Muslim Woman Liberated from the Chains of Inequality

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/25/female-bomber-kills-43-food-center-pakistan/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Associated Press headline reads “Woman Kills 45 in Suicide Bombing.” “A burqa-clad female suicide bomber in Pakistan lobbed hand grenades and then detonated her explosive belt among a crowd at an aid center Saturday (12/25)….Police believe it was the first time Islamic militants have sent a woman to carry out a suicide attack in Pakistan…”

A few questions came to mind as I read this article. Why does the author, Anwarullah Khan, assume the Islamic militants sent the female bomber? Maybe she chose to exercise her new found liberties as an equal partner in Holy War. Has Mr. Khan learned nothing from our nation’s liberated women? Anything men can do women can do better; including blowing up infidels. I must confess I am very surprised that we have heard nothing from women’s rights groups, like National Organization for Women, praising the progress made in women’s equality within Muslim nations. Certainly women around the world have been waiting for this day to arrive in the Middle East. Equality has arrived at last, rejoice!

I wonder, however, what awaits this brave female “freedom fighter” when she arrives in heaven? I know the men can look forward to receiving 72 virgins for sacrificing themselves for the glory of Allah. However, what does the woman receive? Has equality arrived in Muslim Heaven as quickly as it has arrived on Muslim Earth? I know it’s not in the Qur’an, but maybe the female “freedom fighter” will be rewarded with the blessing of all the Muslim men leaving her alone. Is there a greater “heaven” for a Muslim woman than being treated with respect, loved and not beaten for “disloyalty?”

And here’s what you’ve all been waiting for…..President Obama’s reaction to the suicide bombing. He condemned the bombing as “outrageous.” Obama continued, “Killing innocent civilians….is an affront to the people of Pakistan and to all humanity.” Of course the president assumes that all 45 deaths were “innocent civilians.” Obama doesn’t seem to think the death of over 30 million “innocent” babies through abortion is an “affront to all humanity.” But I digress…..The death of these “innocent civilians” certainly pleased Allah, and therefore cannot be deemed “outrageous.”

With all the turmoil in the economy, wars being fought, “innocent civilians” being murdered, and rights being violated; at least there is one little sliver of hope. Equality has come to a Muslim woman in Pakistan. What a wonderful Christmas present to freedom loving people.

I wonder if the female “freedom fighter’s” explosive belt was properly accessorized and color coordinated with her beautiful burqa?

Interesting IMPD Promotion

Sources confirm that IMPD has announced three Lieutenant to Captain promotions along side six Sergeant to Lieutenant promotions. One name in particular that stands out is Ron Hicks. He was one of the three high ranking law enforcement officials that responded to the scene of the David Bisard crash back in August. Hicks along with Darryl Pierce and John Conley were subsequently demoted from their appointed ranks for "lack of leadership and communication". As a result, Hicks lost nearly $35,000 on his salary and the other two respectively $40,000 and $25,000, this according to WTHR's Steve Jefferson.

While their demotions may have initially pacified certain groups with the appearance of doing something, the decision to demote did bring into question the judgments of Public Safety Director Frank Straub as well as Chief of Police Paul Ciesielski. Advance Indiana briefed the testimony of Hicks, Pierce, and Conley before the Law Enforcement Study Commission:

"These three high-ranking officers received the same urgent page Ciesielski received about the Bisard crash. These three men saw it is a high priority to immediately stop what they were doing and go to the scene to assess the situation. They didn't arrive until nearly 45 minutes after the crash occurred. The victims had already been transported to the hospital and the scene had become a recovery scene, not an emergency response scene. Their careful recitation of the facts revealed absolutely no violation of department policy or procedure as to how that fatal accident scene was handled. It is true they didn't observe Bisard to be drunk, but neither did any of the other police on the scene, emergency workers, or even the doctor who treated Bisard at the clinic. Despite multiple communications to Ciesielski about the Bisard crash scene, the Chief had exhibited no interest in learning more; he only wanted to make sure Hicks and Pierce returned in time for their 1:00 meeting to discuss the Straub image problem. Even after they arrived at his office and mentioned the seriousness of the situation, he asked no questions about the incident. Again, he was totally focused on restoring Straub's public image."

I do not fully understand how one gets demoted and publicly criticized as Hicks did, only to obtain a more stable promotion a few months later. That is unless it is a clear acknowledgment of poor judgment in executing the demotion in the first place. I am told that Hicks is more than qualified and deserving of the promotion, so his suitableness I do not doubt. However, given the backdrop it still has a suspicious appearance. Is this the administrations way of rectifying an obvious wrong? What about Conley and Pierce?

Straub and Ciesielski spoke hypercritically of these three men in a crudely public manner. Those public failures need to be corrected publicly. I have yet to see either Straub or Ciesielski meet that criterion. I do not think they expect the promotion of Captain Hicks to remain under the radar. It is possible that they will use this promotion as the platform for acknowledging their own failures in leadership.

Law Enforcement - Blue Monday #3

Last week the City-County Council “re-affirmed” Frank Straub’s continued employment as Public Safety Director. However, Councilor Vernon Brown appropriately pointed out the worthlessness of their “nay” or “yea” votes during discussion before the council vote. Brown stated, “He (Mayor Ballard) could hire Satan, and the council wouldn’t be able to oust the devil from the position.” Very interesting choice of words Councilor Brown….uh, em….then Brown voted to keep Satan, I mean, Straub employed.

What would motivate Brown, a Democrat, to affirm Straub? My nose doth detect a hint of donkey crap. The political posturing and spin is about to intensify. Surprisingly, I believe Brown is slightly more intelligent than his Democrat associates that voted to reject Straub’s current employment. Some Democrats know they can use Straub to their advantage in the next Mayoral Election. Straub is likely to continue eroding police morale and pitting the police department against the Mayor’s Office. The Democrat candidate, whoever it is, will pounce on the divisiveness and poor leadership qualities of Straub. Vernon Brown voted exactly how I would have voted if I were in opposition to Mayor Ballard.

The most perplexing question is why would the Republicans vote to retain Straub? Straub has been a political “hot potato” nearly the entire time he’s spent dictating, I mean, directing the Office of Public Safety. How would re-affirming him benefit the Mayor’s re-election campaign, as well as their own? Either the Republicans have some brilliant political strategy that I’m missing, or they are buffoons. Based on my previous experiences with the Marion County Republican Party, I believe it’s the latter.

My questions to IMPD are the following: 1) Another year of Straub at the helm seems evident, what type of policies and/or changes could he implement that would benefit your department and improve morale? 2) How do the Democrat and Republican Parties spin Straub’s re-affirmation?

Shut Your Damn Bedroom Door!

Initially I only intended to publish a polite, friendly holiday message today to warm the hearts of everyone. This was to be a message concluding with Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas to show the readers that while God is holy, He is not uptight. My plan fell apart after I read the latest blog from Washington Street Politics. Now, before anyone misunderstands me, please let me preempt any potential negativity. I have a feeling that the bloggers over at WSP are great people who are reasonable (I also like their concept). However, I perceive that the issues we are likely to disagree on, we are going to do so very sharply. I will take responsibility for this. I have a tendency to expose the liberal in conservatives often; call it a character flaw or call it my craft. Sometimes this results in contentious sparring for a short time. However, I do not want the readers of my writings to think that personal conflicts exists because they do not and never will to the extent that I have control over.

Nonetheless, WSP weighed in poorly on the DADT bill signed by President Obama today:

Second, only 8 Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the repeal while all 31 no votes were cast by Republicans. Those of us who do not serve in the military are able to be free because those who do fight to protect our freedoms. It seems logical that the rest of us should fight for the soldiers who protect us day in and day out to be free to live their lives too. Apparently, the Senate Republicans didn't see it that way.

Really! I see nothing logical in this reasoning. What about all of the military personnel listed at militarysexoffendersregistry.com; what about them? Should we also stand up and fight for those soldiers to be free to live their lives too? Let your attention wonder to the child offenders. I know, what these folks did was criminal, right? That is true. If however, as gay rights activists have shown us, we can convince the majority that what those people did was not unlawful after all- instead they were just victims of centuries of oppression- then they too can enjoy the same freedom that you and I do. Does anyone second that? Bueller? Bueller? There are too many presuppositions and complexities for me to consider their reasoning credible.

As a side note, I am still unconvinced that the “victimless crime" theory is reasonable grounds for proposing that “victimless crimes” are not deserving of prohibition. This is a staple of libertarian rhetoric.

I think the thirty-one republican votes got it halfway right and WSP has it entirely wrong as do several other Indy bloggers. Not only should DADT have not been repealed, it should be expanded to include all heterosexual activities and extend beyond just military application. I am not speaking so much about the criminalization of behavior as I am personal restraint (is it equivocating if you admit equivocation?). I understand that DADT was not just about sexual orientation; it also dealt with the consequences of violating military order. It was a compromised rule used to discourage homosexuals from enlisting in the military (which seems odd if it is not discouraged socially). I also concede that this policy has devastated many, who outside the context of their sexual preference, are otherwise decent people who contribute greatly to our social order. Regardless, it should be normative for each of us to keep our personal relationships discreet. If we are truly concerned about social tolerance and cultural integration each of us will voluntarily adopt a DADT policy for ourselves and demand it from others.

I have never rallied for any intimate activity with my wife in the public square nor should I be permitted to. But, a man with a dildo in his mouth, prancing around like a sissy on a downtown street or at King’s Island in Cincinnati is acceptable? In addition, if I safeguard my daughters from such a grotesque display, I am called a bigot and a hate monger while told it is I who should leave! It is I who is being intolerant! A public place and I am expected to either yield my right to the use of public space or embrace the open displays of sexual innuendo’s and sometimes straight-out intercourse! Gays are the queens of hypocrisy.

In the end, libertarians, liberals and most conservatives do not think the government should be meddling in our bedrooms. As a general rule, I agree. Here is some advice, SHUT YOUR DAMN BEDROOM DOOR! If you do not like the government turning your private activities into public policy, then do not bring it into the public square. If you do, tough! You have no reason to cry foul.

But discreetly closing the bedroom door is not good enough for gays. They are intent on trampling on the rights of everyone else (I have heard them call it payback). Using the force of the law, they are coercing everyone else into a different closet. You might ask, how do we know whose rights should be honored? The only people that forfeit their rights are criminals. The next phase in the gay agenda will be to criminalize their opposition.

I don’t know if I will ever touch on this issue again. It will take a very important event to pull out of me further commentary. But I think I have said enough.

Oh yea…HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!

***NOTICE***
The UK police agency in the video was eventually found to be in the wrong. But the laws they acted on can be easily interpreted differently. Back on American soil, if U.S. Judges can screw up the second amendment, they can screw anything up.

A Nation of Unemployed Addicts

"If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."-Apostle Paul

When does our central government stop being helpful, and start being destructive? Congress and Obama passed into law yet another extension of the unemployment benefit which now exceeds 3 years. Who does this benefit? At first glance the unemployment subsidy may seem like a compassionate and helpful thing; however three years of cash from the public treasury is neither. It is one thing for a charitable organization or individual to help someone through a tough time; but it is quite another altogether for our government to reward people for idleness. In fact, the end results are destructive to our nation, in general, and to the individual on many different tiers.

The foolishness of our nation’s entitlement programs seems obvious, which increases my concern all the more. Either our elected leaders are extremely ignorant, or they are intentionally over extending forced generosity. I would never have thought I would see a time in our nation’s history when our people voluntarily enslave themselves to their government. But reality has tainted my optimistic outlook.

Our government is fully involved in a system of bribing its own citizens through entitlements to enhance its own power. If a person believes they must rely on the government for their livelihood, they are more susceptible to control and manipulation strategies used by that same government than they would be otherwise. We have whole generations of U.S. citizens that depend on a check from our federal government. They would rather be parasites instead of hosts, relying on the work product of others.

Being productive and creating value is an inherent part of our created nature. When this need is ignored,or turning a def ear to it is encouraged, beneficiary’s de-evolve into a 21st Century slave whose master is their own selfish desires and idleness. Idleness is as addictive as any illegal drug, and our own government is the Sugar Daddy for this addiction.

Make no mistake, our progressive politicians are addicts themselves. Their addiction to power and control has forced the rationalizing of welfare policies ostensibly for helping the less fortunate. However, more money thrown at a problem rarely helps; instead it usually aggravates it. If we are going to survive another one hundred years (or less), both our government and its addicted citizens need to commit to rehabilitation and abandon their destructive behavior. To foolish people, the wise and compassionate thing appears to be ill-considered; but for the wise, the hard things now are softer in the end.

Law Enforcement Blue Monday #3

The Civilian Police Complaint Board recently affirmed Chief Ciesielski's decision that Officer Piland used "excessive force" on Brandon Johnson.  Does the decision affect how IMPD officers will respond to similar incidents in the future?  Is there any confidence that the patrol officer will be supported by the administration while dealing with resistive/combative subjects?

Unite Here and Wreck Our Economy

The Indianapolis Star reports that a national labor group, Unite Here, has organized numerous restaurant workers at Indianapolis International Airport. Have the restaurant workers been mistreated? Are they being paid lower wages, considering the cost of living for this region, than other restaurant workers? Are they being mistreated by being forced to work longer hours than most, and placed in hazardous situations? I suspect that the answer to all of these questions is “No!” Then why is there a perceived need for a union? There is no question that the restaurant workers should have the freedom to organize if they wish; however, the reason for organizing is suspicious.

Andrea Garries, a restaurant worker at the airport, stated, “Like, anyone, I just want a better future, and I’m glad that we were able to work together to allow this day to come.” What type of “better future” exists for Ms. Garries now that she is part of Unite Here? I surmise that Garries will be subjected to the same “con-job” that most other union workers have received. I’m sure Unite Here will use their high paid attorneys and union bosses to negotiate with Ms. Garries’s employer, and she will receive a modest raise in pay and/or “benefits.” However, when Ms. Garries begins using some reason and logic, she will realize a couple things have happened to her dream of a “better future.” First, the amount of money she may receive in wage and benefit increases will be consumed by her union dues. Second, Ms. Garries will sadly realize she has no voice in her very own union. She won’t be able to affect changes in how her union operates, endorses political candidates, and pays its leadership. Union dictatorship is a long way from a Democratic Republic. Finally, Ms. Garries will hopefully come to realize that the only way she can expect a “better future” is to rely on her own effort and ambition, and not wait for someone or some organization to help her. If she wants a better paying job with better benefits, then she should seek to improve her qualifications and WORK FOR a profession that can provide these things.

The only people that ultimately benefit from this new agreement with Unite Here are the people in positions of power within the union. Ms. Garries will not benefit and her employer will most certainly not benefit. I will admit that Unions have accomplished a few things within our country. They have made our nations’ manufacturers uncompetitive in the global market, they have become wealthy organizations greedy for power, and they have succeeded in endorsing and electing socialist candidates that continue to steal from our public treasury. If that isn’t the “American Way”, then I don’t know what is!

If you don’t understand how destructive unions within our country have become, then educate yourself about the failure of our auto industry, textile industry, steel industry, and many others. If Unite Here and SEIU continue to dupe service and hospitality workers, it won’t be long before we have to drive to Mexico to eat at a restaurant or stay in a hotel.

Here’s my plan for reestablishing America as a world leader in manufacturing. The U.S. government must outlaw unions, and then our intelligence agencies should hire the union bosses of SEIU, Unite Here, AFL-CIO, and UAW. Those union bosses should then be sent to countries like Mexico, China, Indonesia, Japan, India and begin duping workers, I mean asking workers to unionize. Within a few years, those nations that have unions would be unable to compete with our goods and services. If this seems like a ridiculous proposal, then read your history.

The people being mistreated and abused right now are our employers that are trying to stay competitive and create jobs. Go away unions, and take your sickle and hammer with you!http://www.blogger.com/www.unitehere.org

Bringing A Purse to a Gun Fight

What happens when you are (un)lawfully disarmed and criminally forbidden to carry a firearm on school property? This week the Panama City, Florida school board found out first hand. Clay Duke for whatever reason (class envy I suspect) felt that he was at the end of the road and resolved to take the Panama City school board members hostage. He had even predetermined that he too would eventually die.

Described as a broke, bi-polar, ex-convict with anarchist tendencies, Mr. Duke was disgruntled over many things but mostly it appears that it was his wife’s firing by the same school board he lashed out at that beat him. The edginess was further provoked by the discontinuance of Mrs. Duke's unemployment benefits. Sounds like a liberal’s hug-a-thug dream project does it not? But, instead of pushing through life’s adversities, Mr. Duke collapsed under pressure and committed to threatening, hostage taking, and shooting multiple rounds at some of the victims, for his own gratifying conclusion; a vendetta if you will.

Again I ask what happens when you are (un)lawfully disarmed and criminally forbidden to carry firearms on school properties (or anywhere)? What options do you have when a murderer is dissuaded by laws and walks through the empty air of rhetoric? The video footage of this incident tells the story remarkably.

-You can negotiate with an unreasonable person

-You can beg for your life

-You can crawl under a desk

-You can whip them with a purse

I realize this was a critical event, but I cannot stop laughing at the image of the female-board member whacking Mr. Duke with her purse. Here is someone who exhibited more valor than anyone else in the room (except the security officer) but chose a shocking display of that courage. The pink panther walk followed by the powerless clobber is entertaining to watch but it could have ended her life that moment.

Every attempt on the part of the hostages failed. Their options were limited! They were as they say, sitting ducks, a de-clawed feline, or less figurative, an unarmed group. According to Mr. Duke's surviving widow he was an expert marksman. Her use of specialized terminology indicates to me that he probably was. I think the school board members are probably alive today because Mr. Duke chose not to kill them.

During this tragedy, a woman was released only to return bringing a purse to a gun fight. A man begs for his life followed by another crawling under a table. Folks, men or women should never have to beg for their life, cower under a table, or engage an armed thug with a purse (still chuckling). Who was it that took care of business? It was the armed security officer! Although even he was behind the curve more than he should have been, nonetheless, he was armed and capable of effectively engaging the threat, unlike the others.

There are lessons we need to learn from this incident. First, we must realize that unarmed security in no security at all. The only thing standing between good people and an armed thug is the air we breathe. We need a deadly force response option available to us. Second, laws intended to serve as preventive measures only work for the moderately criminally inclined. The morally stable citizen needs no such persuasion. Understanding that, I conclude not one prohibitory gun law will save a single person, but certainly will continue to claim lives as an unintended consequence.

Additionally, the current set of anti-gun laws are of no value when suicide is the anticipated outcome. How do you persuade someone who incorporates suicide into their plans? A lengthy prison sentence, as bad as that may be, will have no influence on the person who considers suicide as an acceptable end. Law makers must start taking this into consideration.

Admittedly there is much more to personal security and gun ownership than the firearm itself. I'll also concede that the non-weaponry elements of protection are more valuable than the firearm (until you have to shoot). Those elements are, however, only preparatory and have no response value. Deadly force response is a must if we are going to be a society that values life.

Unfortunately, under liberal guidance, the use of deadly force has been stigmatized in the same way the death penalty has been. The truth is, deadly force can never be abolished; it may only be transferred from the hands of the honest people to the hands of the criminal. The same is true with the closely related capital punishment. The death penalty can never be abolished; either the criminals will rightly receive the death penalty or honest people will have the death penalty unjustly administered against them by the hands of criminals.

Deadly force and the death penalty are so closely related it is hard to speak of one without touching on the other. As a society, we need to change our thinking on these concepts. If we do not, we will face some serious consequences that will be even harder to reverse.

Land of the Free?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The above quote is from the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America a document that was put together with just a little thought by a few men who knew a thing or two about tyranny and oppression and the cost of freedom. These things are spoken of because the very freedoms that the founding fathers were willing to sacrifice their lives for are being taken away a little at a time. The “air” is seeping from the “balloon” ever so slowly, but just as a balloon is limited by the amount of air it can give so are there limits to the amount of freedom that can be sacrificed if this great nation is to continue to be worthy of the blood spilled in its creation and protection. One could write a library full of books on how our nation has changed from the vision the founding fathers had of the land they fought to build, but that is not the discussion here. The goal here is to bring light to the fact that the God given freedoms that American citizens have paid for with their lives and the very laws that protect those freedoms are being taken away and violated by the very individuals who have been placed in positions to guarantee there protection.

The federal government has, for years, been slowly pecking away at the freedoms of American citizens in the name of “equal rights”, “choice”, and “welfare” and other positive sounding propaganda. In fact the federal government has instilled itself as the “caretaker” of the citizens, supplying the façade of a retirement, housing aid, financial aid, welfare aid and now the “guarantee” of health insurance. The founders of this great nation intended for the federal government to provide for the safety of the boarders the raising and funding of military and the relations with foreign nations. They did not want the federal government to mettle in the everyday affairs of the people. In fact Patrick Henry said. “The constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate our lives and interest.” The “welfare” of the people was to be the responsibility of the individual, then the church, the community, then the states where other avenues failed. This big government machine that has grown in silent for many years has now reached the point that it may “dominate our lives and interest” in a very real way.

The opening of this article was the Fourth Amendment and it was for this reason, it is a very evident and obvious way to judge the infringement on the rights of American citizens by the federal government. The recent events surrounding the TSA and their “search methods” or body scans are a direct result of a federal administration taking upon itself to put the “safety” of the people above the freedom of the people. A government that is willing to so openly violate the rights of its own people is not far from doing as they please in many other areas that will impact the daily lives of the masses with no regard to legislation or court decry. Now for those who will say that they don’t see the connection or the big deal over such a violation of the Fourth Amendment, it would be reasonable for them to do their own research and form an opinion based on the facts. The TSA “guidelines” are little more than a test to see how the American people will react to the blatant violation of their rights and how much they are willing to allow the government to get away with in the name of “safety and security”. Well it is time that the people of America show the government that they will not sit idle as their freedoms are stripped away. The current TSA searches have no better chance of catching a terrorist than man has at affecting the “Climate Change” that is being shoved on the world as a wealth redistribution tool. TO BE CONTINUED…..

Smack Talking With Little Substance

While reading Abdul’s blog this morning at Indiana Barrister, it was evident that the content was more smack talking than substance. I do not criticize him for that either; sometimes smack talking lets off the steam we otherwise hold on to. I do, however, take issue with the underlying thought he proposed.

Here is a collection of the relevant portions of what Abdul had to say:

“Next Time Step Up or Politely Shut Up

“For all the whining and complaining I heard about the last few elections, you would have thought more people would have stepped up to the plate and offered an idea or two.

“What’s even more hilarious are the people (Paul Ogden & Gary Welsh) who complain about the system and how the County organization needs to change, but then when you ask them why don't they run they whine about “mummy dummies” and how the system is rigged. Seems like a pretty convenient excuse to politically punk out. It’s easy to whine, bitch and moan when you don’t actually have to do any real work or can’t even win a school board election.”

Allow me to shift my direction for just a moment. Have you ever heard any one comment “if you don’t vote, you don’t have to right to complain” or something similar? The underlying principle in this misguided aphorism is that a vote grants you the right to complain or disagree (insert your grievance) so, it follows non participation nullifies your right to those same things. This is nonsensical. A vote has no inherent “voice” granting mechanism. The right to speak, criticize, and correct are inherently part of your God given human rights; they are not born of a process vote. Whether you vote or not, you still have the legitimate right to challenge those in power. No pundit has the right to insist that a refusal to vote renders your opinion illegitimate. It is just a dumb idea regurgitated and used as a witty yet empty expression.

Now I can go on to the real point. Abdul reasons: a person complains therefore; that person should do something. Again and more specifically: Paul Ogden and Gary Welsh complain about the County organization therefore; they should run (presumably for the County Chair). They did not run so, they are only engaging in empty bitching. His supposition is the same found in the idea that “if you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to criticize”. The position is that there is only one way to engage and that one way to participate is the authority that grants you the right to officially criticize. It sets up a false dilemma where none exists-“step up or shut up”. Run for County Chair or shut up are not the only options available to those concerned with government and party politics. I am not saying that Abdul thinks there is only one way to participate but in this instance he presents only one line of reasoning and a faulty one at that.

People concerned about their party or government are not required to do things the way the establishment says it must be done. Choosing not to run for County Chair or refusing to choose between two evils does not preclude activism. In fact, is not the decision not to run for County Chair yet still expose the problems within the organization their method of applied liberty? Any opposition seems a bit elitist to me.

Thou Shall Not Sue!

An Associated Press story by Pete Yost dated December 14, 2010 cites that the U.S. Federal Government has filed suit against Berkeley School District 87, a suburban Chicago school district, for “denying a Muslim middle school teacher unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.” Apparently every Muslim is directed to make this “pilgrimage” at least once in their lifetime if they are “physically and financially able to.” This is one of the five pillars of the Muslim faith. The Federal Government, on behalf of the middle school teacher, Safoorah Khan, is claiming the school district violated her Civil Rights. Apparently Ms. Kahn asked on two separate occasions for three weeks of unpaid leave to perform the “pilgrimage,” or “Hajj”. She was denied her request.

A plethora of questions come to mind as a result of this story. However, the biggest question I have is the duplicity of our Federal Government and the Muslim faith. A Muslim wishing to “pilgrimage” demands his or her “Civil Right’s” be protected by our Federal Government, and our ignorant government obliges. I wonder if this same Muslim woman would demand her “rights” be protected if her husband decided to marry up to 3 additional women besides her, or “beat her lightly” for “disloyalty and ill-conduct”. Both of these actions are acceptable within the Muslim faith; reference Qur’an verses 4:3 and 4:34 respectively.

I question the motives of Ms. Khan, as well as our government. However I’m not a person to just criticize without offering a solution, therefore, I have a solution for Ms. Khan. One of the fundamental beliefs of the Muslim faith is “divine preordainment good or bad.” This belief states that Allah “ordains all things” that occur, good or bad. The fact that the Berkeley School District 87 denied Khan’s request on two separate occasions should tell her that Allah has “preordained she not perform her pilgrimage.” Just accept it and move on, and stop mucking up our legal system with ridiculous lawsuits.

Just Cookies vs. Intolerance

This past Friday it was reported that the sparring between the downtown Just Cookies, located in the city market and the City of Indianapolis catering to the intolerant gay community now has some closure. According to Fox59.com, “the City of Indianapolis says "Just Cookies" can do business, provided it does business with everyone” thus resolving this highly publicized and artificially constructed controversy.

If you recall, Just Cookies received a call over the phone to fill an order that the owner-a devout Catholic- was not comfortable with fulfilling. The request made was for rainbow cupcakes to be used as part of the national coming out day celebration planned for the following month. The business owner, David Stockton, refused to complete the order. The gays immediately went on the offense forcing their agenda and beliefs on Just Cookies. There were even a few gay activists that protested; but the show of support for Just Cookies and their right to refuse service eclipsed their efforts.

It seemed clear to me that Mr. Stockton objected to the use of his products “celebrating gay pride” and not the sale of his products to a gay person. Just Cookies has had many opportunities to discriminate and has not done so. Anyone who has been at the city market during lunch time hours easily recognize the phony lisp, indicative of effeminate males stereo typing gayhood, patronizing the variety of food vendors. Mr. Stockton has certainly sold his products to these same overtly gay men and women before without a hint of discrimination. He took issue with the celebration, not the people.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is an excellent idea for Just Cookies to sell their products to all people. It is not morally wrong for a Catholic/Christian to do business with people who do not share their views. So I think it is right for them to comply with the City's discrimination ordinance, even if I disagree with the language of the ordinance. Where I draw the line is when a business has no discretion on how their products will be used. I did not think this episode fell under the city ordinance regarding discrimination, and I still maintain that position. Depending on how we are suppose to interpret the phrase “does business with everyone” it does appear, however, that Just Cookies may be required to comply with the City's interpretation of the ordinance against the original intent of the ordinance according to the sponsor.

Scott Keller who was one of the sponsors spoke with 6News and said

“the measure was meant to prevent discrimination, not force the hand of local businesses”..."What we intended the ordinance to do was expand it to include veterans' rights, gender identity and sexual orientation, things not to be discriminated against in housing, education and employment, and that was it,”.

However, the slap on the wrist speaks for itself. The City may have gone forward with the process, but in the end, I think they would have failed to present their case that Just Cookies violated the City's anti discrimination ordinance, which includes personal, sexual behavior in its definition.

Ray Cortopassi concludes his article: “We saw no signs embracing diversity posted yet but there was no shortage of customers.” I agree. The gay community will never show any sign of diversity when it comes to any person or group that opposes their agenda. Conditional diversity is what they actually advocate.

Law Enforcement Blue Monday: Question #2

What is necessary for reconciliation to occur between Mayor Ballard and IMPD?  For argument’s sake, let’s assume Director Straub is fired by the Council on 12/20.  Will Straub’s departure be enough to begin repairing the damaged relationship?  Please allow thePoliPit.com to convey an observation.  What took Mayor Peterson approximately 5-6 years to accomplish, Straub succeeded in just 1 year!  Straub has excelled in demoralizing the police department even without the benefit of a bitter contract dispute.  Give credit, where credit is due.  He is impressive!

If the Republican led city-county council approves the New York Democrat, Frank Straub, for another year, then this conversation must take a “left” turn.  Pun intended.  An issue IMPD officers must start considering is that if Mayor Ballard retains everyone’s favorite Director, then do you support/vote/endorse the Democratic Candidate for Mayor?  Please consider your options, and weigh them carefully.  Imagine having a Peterson type mayor with a Straub type director.

UN Climate Kooks: Cripple US economy & ban H2O!

The one benefit the Church of Global Warming offers the rest of us is the entertainment value its congregation provides.

Dude Looks Like A Lady

I try to be as optimistic as I can in regard to the future of our country. However, when I read articles such as the one posted on OneNewsNow, I remember why I’m so dismayed. OneNewsNow article posted 12/8/2010 reports, “In Manhattan, Kansas, city commissioners have passed a controversial ‘anti-discrimination’ ordinance creating a special protected class for the sexually confused.” That isn’t a misprint! The one thing I am certain of is the greater confusion resides with the commissioners who appear “intellectually and morally confused.”

Apparently the commissioners passed the ordinance without providing proper definitions for the ordinance’s phrase, “gender identity.” The article states, “Even the city attorney was just begging them for some help with wording.” The attorney also wanted “clarification for defining the differences between men and women…” And they say attorneys have brilliant minds! My 7 year old son was able to properly define the differences between a man and woman, and he hasn’t even been to law school.

The absurdity described above is becoming more and more frequent within our nation’s culture; the constant degradation of our culture’s morals and minds. Here is an attorney demanding legally defined differences between men and women, and the gay, bisexual, and transgender proponents wanting to “keep the definition open, allowing individuals to define their gender themselves, even if it is opposite of their physical attributes.” Let me repeat, “…even if it is opposite of their physical attributes.”

All reason, logic and morals have been discarded for lust, ignorance, and insanity. One cannot define him or herself as something they are not. I can profess and believe I am an alien from the planet Xylon and demand my rights, but the simple truth is obvious to those of us with more sound minds. This insane episode is a perfect example of how “relative truth” has perverted our society. The commissioners would have you believe that all truth is relative to the person applying it, and there is no definitive truth, only that which I claim as true. Sounds absurd, doesn’t it; especially when it is used to the extreme example I’ve just cited. Some dude with “man parts” can profess all he wants that he is a woman, and TRUTH is that he is a man!

Pray for our nation, because the last time a society was this depraved, morally and intellectually, it was left smoldering from fire and brimstone.

Liberal Logic vs Nugent Logic

Aaron Helmbrecht at Sundial.csun.edu declared, "It's time for the Second Amendment to go." He reasoned that it was no longer applicable to our nation because "In 1787 it was logical to assume a well-armed public would forever be an effective check against governmental power." However, he argued that since the 1940's, and the advent of the Air Force, the citizens no longer have the ability to use arms against the government, due to the government's superior firepower. This particular argument may carry some validity; accordingly I am currently working on purchasing a fully armed F-16 Fighting Falcon.
http://sundial.csun.edu/2010/12/do-we-still-need-the-second-amendment

Mr. Helmbrecht also claimed that the original intent of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with defense of family and property. A quick glance at any historical writings, and the application of a small amount of common sense would reveal how misguided this liberal is. Instead of me explaining the argument for the "God given right of self-preservation," allow me to let someone else explain.

A reasoned thought or argument is essential in making your case. Who does the better job?

Straub Reappointment Committee

The FOP has released an open letter to its members communicating an upcoming Public Safety committee meeting which will explore the reappointment of Public Safety Director Frank Straub. According to the release, “whatever the outcome, the Committee recommendation will go to a full council meeting for vote on December 20, 2010 at 1900 hours”. The FOP is encouraging its members to contact their councilors and express their voices for or against Straub’s reappointment.

With the recent announcement of Mayor Ballard’s intention to seek reelection with the official kick off coming on December 11, it does not take much insight to discern the political positioning that can come from this committee on Straub’s reappointment. Straub has been a disaster for the Ballard administration. The rank and file he commands does not respect, trust, or support him and both of the political wings are dissatisfied with him. In fact, the only respectable thing I can find in Straub’s leadership is that he has angered the Concerned Clergy, Baptist Minister’s Alliance and other local race based hustlers. That’s always a good thing in my book.

When Democratic councilors Mahern and Lewis appeared along side mayoral candidate Melina Kennedy back in August, the call for Straub’s resignation was unambiguous. Mahern said, "Until we see Director Straub removed, we'll have a very difficult moving forward." Of course, Republican Council President Vaughn thinks differently: "no one in my caucus and most of the people I talk to on the street and in the community, no one believes it's productive to continue to echo these hollow calls for resignation for a guy who is as well credentialed as Director Straub," he said.

In response, “the firing of Straub is unlikely” said a spokesman for Ballard.

If Ballard expects any chance of reelection, he must discard Vaughn’s position. This may be the only opportunity Ballard gets to cut ties with Straub and save face. It will probably turn out to be an extraordinarily jagged cut, but a loosening nonetheless. Mayor Ballard cannot admit that Straub was an unfortunate choice since that would directly reflect on his own judgment. However, to keep Straub is a guaranteed loss in November. What if the council does Ballard’s dirty work? It would not be the first time Ballard relied on the republican council to push his agenda even when the councilors did not agree with him (guns in public parks). If this happens, Ballard can separate himself from Straub without disclosure of mistakes on his part. Once Straub is gone, then Ballard can begin to position himself differently. Until then, he is associated with Straub’s train wreck.

Under different circumstances and a different time Straub may have shined. Regardless, if I were Ballard, I would be on the phone right now with every Republican councilor petitioning them for a way out of his Straub disorder.

I can also see the same democrats that called for Straub’s resignation possibly having a change of heart. If Straub is a problem for Ballard, what democrat wants such an easy target gone right now?

IndyCAD

Law Enforcement BLUE MONDAY

The Fraternal Order of Police recently decided to fund Ofc. Bisard's legal defense.  What reasons are being offered for granting or opposing the F.O.P. funded legal assistance?

Obama- Hero of the Stupid (HMSFox)

Just a little jab back at Indy Democrat..."unprepared, inexperienced, and at times verbally challenged."

Law Enforcement Blue Monday

Since we publicly started in mid November, we have received many requests from law enforcement personnel hoping for something a little different. Many will remember the effect that the law enforcement blog Indy Undercover had in Indianapolis and are now looking for something similar. Indy Undercover was a targeted blog with a specific agenda. We however, have no such agenda nor do we intend to target anyone in particular in advance. Rather we will go where the story is and filter our analysis through the lens of our Judeo-Christian conservative worldview.

However, we would be foolish not to recognize and adapt to our reader’s feedback. During the staff meeting today we brainstormed different ideas to meet some of those expectations. At times we tossed around the idea of compartmentalizing our commentary to include national, state, and local segments. But, because thePoliPit uses multiple bloggers, the logistics of doing this did not seem appealing to us. However, building on that idea we think we can give something a little more modified but useful to our readers without moving away from our intended organizational goals.

We are going to commit to a law enforcement only blog entry each Monday as the first post of the day. For this dedicated spot, we will need the input of local law enforcement. This will not be a commentary from any of our writers; if we have an issue with the police department we will own our words and write about it in a separate blog. What we will do is take suggestions by email regarding what topic is of interest to local law enforcement personnel. Someone from thePoliPit will review all email and then craft a question, or give a brief, thought provoking suggestion intended to bring out intelligent responses. These will not be our ideas, but the ideas of law enforcement. This will be the time for officer's to vent, provide suggestions to government officials, or to the general public.

We judged that it was simply not suitable for police officer's and the public perception of thePoliPit to provide a free for all, say whatever you want, blog post. This is why we will use suggestions from you to provide the direction of the discussion. Both the public and government official’s will be reading. If you tell the administration to kiss your ass, it will be difficult to imagine anything positive from them in return. If on the other hand, you provide the government administrators with usable ideas and insights, all police officer’s, government official’s and the public can expect greater returns in regards to collaboration.

This position should not be interpreted as sympathetic. If public administrator’s can talk to police officer’s the way some have; then they can deal with the reciprocating brashness. But, we expect everything to be truthful, void of slander, with the idea of improvement for all involved. Finally, we do not want to be a local wikileaks.

Please send all suggestions to polipit@gmail.com

thePoliPit

FOP to Fund Bisard's Legal Defense

Last evening, the FOP by vote, agreed to pay for Officer Bisard's legal defense. Recall that back in September Bisard reportedly declined to seek a legal assistance that is generally available to FOP members. I thought it was a smart move not to put the FOP lodge 86 members in a position where they had to vote on the issue. But, Abdul tweeted earlier this morning "working to find out logic behind decision by FOP to pay for David Bisard legal defense" and; while listening this morning to his radio program it was clear that he too was taken away by the about face. So what has changed?

I typically do not deal in rumors even if I find them to be credible. However, I am going to make an exception on this one because I do wonder more intensely about a rumor I heard in light of this recent FOP vote. The day that the IMPD leadership held their press conference detailing the findings of their investigation of the events surrounding the Bisard case I overheard someone suggest that some details were left out of that report. Further, those details out would be part of the FBI report of the same incident. I did not think much about it at the time because it seemed too far out there and anything that was in the official FBI report could only be speculative at best until they release it (if they ever do). Is speculation now giving way to something more concrete?

I do not see the IMPD official's leaving something out of a report knowing that information will eventually come to light. But, I also cannot comprehend the FOP agreeing to fund Bisard's legal defense if there were not some plausible reason for doing so. This may well become a public relations nightmare! I do not agree with the pundits regarding the tainted image of IMPD among the general public. In contrast, I think if a survey was conducted today and crafted in such a way that focused on the individuals, as opposed to the hyped up, collective, politically motivated media bias, IMPD officer's would fair pretty well. However, once this support for Bisard's legal defense begins to circulate among the masses I may have to revisit my opinion on public perception (though not the officers themselves). Does someone know something the rest of us do not?

I can only think of a few scenarios justifying the funding of Bisard's legal defense. The first scenario, Bisard was not intoxicated and evidence exists proving it; or the FOP is playing it safe in hopes that he was not intoxicated even though the possibly exists that he was. From what I understand, legal aid funding is not the memberships way of saying an officer was right or wrong. Rather, the determining factor rests on whether the incident in question is related to their duties as a police officer without considering their guilt or innocence. I guess I lean more toward this understanding. I throw out the rumor only because I know things are not always as they appear and the infallibility of humans sometimes produces disastrous results. Like most people I hope for the best knowing it could be the worst.

IndyCAD

Ballard Divorces His Police Force

"I'm always concerned about morale but in my experience if an organization is running effectively and police are right now, morale will be there," said Ballard.

I think Mayor Ballard has become delusional. He has equated the work ethics of his police officers, despite the lack of support from their leaders, with an acceptable level of morale! In other words, the officers that completed the recent FOP morale survey are liars! Ballard seems to reason if morale was undoubtedly that low, they would not be working so hard to keep crime stats down. Because officers are dedicated to their mission and choose not to dump their anger on the citizens of Indianapolis, Ballard concludes "morale is there." If crimes were up, that would indicate a low level of morale? Police officers would not stoop to such a low level of improper treatment of people in order to show their boss that they want his support and leadership. They did the right thing. Instead of deliberately allowing crime to get out of control in order to express their dissatisfaction, they let their voice be heard in a respectable manner. But in return, their leader publicly spit in their faces.

I remember folks. I know who was responsible for Ballard's rise to his position. It was the police officer’s working their butts off to oust former mayor Bart Peterson. They did it too! Ballard had nothing unique to offer Indianapolis; public safety, that was it. Contrary to what the loony left is trying to peddle, Ballard has not botched the promised commitment to public safety; he has only botched his relationship with his police force. By way of analogy, this is similar to the man that treats strangers better than his own wife. This in the end will probably cost Ballard the 2011 election, if he even runs.

I do ,however, applaud Ballard for trying to bring in someone to lead the department. But, early on people on the outside began to see in Frank Straub that authoritarian style boss that we would all like to have five minutes with in a back ally. Most recently, Straub was heard on a recording chastising officers’ during a training session for things that did not involve them. Matthew Tully has also showed his approval of this unjustified tongue-lashing when he tweeted on November 16, 2010 "I say his anger with police issues helps his image.” Of course, Straub’s academy rant was passed off as a motivational speech similar to that of a football coach. That works great with an adrenaline pumped, testosterone driven, in your face, game; but not so well with a neutered police force. I think Straub and Ballard both intended good things for the department. However, when crisis hit, they dropped the ball big time and lashed out at the wrong source. Sure, Ballard has thrown out a few token praises here and there only to be negated with a “but” and followed by a “guilt by association” angle. Ballard trusted his appointed underlings and they failed him. As a result, Hoosier hospitality has stifled Straub’s self proclaimed “New York-we have a different way of talking to people” style of people treatment. Maybe a class in interpersonal communications, or cultural diversity would have served Straub well before taking control of IMPD.

In closing, I want to encourage all of the IMPD officer's that may read this: Your leaders have failed you ; but the public is not against you. Mayor Ballard has openly scoffed at you instead of standing with you. A principled leader would never do that. Abdul at Indiana Barrister recently expressed what I thought was a real plea to the IMPD officer's; nevertheless a slightly flawed one. He wrote: "why you all haven't gathered on Monument Circle in uniform and signed a public pledge re-committing yourselves to citizens of Indianapolis is totally beyond me". I would never apologize for something I didn't do; it just cheapens honesty and penitence. To recommit implies that you are not committed. Be proud of the work you do and know that you are a living pledge every day you work. No recommitment is required because it was never surrendered.

NOTE: Law enforcement is one of the only real functions of government. While we are not a law enforcement gossip forum, thePoliPit will always support you and advocate your cause…unless of course every one of you goes dark.

IndyCAD