texts (3^rd edition) 2002, Council of Europe Publishing, 2003, p.13

[16] International Labour Conventions and Recommendations 1952-1976 Vol. 2 Convention No.106 (Weekly Rest in Commerce and Offices) Article 6(4), p.93

[17] Official Journal of the European Communities, C60, Vol. 34, 8 March 1991, Information and Notices

[18] Ibid

[19] Official Journal of the European Communities, Debates of the European Parliament 1990-1991 session, Report of Proceedings form 18-22 February 1991, Europe House, Strasbourg, p.30. Note that the ILO did not specify the day of the week.

[20] Ibid, p.32

[21] Ibid, p.36

[22] Ibid, p.38

[23] Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 36, L307, 12 December 1993

[24] Ibid

[25] Ibid

[26] Case 84/94 UK v Council of the European Union, Court of Justice of the European Communities, Reports of Case before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance (ECR 1-5755). In details see also Case 84/94 United Kingdom v Council of the European Union, Industrial Relations Law Reports, Vol.26, No 1. January ([1997] IRLR 1-76)

[27][1997] IRLR 30

[28][1997] IRLR 33

[29] Ibid

[30] UK (Applicant) v Council of the European Union (Defendant) Case 84/94, Industrial Relations Law Reports, Vol. 26, No.1, January 1997, pp 30-31

[31] Ibid

[32] Case 84/94 UK v Council of the European Union, ECR 1-5805

[33] Case 84/94 UK v Council of the European Union, ECR 1-5806

[34] Official Journal of the European Communities C20 Vol. 40 20/01/1997 Minutes of sitting of Thursday, 12 December 1996 B4-1354, 1368,1413 and 1433/96 – Resolution on Sunday Week.

[35] Official Journal of the European Communities, C249, Vol.42, 1 September 1999 (1999/C249/04), Information and Notices

[36] Official Journal of the European Union, C61, Vol. 46, 14 March 2003, Information and Notices

[37] Ibid.

[38] www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSCProtectionofSunday_EN.pdf 30/03/2009

[39] www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSCProtectionofSunday_EN.pdf 30/03/2009

[40]www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSCProtectionofSunday_EN.pdf 30/03/2009

[41] www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSCProtectionofSunday_EN.pdf 30/03/2009

[42] Official Journal of the European Communities C280 E 03/10/2003 P.0193-0193 http//eur_lex.europa.eu

[43] Ibid

[44] Ibid

[45] Ibid see also Commission of the European Communities, Establishing a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation, COM (1999) 565 Final, Brussels.

[46] ECR 1-5785 to 1-5786 ECR para.139. see also tenth Recital in OJ L307 Vol.36 13.12.1993

[47] Case 13/63, Italy v Commission [1963] ECR 165 and also Case 130/75, Vivien Prais v Council of the European Communities [1976] ECR 1-1592 and 1-1593.

[48] Henry Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context, Law, Politics and Morals (Oxford University Press, 2000) p.1425

[49] Ibid

[50] Case-84-94 United Kingdom v Council of the European Communities [1996] ECR 1-5809 para.49 and [1997] IRLR 57 para.49. For Actions of Annulment see http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/justice/index_en.htm

[51] Nigel Foster, Blackstone’s EC Legislation 2005-2006 (Oxford: University Press, 2005), 16^th Edition , p.92.

[52] Commission of the European Communities, On Certain Community Measures to Combat Discrimination, COM (1999) 564 Final, Brussels, p2.

[53] Ibid.

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term “luxury good” implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society’s divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one — so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the “easy money” country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline — argued economic interventionists — why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely — it was claimed — there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (“paper reserves”) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain’s gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The “Fed” succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930′s.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain’s abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed “a mixed gold standard”; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form — from a growing number of welfare-state advocates — was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

Soros said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union.

He said the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September marked a turning point in the functioning of the market system.

“We witnessed the collapse of the financial system,” Soros said at a Columbia University dinner. “It was placed on life support, and it’s still on life support. There’s no sign that we are anywhere near a bottom.”

His comments echoed those made earlier at the same conference by Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who is now a top adviser to President Barack Obama.

Read more at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29308452/for/cnbc/

In a press release issued February 11, COMECE provided the following rationale for the Declaration.  “The economic and financial crises have made us more aware of the fact that not all aspects of life can be subject to market forces. Unrestrained consumption is neither a model for a sustainable economy, nor a healthy concept for human development. Men and women, who work on Sundays, are put at a disadvantage in their social relationships: Their family life, personal development and even health are verifiably affected.”

Describing Sunday rest as a “pillar of the European social model,” churches have called upon a broad-based approach to Sunday rest which would affect all people regardless of religious affiliation. Claiming an errosion of Sunday rest, COMECE claims that “Workers have experienced fragmentation of their private lives, while small and medium-sized enterprises, which cannot afford uninterrupted opening hours have lost ground in the market place.”

Thus, the general applicability of the Sunday rest requirements, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual citizens, would prevent those who would operate businesses on Sunday from gaining an unfair advantage at the expense of those who rest on Sunday.

In order to be adopted, a majority consisting of 394 members of parliament must approve the measure by May 7, 2009.  As of February 2, 59 had signed on.  If 394 sign on, it will become an official act of the European Parliament to be adopted by the member states.

The legislation as written does not include provision for those who keep an alternate day of rest, but it could be inferred that this will be addressed by the individualized legislation of the member states.

The proposed Declaration is available online at  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+WDECL+P6-DCL-2009-0009+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

Excerpts from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851

As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligation embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

. . .

“As bad as 2008 was, the $455 billion budget deficit on a cash basis and the $5.1 trillion federal budget deficit on a GAAP accounting basis does not reflect any significant money [from] the financial bailout or Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was approved after the close of the fiscal year,” economist John Williams, who publishes the Internet website Shadow Government Statistics, told WND.

. . .

“The federal government’s deficit is hemorrhaging at a pace which threatens the viability of the financial system,” Williams added. “The popularly reported 2009 [deficit] will clearly exceed $2 trillion on a cash basis and that full amount has to be funded by Treasury borrowing.

. . .

“The appetite of foreign buyers to purchase continued trillions of U.S. debt has become more questionable as the world has witnessed the rapid deterioration of the U.S. fiscal condition in the current financial crisis,” Williams noted.

. . .

“Social Security and Medicare must be shown as liabilities on the federal balance sheet in the year they accrue according to GAAP accounting,” Williams argues. “To do otherwise is irresponsible, nothing more than an attempt to hide the painful truth from the American public. The public has a right to know just how bad off the federal government budget deficit situation really is, especially since the situation is rapidly spinning out of control. “

Read the full article at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851

Some highlights:

The concept of economic freedom is considerably younger than that of religious freedom. In the last four decades it has grown out of the writings of notable, mostly neo-classical, economists. Its agreed cornerstones are: personal choice rather than collective action; voluntary exchange coordinated by markets rather than allocation via the political process; freedom to enter and compete in markets; and protection of persons and their property from aggression or harm by others. While there is considerable debate on which specific policies best promote economic freedom, there is broad agreement that controls on government size, expenditures, and taxes, coupled with the right to form enterprises, and a legal structure that provides security of property, are key to its flourishing. Other important features are access to sound money, transparent capital markets, freedom to trade internationally, and minimal regulation of credit, labor, and business, especially entrepreneurship.

             . . .

The greater the diversity and number of religious practices available in a given country, the greater the competition, which in turn promotes greater interaction between religions and a higher quality “religious product,” more religious participation, and the spread of religious belief systems.

The religion market model used by Barro, Becker, and others stresses the effects of competition as well as of the way government interacts with religion and influences participation in religion, or even the extent of religious beliefs. Since secularization theories have declined, there has also been an attempt to explain the resilience and growth of religion by stressing competition and markets. There is evidence that competition among religious providers leads to a growing market for religion. The greater the diversity and number of religious practices available in a given country, the greater the competition, which in turn promotes greater interaction between religions and a higher quality “religious product,” more religious participation, and the spread of religious belief systems. Government control or monopoly religious systems lead to a low degree of religious pluralism, reduce competition, and lower church attendance.   (Emphasis added.)

. . .

Religious liberty and economic freedom draw on and encourage similar traits. New data on economic liberty and religious freedom suggest that religiously free societies encourage entrepreneurs whose new enterprises benefit themselves, their companies, employees, shareholders, consumers, stakeholders and the entire community. In other words, religiously free societies usually display the highest concentration of companies that generate prosperity and broad development. Closed religious systems foul economic development and stunt growth. Closed economic systems are unkind or worse to religious sentiments and practice. Open systems in both areas are necessary to sustain human flourishing. Hence, if we desire more economic freedom and prosperity, then we should have a strategy of promoting religious liberty. If we want economic growth and development, we need to tolerate and permit religious groups and persons to follow their beliefs. Competition for religious activity creates healthy conditions for economic competition and activity.

 . . .

The promotion of spiritual capital requires that a robust variety of religious, and secular, ideas and practices be permitted in society. It requires the give and take of discourse and practice between and across different religious groups, including the “non-religious.” Linking religious liberty and economic freedom to form enterprises of lasting value is a cause for humane people, robust economies, and enlightened nations today.

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is chairman and CEO of the Roosevelt Group and the founder of the Spiritual Enterprise Institute. He headed consulting at Wharton-Chase Econometrics and has worked in capital markets at Salomon Brothers. He has held positions at the United Nations and has served in senior policy positions at the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and in the U.S. Department of State.

Read the full article and view the PowerPoint presentation:

EXCERPT: Read the full article at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they  ”are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

. . .

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

. . . 

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

. . . 

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

The Great Depression has reached Detroit. The average price of a home is now $18,513 and unemployment has reached 21%, and it’s expected to get worse. Detroit is facing a crisis of epic proportions that officially puts Detroit statistically (and real term) on par with the great depression. Many readers of Tribble Ad Agency are advertising centric.. and due to the rash of layoffs within all Detroit Advertising firms has put the city on the map for the wrong reasons.

It has become the center of all that is wrong with America… and nothing of what is right.

For example, the crime rate has fallen…. because of lack of targets within the city. Meaning there is nothing left to steal. In fact, even the criminals don’t want to leave jail.

Heard confirmed that some offenders, notably those without homes of their own, were now expressing reluctance to leave jail when their sentences were done.

Home values have plummeted to levels not seen in 1/2 a century… and the 21% unemployment has in some cases been projected to double within 12 months if the auto industry totally collapses.

To make matters even worse, Detroit has superseded New Orleans as the “worst city” in America…. but New Orleans had a Hurricane they could assign blame to… Detroit has no such natural disaster crutch.

“It’s a depression — not a recession,” McDuell said, with the authority of someone who has lived through both. “It will get worse before it gets better.”

It’s a man-made disaster.

Read more at: http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=3598

ARE you afraid that the economic downturn could get out of hand? I mean, really out of hand?

Well, don’t worry.

The US Army War College is on the case – ready to handle “unforeseen economic collapse” and the “rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the US.”

And you thought we were just dealing with a recession!

In a report published Nov. 4 – just in time for the holiday season – the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute posited a number of shocks that the country should be prepared for, including unrest caused by the economy’s failure.

The report has a snappy title, “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development,” and was written by Nathan Freier, a visiting professor at the college. The foreword was written by Col. John A. Kardos, director of the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute.

Freier lists a number of possible things we should worry about – because we probably don’t have enough of our own – including run-of-the-mill terrorism and the fact that China and Russia could align against us politically and economically.

Read the full article.

Standing in New York City, you are five hours away from being able to negotiate the sale, in broad daylight, of a healthy boy or girl. He or she can be used for anything, though sex and domestic labor are most common. Before you go, let’s be clear on what you are buying. A slave is a human being forced to work through fraud or threat of violence for no pay beyond subsistence. Agreed? Good.

Most people imagine that slavery died in the 19th century. Since 1817, more than a dozen international conventions have been signed banning the slave trade. Yet, today there are more slaves than at any time in human history.

And if you’re going to buy one in five hours, you’d better get a move on. First, hail a taxi to JFK International Airport, and hop on a direct flight to Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The flight takes three hours. After landing at Toussaint L’Ouverture International Airport, you will need 50 cents for the most common form of transport in Port-au-Prince, the tap-tap, a flatbed pickup retrofitted with benches and a canopy. Three quarters of the way up Route de Delmas, the capital’s main street, tap the roof and hop out. There, on a side street, you will find a group of men standing in front of Le Réseau (The Network) barbershop. As you approach, a man steps forward: “Are you looking to get a person?”

(Read the whole article at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4173 )

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on January 29, 2007, during a seminar on the topic, “America’s Entitlement Society,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.

On January 11, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent the text of his Annual Message to Congress. Under normal conditions, he would have delivered the message in person that evening at the Capitol. But he was recovering from the flu, and his doctor advised him not to leave the White House. So he delivered it as a fireside chat to the American people. It has been called the greatest speech of the century by Cass Sunstein, a prominent liberal law professor at the University of Chicago. It is an important speech because it is probably the most far-reaching attempt by an American president to legitimize the administrative or welfare state, based on the idea that government must guarantee social and economic security for all.

Thirty-seven years later, in his First Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981, President Ronald Reagan would deny that government could provide such a broad guarantee of security in a manner consistent with the protection of American liberty. Indeed, he would insist that bureaucratic government had become a danger to the survival of our freedom. In looking at the differences between the views of Roosevelt and Reagan, we can discern the distinction between a constitutional regime—in which the power of government is limited so as to enable the people to rule—and an administrative state, which presupposes the rule of a bureaucratic or intellectual elite.

FDR’s New Bill of Rights

When Roosevelt spoke to the nation that January night, he was looking beyond the end of World War II. In recent years, he said,

Americans have joined with like-minded people in order to defend ourselves in a world that has been gravely threatened with gangster rule. But I do not think that any of us Americans can be content with mere survival. Sacrifices that we and our Allies are making impose upon us all a sacred obligation to see to it that out of this war we and our children will gain something better than mere survival.

And what was this “sacred obligation?” Roosevelt continued:

The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in one word: Security. And that means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security—in a family of Nations.

Government has a sacred duty, in other words, to provide security as a fundamental human right.

Roosevelt was well aware that this was a departure from the traditional understanding of the role of American government:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all…

Among these new rights, Roosevelt said, are “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.”

The Constitution had established a limited government which presupposed an autonomous civil society and a free economy. But such freedom had led inevitably to social inequality, which in Roosevelt’s view had made Americans insecure in a way that was unacceptable. He had lost faith in the older constitutional principle of limited government. Rather, he thought that the protection of political rights—or of social and economic liberty, exercised by individuals unregulated by government—had made it impossible to establish a foundation for social justice, i.e., what he called “equality in the pursuit of happiness.” He assumed that a fundamental tension exists between equality and liberty that can only be resolved by a powerful, even unlimited, administrative or welfare state.

Rejecting the Founders

The American founders, by contrast, thought that equality and liberty were perfectly compatible—indeed, that they were opposite sides of the same coin. The principle of natural equality had been set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which clearly spelled out the way in which all human beings are the same: They are equally endowed with natural and inalienable rights. But along with this similarity, the Founders knew that differences are sown into human nature: some people are smarter, some are stronger, some are more beautiful, some are musically inclined while others have a predilection for business, etc. Political equality, which requires the protection of individual rights, produces social inequality (or unequal achievement) precisely because of these unequal natural faculties. The preservation of freedom, therefore, in the Founders’ view, requires a defense of private property, understood in terms of the protection of the individual citizen’s rights of conscience, opinion, self-interest and labor. They thought that a constitutional order, by separating church and state, government and civil society, and the public and private sphere, makes it possible to reconcile equality and liberty in a reasonable way that is compatible with the nature of man. Thus the Constitution limits the power of government to the protection of natural rights.

Roosevelt and his fellow progressives rejected the idea of natural differences between men, insisting that those differences arise only out of social and economic inequality. As a result, they redefined the idea of freedom, divorcing it from the idea of individual rights and identifying it instead with the idea of security. It was in the cause of this new understanding of freedom that America’s constitutional form of limited government was gradually replaced—beginning with the New Deal and culminating in the late 1960s and 1970s—by an administrative or welfare state.

Roosevelt had made it clear, even before he was elected president, that government had a new and different role to play in American life than that assigned to it by the Constitution. In an October 1932 radio address, he stated: “…I have…described the spirit of my program as a ‘new deal,’ which is plain English for a changed concept of the duty and responsibility of Government toward economic life.” In his view, selfish behavior on the part of individuals and corporations must give way to rational social action informed by a benevolent government and the organized intelligence of the bureaucracy. Consequently, the role of government was no longer the protection of the natural or political rights of individuals. The old constitutional distinction between government and society—or between the public and private spheres—as the ground of liberalism and a bulwark against political tyranny had created, in Roosevelt’s view, economic tyranny. To solve this, government itself would become a tool of benevolence working on behalf of the people.

This redefinition of the role of government carried with it a new understanding of the role of the American people. In Roosevelt’s Commonwealth Club address of 1932, he said:

The Declaration of Independence discusses the problem of government in terms of a contract…Under such a contract, rulers were accorded power, and the people consented to that power on consideration that they be accorded certain rights. The task of statesmanship has always been the redefinition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order. New conditions impose new requirements upon government and those who conduct government.

But this idea of a compact between government and the people is contrary to both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Indeed, what links the Declaration and the Constitution is the idea of the people as autonomous and sovereign, and government as the people’s creation and servant. Jefferson, in the Declaration, clearly presented the relationship in this way: “to secure these [inalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Similarly, the Constitution begins by institutionalizing the authority of the people: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

In Roosevelt’s reinterpretation, on the other hand, government determines the conditions of social compact, thereby diminishing not only the authority of the Constitution but undermining the effective sovereignty of the people.

Reagan’s Attempt to Turn the Tide

Ronald Reagan addressed this problem of sovereignty at some length in his First Inaugural, in which he observed famously: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” He was speaking specifically of the deep economic ills that plagued the nation at the time of his election. But he was also speaking about the growing power of a bureaucratic and intellectual elite. This elite, he argued, was undermining the capacity of the people to control what had become, in effect, an unelected government. Thus it was undermining self-government itself.

The perceived failure of the U.S. economy during the Great Depression had provided the occasion for expanding the role of the federal government in administering the private sector. Reagan insisted in 1981 that government had proved itself incapable of solving the problems of the economy or of society. As for the relationship between the people and the government, Reagan did not view it, as Roosevelt had, in terms of the people consenting to the government on the condition that government grant them certain rights. Rather, he insisted:

We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

In Reagan’s view it was the individual, not government, who was to be credited with producing the things of greatest value in America:

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth.

And it was the lack of trust in the people which posed the greatest danger to freedom:

…we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Reagan had been long convinced that the continued growth of the bureaucratic state could lead to the loss of freedom. In his famous 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing,” delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater, he had said:

…it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Reagan made it clear that centralized control of the economy and society by the federal government could not be accomplished without undermining individual rights and establishing coercive and despotic control.

…“the full power of centralized government” was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Over the next 15 years, Reagan succeeded in mobilizing a powerful sentiment against the excesses of big government. In doing so, he revived the debate over the importance of limited government for the preservation of a free society. And his theme would remain constant throughout his presidency. In his final State of the Union message, Reagan proclaimed “that the most exciting revolution ever known to humankind began with three simple words: ‘We the People,’ the revolutionary notion that the people grant government its rights, and not the other way around.” And in his Farewell Address to the nation, he said: “Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: ‘We the People.’” He never wavered in his insistence that modern government had become a problem, primarily because it sought to replace the people as central to the American constitutional order.

Like the Founders, Reagan understood human nature to be unchanging—and thus tyranny, like selfishness, to be a problem coeval with human life. Experience had taught the Founders to regard those who govern with the same degree of suspicion as those who are governed—equally subject to selfish or tyrannical opinions, passions, and interests. Consequently, they did not attempt to mandate the good society or social justice by legislation, because they doubted that it was humanly possible to do so. Rather they attempted to create a free society, in which the people themselves could determine the conditions necessary for the good life. By establishing a constitutional government of limited power, they placed their trust in the people.

Up or Down, Not Right or Left

The political debate in America today is often portrayed as being between progressives (or the political left) and reactionaries (or the political right), the former working for change on behalf of a glorious future and the latter resisting that change. Reagan denied these labels because they are based on the idea that human nature can be transformed such that government can bring about a perfect society. In his 1964 speech, he noted:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right. Well I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down—up to man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In light of the differences between the ideas and policies of Roosevelt and Reagan, it is not surprising that political debates today are so bitter. Indeed, they resemble the religious quarrels that once convulsed western society. The progressive defenders of the bureaucratic state see government as the source of benevolence, the moral embodiment of the collective desire to bring about social justice as a practical reality. They believe that only mean-spirited reactionaries can object to a government whose purpose is to bring about this good end. Defenders of the older constitutionalism, meanwhile, see the bureaucratic state as increasingly tyrannical and destructive of inalienable rights.

Ironically, the American regime was the first to solve the problem of religion in politics. Religion, too, had sought to establish the just or good society—the city of God—upon earth. But as the Founders knew, this attempt had simply led to various forms of clerical tyranny. Under the American Constitution, individuals would have religious liberty but churches would not have the power to enforce their claims on behalf of the good life. Today, with the replacement of limited government constitutionalism by an administrative state, we see the emergence of a new form of elite, seeking to establish a new form of perfect justice. But as the Founders and Reagan understood, in the absence of angels governing men, or men becoming angels, limited government remains the most reasonable and just form of human government.

———-

Editor, Douglas A. Jeffrey; Deputy Editor, Timothy W. Caspar; Assistant to the Editor, Patricia A. DuBois.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.” Subscription free upon request. ISS N 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

Source: http://www.di-ve.com/Default.aspx?ID=72&Action=1&NewsId=55743&newscategory=31