IMPD at War: Using Hugs as weapons

On August 26^th 2011 Ofc. Dustin Carmack was in the process of arresting a thug on Southwest District when another thug drove past and shot the officer in his hip. The officer was transported to Wishard Hospital in good condition, and thankfully, expected to make a full recovery. This most recent act of violence against an officer prompted Chief Ciesielski to state, “I can’t tell you how angry I am right now. I don’t like to use the word ‘war’, because we’re not soldiers, but we just declared war on some thugs and some drug dealers or whomever it was that was responsible for this.” Tough sounding words by the Police Chief; regrettably his department’s actions and policies don’t match the macho rhetoric.

Local police officers have been complaining for years that criminals are increasingly embolden, perpetrating more and more violence against our local law enforcement officers. These thugs are emboldened by a weak and litigation frightened city and police administration. Thirty years ago thugs and scofflaws would have been terrified at the thought of IPD or MCSD commencing a crusade to avenge the death or injury of one of its own. Now, the thugs laugh at the empty words of Chief Ciesielski. They know officers are hamstrung by weak leaders that are unwilling to take on destructive cultures, ambulance chasing lawyers and race baiting clergy.

Sources within IMPD say the department is very close to adjusting the department’s pursuit policy again. Chief Ciesielski is considering, either on his own or by prompting of Director Straub, to deny officers the ability to pursue vehicles for minor traffic violations. No longer will officer be permitted to engage in a vehicle chase when the offender has a “broken tail light” or an “expired license plate.” Forget the fact that the absconding offender may have just committed a violent crime, say…..like….shooting another officer….; but if the officer attempting the traffic stop doesn’t have independent information other than the traffic violation, he cannot chase. Did I mention the city is petrified of litigation? So let the turds run free. “STOP in the name of the law, or I’ll yell STOP again!”

What the Chief should have said is, “We’re at war with the thugs as long as we don’t get sued.” This proposed policy change is certain to help reduce crime and reflect a new era of “toughness” on crime by the police department (sarcasm implied). This type of dichotomy between words and deeds is what we have all come to expect from politicians; say one thing and do another. Maybe I’m too militant, but I believe capturing turds is more important to public safety than the risk of a car accident.

Our police have become soft and powerless thanks to a gaggle of liberal politicians and “community leaders”. The criminal coddling lawsuit paranoid politicians have undermined the ability of police to enforce laws and judges to enact appropriate punitive punishments. Law enforcement leaders have put the liberties and safety of all the law abiding citizens at risk because of their ridiculous fears. Criminals have been allowed to prey on innocent Americans for far too long and politicians have allowed political correctness to dictate policy for far too long. Allow our police to be the “strong arm of the law” and protect us! Corporal punishment has its proper place in parenting and in the government’s ability to reduce crime. Who gives a crap what Rev. Sharpton, the “Concerned Clergy”, or the ACLU think or say? Foolish politicians want officers that will “hug a thug”, counsel youth, and “partner” with the community. This is not the proper role of police. Police officers should be respected because they are fair-minded and heavy-handed when dealing with the scourge of society. Walk softly; carry a big stick and USE THE STICK.

Stop trying to turn our brave law enforcement warriors into social workers. If IMPD is “at war” then give the officers the support and policies they need to shock and awe, not hug and counsel.

What we need to CHANGE are our VOTERS

Do you think the people who voted for HOPE and CHANGE have gotten what they wanted? It's very possible they have, because I don't think they knew what they wanted in the first place.

The cause - emotional and ignorant people voting for Obama. The effect - our economy and foreign policy in turmoil. By all means hold President Obama responsible for his failed socialist policies, but more importantly, hold those people who voted for him responsible for their foolish decision. We all suffer when others act "stupidly."

Today's Battle: PhD Economist vs. 7th Grader

International Business Times reporter, Joseph Lazzaro, quotes economist Dr. Nouriel Roubini, “Karl Marx had it right. At some point capitalism can self-destroy itself. That's because you cannot keep on shifting income from labor to capital without not having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. We thought that markets work. They are not working. What's individually rational ... is a self-destructive process.” Roubini then called for another very large stimulus package….Unbelievable!

The primary reason our nation’s economy is in such turmoil is due to immoral business practices by immoral people, which leads to oppressive government regulation. Our Founders warned about the perils of doing business in a free market system absent of morality. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams. Our economy will improve when individual hearts are transformed, not our free market structure. Deconstructing the framework of our free market system and replacing it with government will not produce prosperity; it will hasten the destruction of our nation’s wealth and liberty.

A close friend of mine provided me with a copy of a research paper his son, a 7^th grader, completed in May of this year. I am amazed at the insightful grasp of truth this young man possesses. He understands the concept of liberty and free markets much better than the over-educated PhD previously quoted. By the way, the 7^th grade teacher determined the paper deserved a “C”. I wonder what the politics of this educator are. Without further delay, the economic expertise of a 7^th Grader!

Communism is socio-political government without social classes and stateless society. Karl Marx was a German philosopher who created the idea of communism in the early 1800’s. He thought that it was unfair for some people to be rich and some to be poor so he created this type of government. The theory of communism states that there is no private property and everything belongs to everybody collectively. Communism made everything as equal as it could possibly make it.

China thought that communism was a viable option for them to turn to. At the beginning of the 20^th century, Europe powers and Japan were exerting control and influence over certain parts of China. Chinese people resented foreign powers exerting control and influence in their country. The Chinese people were impoverished and upset with their empires inability to expel the foreign powers. With these problems, a 2000 year old imperial system of government was replaced and became the Republic of China. After many years of political turmoil and attempts of democracy, the communists in China, backed by the Soviet Union, took power by revolution on October 1, 1949 and created the People’s Republic of China. Due to the large population and learned reliance on government, China remains communist. The success of capitalist business is quickly changing the standard of living, economy, and political landscape of modern China.

There are many other countries that have also adapted to the ideas of communism. For example: Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam are all communist countries. As with China, a large percent of the populations of these countries live in poverty. Like China, Vietnam’s living conditions are improving with the incorporation of some capitalist principals in their business world. All of these countries are extremely oppressive to their people and have a large amount of political prisoners and no right to freedom of speech.

Communism is very different than a democratic republic. The United States of America is a democratic republic. In the United States the citizens vote for our political leaders, while in China’s communist government their government leaders are appointed by their own government. In the United States the citizens can own businesses and property, but in China the government owns all of the businesses and property. In China there is no freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly, but in the United States of America we have freedom of speech and assembly.

Communist governments are governments where everything belongs to the state in an attempt to make everyone equal. Foreign interference, extreme poverty, and political adversities created a climate in which communism could take root and control of China. Communism appears to be an oppressive and economically failing system in which capitalistic principals in business may be correcting. Many Chinese are conditioned to accept their lack of freedom and liberties, while Americans cherish these rights. In conclusion, China has gotten powerful on the backs of their citizens, while the U.S. has gotten powerful because of and for their citizens.

Applause, Applause, Applause!

Teachers' Union Loves Cash more than Kids

Headline, The Indianapolis Star: Judge won’t halt vouchers

The Indiana State Teachers Association is the primary plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new Indiana School Voucher law. A Marion County judge thinks the ISTA’s lawsuit “has little chance of succeeding,” and therefore refused to issue an injunction to halt the program. The Star reports, “Teresa Meredith, vice president of the ISTA…said she’s not sure whether they will continue to press the case, but they plan to meet with their attorneys today to discuss their strategy.”

The obvious question is: Why is the ISTA opposed to the school voucher program?

Disclaimer: I know a great many teachers and the wonderful work they do, despite a liberal union, irresponsible parents, and over-paid administrators. This article is not intended to criticize all public school teachers, so please send your hate-mail to someone else.

I’ve heard most of the standard arguments against school vouchers, and very few of them convince me to reconsider my position. The arguments go something like this: * I’m for separation of church and state, and most of the voucher money would go to private religious schools (If God can educate my kid better than Liberal Lenny then I’m all for it – It also isn’t the state’s money, it’s OURS). * I’m for equal opportunity for all students, and the voucher system (somehow) will destroy equality (The wonderful myth of equality; although communists say it’s theoretically possible). * School vouchers will siphon money away from public schools that need the funding and divert it to rich white schools (The only school that needs funding is a school that works; stop throwing money at failing school systems whether they are predominantly white, black or green). * And my favorite….”We teachers know what works and doesn’t work, and school vouchers won’t work” (Nothing is perfect, but considering the condition of many of our public schools, I’m willing to give it a shot; besides if homeschooled children can test better than publicly educated kids, I’m not putting a lot of stock in the whole “I’m a professional, I know what’s best” thing). Statistics never lie, right?

I think most of us know the real reason why the ISTA and many public school teachers are opposed to school vouchers; MONEY! Indiana Barrister, Abdul’s Blog, posted an article listing some of the top wage earners within the Indiana State Teachers Association; the average annual salary is $300,000! Various school administrator and tenured teachers have pretty good salaries as well. Public education is a pretty good job, if you like kids. Before you go all union on me and call me a child hating Republican, and tell me how difficult your job is, please let me explain. First, I do know how difficult a teacher’s job is, and I wouldn’t do it, so I don’t. Considering the current job market, teachers and public school administrators have pretty good gigs.

I really don’t have too much of a problem with public school teachers and the ISTA opposing school vouchers, I have a problem with their stated reasons why they oppose. They try and camouflage their distaste for the new law by cloaking their anger in self-righteousness lies like, “It will harm our children.” I call “bull-crap”!! Public educators and administrators are opposed to vouchers because it threatens the stability of their jobs, and I can understand that. I realize the self-loathing liberal collective mind of the ISTA can’t say exactly what they are thinking, but I would have a whole lot more respect for this union if they would bluntly state, “The teachers we represent don’t want the current school voucher program because they are afraid of losing their jobs.” There, I said it for you; was that so hard?

The ISTA has also totally misrepresented how the current Indiana Voucher Program works. The voucher program requires parents to complete an application and the state determines how much education money the parent is eligible to receive. That’s right, it is another welfare program, albeit, not the worst one I’ve seen. The state figures a parent’s eligibility based on how many people live in their home and their total income. For instance, a household of 4 earning $62,021 would only qualify to have 50% of their child’s education paid for at a “participating” private school. I guess that’s better than nothing, but someone’s footing the bill. How could a bunch of liberals be against this!? The lower income families benefit to a far greater extent than higher wage earners. If the ISTA and liberal teachers think this voucher program is “unconstitutional” then please help me repeal all the other social welfare programs, like the 2 years of unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, Obama-care, and the like.

Don’t assume I am 100% against the current voucher program, because there is great value in giving parents who care about their child’s education the ability to choose their school. Huh, I guess I’m Pro-Choice, oops!

So let me see if I have this right….According to the ISTA…. parents cannot choose their child’s school, but parents can choose to kill their children before they go to school??? Brilliant liberal logic!

Hinkle: No Harm No Foul??

The local blogs are buzzing about Rep. Phil Hinkle’s insidious encounter with an 18 year old man. Everyone wants to talk politics; how can Hinkle’s political profession survive this scandal. Everyone wants to talk hypocrisy; Phil Hinkle was an outspoken opponent of gay marriage and look what he’s done in his personal life. Everyone wants to talk about privacy; whatever happens in a politician’s personal life is his business and no one else’s. Everyone wants to express empathy regarding Hinkle’s sexual desires. I’ve heard enough to know that a majority of the bloggers and oPINion-heads are fools.

Simply stated, what Phil Hinkle did was morally wrong and possibly criminal. Rep. Hinkle violated the trust and sanctity of his wife and his own body, and placed a great deal of shame upon his family and friends. My heart breaks for Hinkle’s family and I’m saddened for the precarious position Mr. Hinkle has fallen in. I pray there is forgiveness and healing within his family, and a prompt resignation from political office. There is a great deal of healing that must take place, and remaining a public figure only complicates that process. Mr. Hinkle must realign his priorities and place his family and spiritual health first.

There are those who correctly label Hinkle a hypocrite for opposing gay marriage while indulging in homosexual affairs. I agree….Phil is a hypocrite; however, so are over 1 billion (give or take a few million) Christians. The crux of humanity’s problem is sin and hypocrisy; thus the need for Christ. We are all sinful and fallen people that require a Savior because we are unable to save ourselves. Our flesh desires what is harmful, even if our mind and heart know the destructiveness of our desires. Hypocrisy has run deep in our world ever since the fall of Adam and Eve. Hinkle is no different, except he happens to have a profession that thrusts him into the public spotlight. Hinkle can personally and spiritually survive this lustful incident, but his career will not. Politics is no longer an issue for Mr. Hinkle; this is all about faith (believing God can heal the lustful heart of man), repentance (asking for forgiveness and walking away from desires of the flesh), salvation (knowing that Christians are not defined by sin, but by Christ), and assurance (you are still loved and have purpose).

Many have posted absolutely ridiculous comments about Mr. Hinkle and the duplicity of his life. In a recent discussion with the Supreme Allied Commander of thePoliPit.com, we came to the realization that those who would condone gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle have based their entire worldview on the false religion of evolution. For instance, it may be very “natural” for a man to be attracted to another man, but it doesn’t mean you should act upon that desire. “If it feels good do it” philosophy is the most destructive and selfish worldview anyone can embrace. Sometimes it is beneficial to resist the desires of the flesh in an attempt to lead a more selfless life and honor the sacrifice of your Savior. He had a purpose for sacrificing himself; to satisfy God’s perfect standard of judging sin. Morality has a timeless and distinguishable standard; unless you think it accidently appeared from an amoral pool of goo 3 billion years ago. What is the standard and who is the author?

I don’t have a problem with those who condemn the behavior of Rep. Hinkle, but I do have a problem with those who condemn the validity of the words he spoke just because he’s a newly discovered hypocrite. Rep. Hinkle’s opposition to gay marriage was right and proper, even if his personal life was in opposition to his stated beliefs. Hinkle’s actions have harmed himself, his family, and Conservative Christians; but his actions don’t undermine the truth of his words. He spoke those words against gay marriage based on a standard of morality he knew was proper, despite his lustful desires.

In an absolute twist of morality, many are supportive of Rep. Hinkle’s desire to have sex with men. They are so blinded by their own politics and desires that they don’t acknowledge the harm he has done to his first commitment – HIS WIFE and MARRIAGE. I guess these morally flippant people assume that had Hinkle been allowed to express his homosexual desires, he would have never married a woman and could have married a man instead. Certainly he would have been 100% faithful to his man-wife had we Christian Conservatives just gotten out of the way? This is moral relativism in action.

Just wondering aloud: Why is Phil Hinkle suddenly homosexual after expressing a desire to have sex with men? In 1970 Laud Humphreys published his Ph.D. dissertation titled “Tearoom Trade.” His research focused on male on male sexual encounters taking place in public restrooms. Despite some ethics problems in how the study was conducted, his research discovered that of the entire male on male sexual encounters 54% of the men were “outwardly heterosexual with unsuspecting wives at home.” “38% of Humphreys’ subjects were neither bisexual or homosexual, 24% were clearly bisexual, 24% were single and covert homosexuals, and 14% corresponded to the popular stereotype of homosexuality.” While Mr. Humphreys used his findings for a different purpose, I think it’s safe to assume that immoral sexual desires are acted upon because of humanity’s NATURAL desire to do what they should not.

Our nation is headed down the wrong path and the evidence is obvious; except to those that have already been blinded by their lustful desires.