Us versus Them

Immediately following the Merit Board hearing of Officer Piland he was heard saying to supportive officers, “Because that is what this profession is about, is that right there, it’s about us. We got to work every day for us and that’s what matters and that shows here today.”

Officer Piland was crucified in the media by the “Concerned ‘False Prophets’ Clergy”, Public Safety Director Frank Straub, and Chief Ciesielski for displaying an “Us versus Them mentality." In light of the murder of Officer David Moore, I don’t think Officer Piland’s words could have been any more truthful and accurate. Furthermore, within the last few days Chief Ciesielski seems to have affirmed what Officer Piland was trying to convey, when the Chief spoke about “Our police family…”

Who rendered aid to Officer Moore as he lay on the snow covered ground bleeding to death? Was it neighborhood residents who may have been peering through their windows; seeing David lying motionless on the ground? Sure, a couple residents picked up the phone and called 911, but officers were already heading towards the area where they personally heard the gunshots. The truth of the matter is that no citizen rendered direct aid to Officer Moore. Officer Moore’s “brothers and sisters in blue” were the first ones on scene to help him. Don’t misconstrue what I am saying. I do not expect citizens to charge out of their homes at the sound of gunfire and put themselves in harm’s way. However, don’t criticize officers when they appear to display an “Us versus Them” attitude then. Our law enforcement heroes choose to place themselves in harm’s way so citizens don’t have to. When police officers (Us) deal with criminals (Them) an adversarial attitude naturally develops.

The “family” of IMPD officers live out the truth of Officer Piland’s words daily; “It’s about us.” To the IMPD patrolman, their brother or sister working next to them is “all they’ve got” when incidents arise that threaten the safety and lives of those officers. Officer Moore knew he could rest upon two truths that horrible day; God’s promises and knowing his brothers and sisters in blue would move heaven and earth to try and help him. Just maybe our city would be a better place to live if everyone subscribed to the same truth IMPD officers adhere to; “I am my brother’s keeper.”

In honor of our city’s TRUE WARRIOR – Officer David Moore.

Ronald Reagan and Personhood

From American Right to Life...

President Ronald Reagan offered to support a Human Life Amendment but the National RTL Committee turned him down in favor of a state-by-state strategy. Yet 30 years later, NRTL opposes all state personhood (HLA) efforts. Why? NRTL argued that they would support exceptions that could save 99 percent of the children, and then "come back later" to save the rest. Whereas the Bible teaches about the Lord who advocates leaving 99 behind to save one (Luke 15:4). It's not just one for all, it's also all for one, and as by Scripture, you don't by design intentionally leave one behind on the battlefield to be killed by the enemy, especially when that one is an innocent child.

The Death Penalty Bartered

Suspect shows no sign of remorse: wishtv.com

***Please watch the entire video***

The murder of Officer David Moore has left many questions opened. Particularly troublesome is the criminal history of Thomas “F*ck him” Hardy. Officer David Moore was attacked and murdered by a repeat offender who has spent 19 of his last 27 years in prison. Murderer Hardy honed his criminal trade-craft while in close quarters with like minded people at taxpayer expense. This must end.

This morning I found myself in strong agreement with Abdul Hakim-Shabazz at IndianaBarrister:

“I used to be in favor of the death penalty but over time my opinion changed. Not because I didn’t think some people weren’t bad actors, but simply because I did not think it was a deterrent to crime. However, in the wake of what happened to Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer David Moore, I am making an exception in this case.

That’s fine. Mr. Hardy should be arraigned, given due process at trial and if he is found guilty, strap him in the char and send him on to the next world. I know it won’t bring Officer Moore back, but it will stop Hardy from ever committing another crime. Let’s be honest, some people are just evil and have reneged on their membership to the human race and it’s time for their privileges to be revoked. You may say the death penalty is wrong and two wrongs don’t make a right, but it sure as hell makes it even.

This may not be a very Christian thing to say, but that’s fine because I’m not a Christian. And I think the world would be a better place if Thomas Hardy wasn’t in it, because it definitely will be a sadder place once David Moore is gone.”

Abdul gets it and I am glad he had the guts to call it as it should be. The only appropriate punishment for Mr. Hardy is the death penalty. But, Abdul's source of Christian thinking has led him to believe that what he had to say on the matter wasn't very Christian-like. I know he does not claim the Christian faith, but it is totally Christian-like! In fact, it is pathetic (directed toward Christians) that a self-proclaimed agnostic Muslim has a more intuitive understanding of Christian justice than the Christian whose God commands the death penalty. That is a true testament to the state of western Christianity; which has become a laughing stock because of their self induced ignorance.

Let me provide some insight into capital punishment. The only mandatory death penalty in the Christian bible is murder. It is true that the death penalty is authorized as a maximum punishment for a few other crimes, but it still allows room for the victim's to have mercy if they chose to do so. This shows that even the law of God was rooted in mercy. But, this option of a reduced punishment is categorically forbidden when the victim is murdered. This is because the victim is unable to act on their own behalf. Therefore, because mercy is only a function of the individual, the rest of us must demand thorough justice on behalf of criminal homicide victims- that means the death penalty. Further, neither judges, nor government officials have any right to reduce the sentence in such a capital case. The only person you will find reducing criminal homicide sentences in the bible beside unjust rulers is God. No one else has that authority.

Capital punishment can be an extraordinary crime deterrent if executed properly. Mr. Shabazz cites its lack of deterrence as part of the reason he has modified his position on the death penalty. His estimate is correct: it does not deter crime, as it is currently administered.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 (NKJV) 11 Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

The penalty for a crime must be carried out promptly in relation to the offense if it is going to retain its deterrent weight. When the death penalty is executed twenty to thirty-five years after a crime, it is useless in regard to deterrence. But, a well planned and immediately executed death penalty on the other hand, will reduce criminal homicides. Of course, we are not going to eliminate all criminal behavior, but we can strike a giant dent in the current homicide rate. If we will resolve to execute murderers closely (in time) to their convicted crimes, the results will be tremendous.

Consider that organized crime outfits and street gangs have used the death penalty as a deterrent against snitching with considerable success. It was not until the government started providing safe havens for criminal turncoats that the effectiveness of their street level death penalty began to wane. Capital punishment works just fine as a deterrent if and only if it is executed properly. But, right now in America it is not being carried out properly. Therefore, the benefits are not being realized. To properly carry out the death penalty we need to be consistent, do it quickly, and make the execution publicly known.

Finally, deterrence is not the only value of the death penalty. Some functions are strictly theological, while others are broader. One particular broad utility of the death penalty is mercy. Not mercy shown to the criminal, but to society. When communities forbid capital punishment they are not truly forbidding it, they are simply bartering and transferring the death penalty to another person. Either the actor of a capital offense will be put to death, or another life will be bartered and take their place. Thomas “F*ck Him” Hardy had an extensive history of criminal behavior. He was a seasoned degenerate. I don't know if Mr. Hardy had any direct capital crimes under his belt that were reduced through plea bargaining; or if his accumulative criminal behavior over the years warranted capital offense consideration at some point. But, this I know, to permit people like Mr. Hardy to live at the expense of tax paying victims is an affront to everyone.

The death penalty as a concept is easy to understand but more difficult to implement in the real world. However, difficulty should not dissuade us in our quest for justice. The death penalty is sickening but it effectively reminds us of the value of life (one of those theological utilities). You may mock the idea of capital punishment as barbaric, but you only do so because barbarianism has not visited your life yet. Yet, we as a collective group refuse to execute just penalties for capital crimes, only to enable those same criminals to continue their evil against others; and we call that God's mercy? The death penalty is an act of kindness, rooted in God's mercy.

UAW Plans to Bomb Japan!

Remember the old days when “mom and pop” businesses were strong-armed into paying “protection dues” to the mob. Of course “mom” and “pop” paid the money to protect their store from being victimized by the very mob that demanded the money. I think I remember a similar story line on an old “A-Team” episode. This familiar story is now being replayed all over our nation; except this time it’s legal.

Bob King, President of the United Auto Workers, has taken issue with several international automakers that have assembly plants located within our nation’s borders. Mr. King declared that the foreign automakers are out to “destroy the union.” This may be the first time in my life I’m rooting for a foreign company to succeed! Mr. Toyoda upset King when he closed a UAW plant in Fremont California and moved production of its Corolla to a new, nonunion, plant in Blue Springs Mississippi.

The UAW asked foreign automakers to agree to a set of “principles” to allow for what it calls “fair bargaining.” If the UAW doesn’t receive its “protection dues” then they plan to “target” various foreign automakers. They plan to picket hundreds of car dealerships this year as part of its campaign to increase membership, and destroy jobs. I added that last part, but it isn’t far from the truth.

Bob King told the Detroit News, “If we don’t organize these transnationals, I don’t think there’s a long-term future for the UAW-I really don’t.” King’s problem is that the UAW’s membership has declined sharply in recent years; 1.53 million in 1979 to under 400,000 today. This decline is directly related to numerous factories shutting down, and new factories, such as Toyota and Honda, hiring workers that refuse to unionize. Why do you suppose that is? According to Center for Automotive Research employees of international automakers already earn what UAW members earn. This research also notes that the benefits package offered to Toyota workers is better than the one given to their counterparts at domestic companies. How could this happen without the union!? Is it possible that a non-union worker can earn the same amount of income as a union worker? Gasp!

If Mr. King’s goals weren’t clear enough for you, allow me to restate them. The UAW could care less about protecting a worker from unfair wages, benefits and working conditions; they only care about sustaining the UAW as an organization. Why in the world would the UAW, or any union, approach a company that is paying its workers fair wages, and even better benefits, and demand they unionize? Workers and CEO’s alike have begun to realize they can function together wonderfully without the “assistance” of a union; and by “assistance” I mean to imply “disruption.” The only unstable employment that exists in our country is a union factory. The UAW’s days are numbered and for good reason.

It should be quite clear why unions are demanding the “Card Check” legislation be passed into law. If you cannot convince workers to unionize, then force them. What is the purpose of a union? I bet the laborers working in sweatshops located in Indonesia or China have a far different idea of what a union’s purpose should be. The purpose should not be to destabilize the manufacturing industry in our country, unless your un-stated purpose is more sinister. How many people believe that if a nearby auto factory is unionized, the workers’ employment is made more stable? If you believe that, then you probably believe the money you’re paying to the mob is actually protecting you.

Officer David Moore's Sacrifice

On January 23^rd, 2011 Officer David Moore was shot multiple times while trying to stop a car near 34^th Street and N. Temple Av.  He was rushed to the hospital, and as of this post his condition is improving.  Indianapolis Metro Police report that the person responsible for shooting Officer Moore has been apprehended.

How often are our police officers criticized for making mistakes; for being human?  How often are they praised for the selfless and dangerous service they provide?  It would not be inaccurate to state the obvious.  Local media and “concerned clergy” seems to consistently criticize and second guess officers who make split second decisions in potentially life altering moments, and rarely praise officers for the safety and protection they provide.  This incident provides a good example of why officers treat all people (criminals and non-criminals) the same way.  As good as they might be at doing their jobs; they don’t always have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and knowing who may hurt them.  When Officer Moore came to work Sunday morning, I’m sure he expected to see his family that same evening.  The next time you interact with an officer and feel like he or she may be treating you harshly; try and extend some grace to them.  The officers rarely know your intentions.

It is only during horrific moments when police officers are murdered, killed, or seriously wounded that the media appears to care or appreciate the service police officers provide.  (I’m not certain the “concerned clergy” ever appreciate it, but that’s for a different blog post).  My challenge to the media is to be more intentional in their coverage of our local police.  Instead of waiting for one our servants to fall from grace, spend some time reporting all the good they do.  Remember, they are human too. 

Please take some time and earnestly pray for Officer Moore’s healing and that his family is comforted and strengthened.  Please pray that every officer serving us receives courage and wisdom from our Heavenly Father.  We rely on the courage and wisdom of these men and women to provide a service that most can’t do.  And finally, pray for swift justice; that the perpetrator receives the consequence he justly deserves.

God bless our police officers.

Progressives are more DANGEROUS than Loughner

The attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords prompted CNN to conduct a poll. The CNN poll indicated 35% of Americans say Sarah Palin’s website, “which had an image that looked like the crosshairs of a gun marking Gifford’s congressional district, deserves a great deal or a moderate amount of blame.”

I am greatly bothered by this most recent CNN poll for the simple reason that no actual evidence exists that Sarah Palin should be blamed for the actions of some crazy lunatic. Do you truly understand the incredible number of Americans that actually believe words spoken or typed by Palin had something to do with Rep. Giffords shooting? This means over 100,000,000 (one hundred million) Americans think Palin’s “rhetoric” caused this tragic shooting! If the liberal media, and 100 million insane Americans, can link Palin’s use of a “crosshairs” with the shooting of Rep. Giffords then I think I’m safe in voicing my proceeding “dangerous rhetoric.”

January 20, 2011 The Philadelphia Daily News: IN HIS SQUALID West Philadelphia abortion clinic, Kermit Gosnell had a surefire way of dealing with the unwelcome complication of a live birth: He'd allegedly plunge scissors into the squirming newborn's neck, killing it by severing the spinal cord.

Sometimes, the elderly physician didn't do this right away. Often, he allegedly gave the chore to his unlicensed office staff. One premature infant wiggled around on a counter for 20 minutes before an untrained worker slit his neck - after first playing with him.

I’m wondering when I will see a poll, or news article declaring that Nancy Pelosi, Barry Obama, and a whole host of other culpable half-wits, including moderate conservatives, are responsible for the murder of 7 “viable babies”. Dr. Gosnell was merely carrying out the liberal mantra of “pro-choice,” and “it’s a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body.” Not only should Dr. Gosnell be punished, so should all the immoral progressives that have pushed this DANGEROUS RHETORIC for the last 40 years. As IndyCad mentioned in a previous post, “…and Then You Can Own a Negro,” the ignorance of “…and then you can kill a baby” is now beginning to show unimaginable results. The Philadelphia Daily News further reported, “Gosnell ignored other requirements of state abortion law, too, such as providing abortion counseling, obtaining parental or judicial consent for minors, and waiting 24 hours after a patient's first visit before performing an abortion, according to the grand jury.” So let me see if I understand this logic. It would have been fine for Gosnell to murder innocent babies, as long as he did it the way the progressives prescribed!?

I think it is fair to say that Barry Obama, Nancy Pelosi, moderate conservatives, and many others “deserve a great deal or a moderate amount of blame.” The difference is that I have over 40 years of dangerous rhetoric, and murderous legislation to back my assertion.

I Hate You!!!

Since the Arizona shooting that killed nine year old Christina Green-along with five others and wounding congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords- there has been increased debate over the acceptability of so called hate speech woven into political rhetoric. Politicians have a knack for taking anything and constructing a platform from which to advance their agenda (guess who defines what qualifies as hate speech). In this case, the left immediately went into attack mode blaming everyone from online bloggers and talk radio to Tea Party organizers for influencing and fostering an environment where criminals like Jared Laughner can develop their dissolute minds,. Sarah Palin seems to have taken the biggest hit so far, but others on the right have been similarly slandered.

Interestingly, in step with liberal couthness, just this past Saturday James Eric Fuller- who was shot in the knee by Jared Laughner- directed his own set of threats at a Tucson Tea Party leader. According to police, Mr. Fuller told Trent Humphries, "you're dead". One would think those on the left would urge their fellow comrades that now is not the time to go overt; communication breakdown I guess.

But what of hate? Is hate unquestionably such a terrible thing? Do we need to reject it from our political speech, and thoughts? The consensus among the average to moderate conservative whose moral compass is based on Christian values affirms yes. But why and it is appropriate?

Since much of western thought (including mine) bases its understanding of the concept of hate on Judea-Christian values, I'll address it from that perspective. Consider some biblical examples: David hated people (Ps 26:5, 31:6, 139:21-22), he implies righteous hatred (Ps 38:19, 69:4), he hates evil works(Ps 101:3), God hates people-not just evil (Pro 6:16-19, Mal1:3), and Jesus affirms Davids implications of hate with cause (Jn 15:25). All of this I think is grounds for at least reconsidering what you think about hate and its moral usefulness. I teach a complete curriculum on this topic and this represents only one bullet point (uh-oh... I said bullet). There is a tremendous amount of material to be considered; so don't be too hasty to judge and condemn without first weighing the evidence and rationale for the virtue of hate.

What I advocate is a more accurate appraisal of hate; one that places it as a virtue right along side love. It is not identical to love in its applications, but it is an equally honorable concept. I would like to offer for your consideration, a very concise understanding of how love and hate both coexists in the character of moral people.

Love and hatred must be understood in both verb and noun forms. For example, God loved (verb) His creation and did something about our situation instead of hating (verb) us and destroying all of mankind. But, God can still maintain an attitude of hate (noun) toward those that oppose Him without abandoning His general love-displayed in the crucifixion of Christ. We may rightly do the same. We can love (verb) our enemies enough to engage them as opposed to hating (verb) them and simply ignoring their plight. But, we may also at times- and rightly so- maintain an attitude of hate (noun) toward those that oppose God, us, and others.

Because of the negative sense that we have socially attached to the concept of hate, we don't feel comfortable using it to explain how we feel or what we think. But, there is no way to escape our natural inclinations. Those things come directly from God and are not shameful. We should however, be on guard against disreputable actions of natural inclinations without the nonsense of redefining hate as a crime, immoral concept, or something to be stigmatize.

What we commentators, law makers, and threat assessors need to concern ourselves with is malice. Malice is always wrong and should be condemned by everyone. But, hate is not a synonym for malice. Rather hate becomes corrupt when it embodies malice. It is at that pivotal point that criminal intent begins to form. Because of this, judgment must be done on a case by case basis. But in no way, does attributing a general character of negativity to the concept of hate do us any good. This only further blurs the line between right and wrong.

It Should Be Illegal to be Illegal

Indianapolis Star: Indiana State Senator Mike Delph plans to introduce a bill branded as a “crack down on illegal immigration.” He claims this bill would “take the handcuffs off of law enforcement, hold employers who are thumbing their noses at the law accountable, and lift up the English language.” As a side note; I’m not sure what “lifting up the English language” means, but this could be easily accomplished if we outlaw rap music.

John Livengood, co-chairman of the Alliance for Immigration Reform in Indiana, stated, “I’m worried that the unintended consequences of what he’s doing is to put a sign on our state saying we don’t want immigrants.”

There is good reason for individual states to push their own illegal immigration reforms, since our federal government continues to neglect its responsibility to protect our borders. The federal government’s inaction on illegal immigration now affects states thousands of miles away from the southern border. Where our federal government refuses to act, our state government must act.

Senator Delph’s proposed bill contains a few excellent ideas, and a few that leave me scratching my head. Quoting from the Saturday, January 15^th, 2011 Indianapolis Star, “…the bill requires state and local law enforcement officers who stop anyone for violating a law or ordinance to ask for proof that the person is here legally if the officers have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person is not a citizen or legal visitor.” Why? What is local law enforcement supposed to do with an “undocumented” person, who they believe is illegal? There is no point in law enforcement “checking” a person’s status, unless there is a new criminal charge they will be able to arrest for. It seems to make more sense to require government bureaucrats demand proof of a person’s citizenship and/or legal status rather than law enforcement. Law enforcement officers don’t hand out money from the public treasury, but our politicians and bureaucrats do. Start holding the government “paper pushers” accountable for checking the validity of a person’s citizenship before giving out our “forced charity.”

If we want to prevent illegal immigration into our state then two things must occur, of which this proposed bill accomplishes one; sort of. The southern border must be secured and the flood of illegal immigrants halted. Obviously Indiana has zero authority to accomplish that task, so that leaves the second item. Our state must accomplish the task of drying up any incentive for someone who wants to come here illegally. Remove the temptation of jobs and welfare. Sen. Delph wants to investigate and prosecute those business owners that would knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Delph also seeks to cut off any illegal immigrant from acquiring financial aid, scholarships or grants to attend a university within Indiana. Finally, Delph’s proposal would prevent any city and county from “limiting the enforcement of federal immigration laws,” thus eliminating the “sanctuary cities.”

Probably the best idea within Delph’s proposed bill would require our state to “tally the costs of illegal immigration on Hoosier taxpayers, including for education, health care and law enforcement, and to bill Congress for reimbursement.” If the federal government isn’t capable of protecting its own citizens from the parasite that is illegal immigration, then refund our tax dollars so we can absorb the increased costs. Furthermore, if the federal government can’t succeed in protecting our borders, then relinquish the responsibilities to the states; just like it was prior to the mid 1880’s.

Our state and local law enforcement are more than capable of enforcing immigration law if given the proper authority to do so. I certainly trust local agencies far more than the self-righteous “tolerant” boobs in Washington D.C. You might be wondering if I have any ideas on how to more effectively locate and prosecute illegal aliens? The secret is to……wait for it……here it comes…..PROFILE! How much of our illegal immigration problem comes from Ireland, Germany, Japan or Canada? Can we use a bit of common sense and agree that most, 90%-95%, of our illegal aliens are from Mexico and Central America? Of course Mr. Livengood seems to think this type of profiling would be wrong and “un-American.” I consider breaking laws and draining public resources “un-American” too, but maybe I’m just an intolerant racist.

Mr. Livengood cannot win his argument based on logic and fact, so he resorts to the familiar tactic most liberals utilize. He rattles off a half truth and then throws the race card. Livengood states, “Our biggest fear – my biggest fear – is that Indiana becomes known as a state where immigrants aren’t welcome.” I thought we were talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not IMMIGRANTS? For the sake of our state's future, my greatest hope is that Indiana becomes known as a state where illegal immigrants aren’t welcome!

Dr. MLK- No New Post

No new post will go up today. Our writer's are gearing up for February and Black History month so nothing will be written for the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. celebration. However, Abdul at IndianaBarrister.com composed a fine parallel between segregation of old and the segregationist of today. Check it out.

Smoke 'Em if you Got 'Em

Indiana House Bill 1018 being considered by our state legislature prohibits smoking in a “public place, enclosed areas of a place of employment, a vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the state, and within twelve (12) feet of a public entrance to a public place or an enclosed area of a place of employment.” Anyone caught smoking, or permitting someone to smoke, could be fined up to $1,000.

Rep. Pete Dennison (D-46^th District) is quoted as saying, “Not only will this single piece of legislation save our citizens millions of dollars in health costs each year, it will make our air cleaner, our breath fresher, and teeth less yellow…” Halleluiah!

President Pro Tempore, David Long, commented that he might consider giving the bill a hearing this year if it exempts casinos. The “nonpartisan” Legislative Services Agency estimates the State of Indiana could lose $180 to $200 million a year if smoking is banned in casinos.

I’m a bit confused. If smoking is such a hazard to society that it requires our state government to protect the citizens with a no smoking ban, then why is it okay to smoke in casinos? I’m just thinking out loud, but how hazardous is gambling to society? If we allow gambling addicts and smoking addicts to converge in one place, with the blessing of the government, and engage in unhealthy and unsafe behavior, then we could be looking at Armageddon! Oh the humanity!

Here’s the problem with this current legislation being considered. It has nothing to do with health and safety, and everything to do with MONEY. As screwed up as Senator David Long’s logic is, he unknowingly made the most honest statement. Allow me to paraphrase his previous statement. “If you want to ban smoking, fine, but don’t take away our tax revenue from gambling!”

I don’t gamble, I don’t smoke, I don’t like smoke and I don’t want to be around smoke; I therefore don’t go in places where I am exposed to any of these things. I also encourage those that smoke and gamble to find other, more fiscally and physically healthy past-times to engage in. However, the second our government attempts to protect us from ourselves, I start feeling ill, I get gas, my breath starts smelling like bull crap and my teeth turn yellow. Was it Ronald Reagan that said the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”?

Taxes and regulations have become too cumbersome in our nation. Our benevolent government first bans smoking, then trans-fat, and what comes next? Please don’t use the illogical argument that smokers cost us millions in health care every year. If the cost of the behavior is so damaging, then why doesn’t our government regulate the plethora of other behaviors that cost us just as much and more, such as; Illegal immigration, crappy drivers, over-eaters, gamblers, alcoholics, sex addicts, homosexuality, etc…..the list goes on. Cities like San Francisco will gladly ban public smoking but endorse destructive lifestyles like drug usage with “safe needles” and homosexuality.

By the way, Gov. Mitch Daniels stated he would sign the smoking ban into law if it passes the General Assembly. Smoke ‘em while you can.

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.

Ronald Reagan

Conservative Protest Reform

Everywhere we turn today we are confronted with some protest. If it is not the left with their signs and bullhorns, it is the right with their public resolutions and boycotts. Protest is one tool that transcends all party lines. However, I wonder each time I see or hear of a protest if such measures are being used appropriately, particularly by conservatives. I do not disapprove of the various protest methods at all. I question the protests not on objectionable grounds, but rather, on the premise that they lack wisdom in many instances.

Conservatives tend to come across to outsiders as actively opposing anything and everything and have even earned the title "the party of no" by the left. Of course, the left's accusations target the core principles of conservatives and not their actual methods. Nonetheless, why do people and more specifically social conservatives protest everything?

A clear example is The American Family Association. I generally support their mission, but they are consistently finding some reason to boycott a business. They will blacklist anything from a furniture store to fast food. The same holds true with similar groups and even governments. When I opened my email this morning, right there in bold letters read “Egypt recalls ambassador to protest Pope comments”. I am not questioning or invalidating their reasoning, only their chosen tactics and strategies.

Lately, many bloggers have been having heated discussions about the welcoming of GOPROUD to CPAC 2011. Some groups have chosen to boycott in order to express their displeasure with the direction CPAC seems to be heading. I understand their position, their perceived obligations, and the philosophy behind their boycotts, but I ask: is a boycott the best form of protest for this event?

Another recently announced challenge comes from the group American Principles Project which is targeting Indiana Gov. Match Daniels' CPAC invitation. Back in June 2010, Gov. Daniels spoke with The Weekly Standard “and said that the next president 'would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,' until economic issues are resolved.” If his original statement seemed too vague to have any real meaning, Gov. Daniels later appended his statement which muddied the waters even more regarding what exactly he meant. I think his use of ambiguous language opened the door for interpreters to run with it. They ran right to the protest bag of tricks.

Think about what the purpose of a protest (any form) is. It is a tactic used to make beliefs, opinions, and desires known with the purpose of influencing another person. In the political arena, it is used to influence public policy, public opinion, and in the case of CPAC and similar outfits, organizational direction.

Protest's comes in many forms. I guess what troubles or annoys me the most is the 0-10 approach used by the larger watchdog groups. At least publicly, very little in between exchange is taking place. It seems the doctrine of the day is "if you don't agree, then we're going full throttle on the offense". There are many middle ground methods for showing dissatisfaction without compromising moral integrity. Additionally, not every point of contention warrants the same level of counteraction. By analogy, it is like striking a man with your fist for only giving you a thug's stare. The offense does not justify the response. I think the same holds true with protests.

Let's consider two examples. Is a group of fiscally conservative gays attending a semi-closed door conference as egregious as a public gay pride event? Are the ambiguous words of a governor of equal value and importance as the activities of planned parenthood? The answer is no to both.

I fear that with each protest, if not judicially minded, social conservatives will lose credibility in the court of public opinion. I would like to see them move toward a more principled protest approach. One that is more discerning and selective in the choice of tactics and strategies. Unnecessary tension attached to subordinate issues can get dicey quickly, resulting in declining support in the long run. What we need is a principled policy of protest that recognizes the hierarchical order of concerns. First, it must acknowledge that all social issues are not on equal footing. Second, neither are the protest responses.

*A definition for primary and secondary issues was deliberately omitted.

Perry Township Schools Need More Apples

A public forum regarding the “Metropolitan School District of Perry Township’s Fiscal Crisis” was held recently. The Perry Township School Board is considering offering another referendum this next election with the stated goal of addressing a large deficit in the general fund, and needing to improve the condition of aging facilities. The referendum request could entail an additional 10 million dollars for the general fund and 50 million dollars for capital projects. If the entire 60 million is affirmed by voters, the average homeowner could expect an increase of about $300 a year in property taxes. The last time a school referendum was on the ballot in Perry Township, it was declined by a small margin of voters.

There is good reason the voters decided against this referendum the last time, but I believe this time may be different. Despite the continuing stagnate economy resulting in reduced tax revenue for schools, I believe Perry Township voters will probably give the MSDPT the money they are requesting. As surprised as some may be, I think this referendum could be good for Perry Township. I am basing my decision on logic and not on emotions as many liberals seem to do when it comes to “educating our kids.”

There are many things wrong with our education system as a whole. However, most of what is wrong is well beyond the scope of influence for the Perry Township School Board. For instance, broken families and the general moral degradation of our society is the biggest culprit within the failings of our public education. Furthermore, money plays a limited role in determining the quality of education a student receives. Please examine per pupil expenditures for I.P.S. versus other, more rural, school districts if you don’t believe me. As long as a student is motivated to learn and a teacher is motivated to instruct, “educating” will occur.

As a fiscal conservative I am always concerned with how much of our money is being spent by our federal, state and local governments. I also understand how much easier it is for a constituent to influence local governments regarding public money expenditures, as opposed to influencing our grossly excessive federal government; which is precisely why the Department of Education is a colossal failure. Public education should be a state and local matter without the meddling of a massive federal government. For example, a large chunk of MSDPT budget shortfall, over 10 million dollars, is due to the “phase-out” of federal desegregation funds the Department of Education provided when Perry was forced into “busing.” This is just another example of the federal government holding state and local governments’ hostage with their weapon of choice, cash. That being said, why do I think the voters in Perry Township should approve this 60 million dollar referendum?

There are two main reasons I now support this tax increase. I cannot believe I just typed those words! After the voters declined the first attempt at passing a funding referendum, the Perry Township School Board and Superintendent Thomas Little did the right thing. They made cuts in the budget and displayed a level of responsibility we rarely see from any elected official. After reviewing the entire MSDPT 2009 budget, I believe deeper cuts could have been made, but I’ll give credit where credit is due. They balanced the budget despite decreasing revenue, which leads me to believe they can be “kinda” trusted with our money. But Perry Township School Board is forewarned, we will all be watching closely if you are given more of our hard earned tax dollars to spend.

I also support this proposed referendum for purely selfish reasons. I live in Perry, and I am certain our school system is one of the best in Marion County. My experience with the elementary education teachers, generally speaking, has been great. Perry has some of the most dedicated and professional teachers in the state. I don’t have a problem with our teachers being paid what they are worth, and using monetary incentives to retain and attract the best. I do not want Perry Township Schools to be less competitive with other school districts because we can’t pay our teachers an appropriate salary, thus losing good teachers to other districts. I’m sure the Indiana State Teachers Association loves me right now, but my endorsement is for the individual teacher, not their politically involved, liberal union. That’s a blog for another day.

This referendum has the potential to reap great rewards within Perry Township, if the blessing of the people is not misused. I implore the Perry Township School Board to spend our money wisely; otherwise you may find the voters unwilling to offer this gift again.

*By the way, anyone who thinks illegal immigration doesn’t affect you locally; take a look at the ESL, English as a Second Language, participant increases in the last 10 years. In 2000 Perry had just over 100 students in this program, and in 2010 there are over 2,000 “englishly challenged students.” How much does this cost? In 2006 the state average expenditure for pupils’ was about $10,270. My public education says I should multiply 10,270 with 2,000; for a grand total of $20,540,000, and zero sense, I mean cents.

Indiana Anti-Sharia Law

For those who may have missed it last week, state Rep. Bruce Borders may be leading an effort to deny the recognition of Islamic Sharia law in Indiana. Maybe it is just too early but not much is being said about the proposal at this time. Given the lack of any relevant information, it is possible that the news was only intended to serve as a measure of public sentiments rather than announce any real effort.

I am particularly interested in what this legislation intendeds to accomplish. I am certainly not receptive to a Muslim society; but at the same time, I wonder how this bill will affect Muslim religious practices. What will it entail and what aspects of sharia law will not be recognize? Will their worship customs be negatively affected? Why is it even being considered in the first place?

According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who opposes such measures it is "a fear-mongering attack on Islam and un-American to it's core". I do not trust CAIR any more than I do a TV evangelist, and view anything they have to say as highly suspect. They are kinda like the Al Sharpton of the Muslim world; their involvement is an automatically suspect. Nonetheless, I find some agreement with them because it does seem at least on the surface to be a step in the wrong direction for everyone. But, do not get to giddy over my concession; I'm not a fan of pluralism.

To the extent that sharia law only concerns itself with private or corporate religious governance I do not think anyone will support this bill. However, it is the idea of an Islamic theocracy that scares people. What I and others do not want to see is a shadow government built on private, religious practices (Islamic, Christian, etc). I think that is exactly what Muslims worldwide are gunning for and the very thing Rep. Borders wants to prevent. I will stay on top of this as it develops. In the meantime we can also keep an eye on the anti-sharia constitutional amendment in Oklahoma.

A Fool's Advice

Most of us require sound advice from time to time in our daily living. However, whom or where do you turn to gather this advice? A Kansas City man claims that for the next 365 days he will get all his advice and direction from Chinese fortune cookies. During a local Kansas City Fox News interview, the KC man claimed to have been down on his luck recently, and lamented that his unemployment was about to run out. He told reporters that he was eating some Chinese food that he had purchased when he thought of this brilliant idea; my words, not his. Mr. KC is also posting blogs about his fortune cookie experiment.

Anyone who ponders how our nation has regressed so quickly need only look at the example of our friend from Kansas City. Foolishness abounds in our nation, and Kansas City is no exception. During the televised interview Mr. KC announced that he plans on buying lottery tickets daily, based on the numbers provided from the fortune cookies.

Where do I begin?! Why is an unemployed man, who takes public funds to allegedly support his family, buying Chinese food and lottery tickets? Am I the only person bothered by this profound lack of respect Mr. KC has for our forced generosity? I have a sneaking suspicion that “bad luck” has nothing to do with this man’s current position in life. I cannot say I know all of Mr. KC’s circumstances, but I think I can safely assume poor decisions have had something to do with his current condition; especially if he is garnering advice from fortune cookies, and depending on the lottery to provide financial stability.

Where are the people in this man’s life offering genuine wisdom? One would think the foolishness of this man’s behavior would be evident to him, but apparently the fortune cookie has not yet told him. If no one within his family and circle of friends will do the right thing, then I will; because doing the “right thing”, or the “loving thing”, means telling someone the truth; even if it’s convicting and uncomfortable.

Here is the truth: Your condition has nothing to do with “luck,” and everything to do with YOU! You may have lost your job for reasons outside your control, but you can still choose how you respond to adversity. I truly fear for your family’s well-being if you are serious about guiding your life decisions based on the sayings inside a stale cookie. Here’s some advice you won’t find in your fortune cookie, and apparently from any person in your life. Seek your life’s purpose in the scriptures of the Bible; Get a job, any job!; Stop wasting your money, our money, on lottery tickets, Every decision you make, or don’t make, has consequences; Cook your own food instead of spending money on unhealthy and expensive Chinese food; and finally; Pray, Pray, and Pray some more for real wisdom that is never wrong (please see the first piece of advice I offered).

“Good fortune” exists only in the mind of a foolish person. “Every good and perfect gift is from above…”

Technical Difficulties...Be Back on Monday

After a day of technical difficulties, the problem seems to be resolved. We will continue through the weekend working to prevent this kind of disruption again. Our writers will be back on Monday.

...and Then You Can Own a Negro

"While I personally oppose slavery, I believe it is a states right issue"

"black slave ownership should be limited to those plantations totaling ten acres or less"

"black slave ownership should be limited to only blacks with no children"

...Follow these regulatory procedures...and then you can own a Negro.

Can we even imagine advocating for regulatory sanctioned slavery instead of its abolition? No, because we clearly understand that it is wrong (even if the philosophically minded have a difficult and misguided time justifying it) to govern human life in unethical ways. Yet this is exactly what the ostensible pro-life organizations have done for at least the last 30 plus years in America.

Masson's blog passed along recent news on SB 50 introduced by district 42 senator Jean Leising. This bill will require women intending to abort their unborn to obtain a “fetal ultrasound imaging” at least 18 hours before an abortion.

"The only justification for this proposed government micromanagement of a woman's medical decisions is the notion that abortion involves the termination of a human life. But, if you do subscribe to the notion that a fetus is a human life, fully entitled to the moral rights of other humans, then this legislation is monstrous. Can you imagine the outrage if Sen. Leising proposed legislation that required, before murdering a child between the ages of 6 and 10 years old, the murderer watched film and listened to audio of his or her victim at least 18 hours in advance? It's like a mandatory snuff film."

He concludes:

"The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the proponents of this sort of thing don't regard fetal life as fully human. In which case, government should stay out of our medical decisions."

Masson is 100% right in his analysis of this phony pro-life bill. In fact, it is not a pro-life bill at all, rather it is a pro-abortion with exceptions bill. I have for years lamented the strategies used by the conservatives on this issue. No thinking person can take serious the claim of pro-lifers that life begins at conception, while they double speak through regulating the commission of that which they say is killing. It is clearly inconsistent (and immoral according to their own set of beliefs) yet the majority of pro-lifers are OK with this type of strategy.

This ignorance driven “...and then you can kill the baby” strategy has been an utter failure and a black mark on conservative pro-life advocates. As unfortunate as this is, it is increasingly the consensus of many modern conservatives. Sadly, they have either never been taught or have forgotten that there is no room for compromise with the naturally iniquitous. We do not allow some slave ownership nor should we allow some killing unborn babies. We prohibit it! The irony is, this is an internal conflict, not an external one. You would think it would be the liberals and most libertarians that are proposing these token regulations. Instead, it is the pro-lifers themselves that are doing it. All the while the left and moderates are secretly happy to lend their support while laughing at pro-lifers who think they have achieved something of significance.

Recall earlier this year, the Indiana Right to Life withdrew its endorsement of U.S. Senate candidate Richard Behney after some statements he made during a tea party event. He ruffled the feathers of Mike Fichter, the IRTL PAC chairman when he commented about ulterior motives within the pro-life movement.

"One of the things I’m most disappointed about in running for the United States Senate – I’ve met many people here – I’ve met many of these leaders – pro-life leaders – here in our state," Behney said. "And I’m convinced as sure as I’m standing here that they are more concerned with their egos and with their jobs than with saving lives."

Mr. Fichter corresponding with Lifenews.com countered:

"Mr. Behney’s comment reveals an uninformed and cynical view of what drives Indiana’s pro-life leaders to invest their lives in the most selfless of causes by speaking on behalf of unborn children,"

He continued with the basis for revoking Mr. Behney's endorsement saying:

"An error of perception and judgment of this magnitude, and concerning allies in the fight for the unborn, has caused us to lose confidence in him and his reliability, so much so that we cannot recommend him to voters,"

While I cannot point to any one person who I think is in it for personal gain only, I have no reason to believe the pro-life organizations are immune from the same problems that plague other organizations (economic comfort and stability has a way of rocking some people to sleep). I can however, judge with certainty their achievements. In doing this, I conclude they are either reparably ignorant, or beguiling gullible pro-lifers. I lean toward a combination of the two at times. For the last thirty years, the best the pro-life industry has been able to achieve is regulatory abortions- meet these requirements and then you can kill the baby. While Masson may not share my views on abortion, he and others rightly expose the ignorance and down right hypocrisy of conservatives who defend and legislate their “pro-abortion with exceptions” strategies.

I do not intend to indict the front-line folks. The workers themselves are doing everything they can legally do to protect unborn lives. But, their achievements are in spite of their organizational leadership, particularly National Right to Life. Nor do I censure those who honestly acknowledge that they are not sure. But the pro-life advocate that thinks it is permissible to regulate the commission of abortion I stand sternly against.

My position is that the only pro-life advocate is an abortion abolitionist. That's it! There are no degrees of prolifeness; either you are or you are not. If not an abolitionist, you are pro-choice with exceptions. I cannot possibly know which side of the debate each reader stands on. If you are comfortable with regulatory sanctioned abortions as a concession, I encourage you to reconsider and carefully think through your reasoning. If you support abortion, I hope that you too reconsider but I do acknowledge your steadfast commitment. I have never met an inconsistent pro-abort; but I cannot say the same about pro-lifers.

Open Blue Monday

Today's post is a self moderated open forum on any topic.  Local, state, and national politics through the eyes of law enforcement.  Offer your opinions on anything your interested in.  Please keep it respectful and above all, keep it interesting!

Vision for America's Future 2014

Star News Service offered an article on page A7 in the December 30^th, 2014 Indy Star Newspaper.

The cost of healthcare will rise in America after its cash-strapped government announced Wednesday that yearly medical exams, vaccines, and senior care will be slashed from monthly government healthcare payments.

America’s official news service said that effective Saturday, “preventative healthcare” will join a list of services cut from the coverage program that Americans have come to rely on for a small but steady supply of basic healthcare.

Americans pay next to nothing for rationed healthcare. They’ll soon have to fork out small fortunes according to the news service.

The list of services available with the subsidized healthcare has shrunk in recent months as the government trimmed services deemed nonessential. Yearly medical exams, vaccines, and senior care have been cut. Abortion, sex change operations, lobotomies, and other services remain.

Vision of Cuba’s Present State

Star News Service offered an article on page A7 in the December 30^th, 2010 Indy Star Newspaper.

The cost of cleanliness will rise in Cuba after its cash-strapped Communist government announced Wednesday that soap, toothpaste and detergent will be slashed from monthly ration books.

Cuba’s official Gazette said that effective Saturday, “personal cleanliness products” will join a list of products cut from the ration books that islanders have come to rely on for a small but steady supply of basic goods.

Cubans pay about 25 centavos, or about a penny, for a rationed bar of soap. They’ll soon have to fork out four to six pesos, according to the Gazette.

The list of products available with the rationed books has shrunk in recent months as the government trimmed items deemed nonessential. Cigarettes, salt, peas and potatoes have been cut. Sugar, beans, meat, rice, eggs, bread and other items remain.

Think about the parallels between these two stories; one fiction and the other true. If “Obama-care” is left in place, the first story will be a reality.