Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM
♣ I would never sign a fidelity pledge as a candidate for any office. I already made my vow to my wife in 2001 before God and His church. Signing a political fidelity pledge cheapens the marriage vow and reduces a covenant with God to a political statement. It's sickening and these groups should be ashamed of themselves for asking candidates to sign it. Candidates should be ashamed of themselves for signing them instead of rebuking this disrespect for marriage.
♣ This is why "Anonymous" is stupid. They propose to protest SOPA by taking down an opponent of SOPA! Why would you attack your allies? This will only serve to backfire and discredit "Anonymous" as a bunch of spoiled brats who can't be taken seriously. Shut up, already, you bunch of morons.
♣ So yet another American is being held hostage by the Iranian government. The answer to this problem is obvious. If the American hostage is still alive when Ahmadinejad comes back to New York, we arrest Ahmadinejad and hold him hostage. If the American hostage is executed, we retaliate. When Ahmadinejad comes back to New York to deliver a "speech" to the United Nations, he will be arrested and summarily executed.
♣ Rachel Maddow has taken to describing Indiana's Right to Work proposal as "stripping union rights." That's not the case, as this is not the same as taking away collective bargaining rights from state employees, as has been done elsewhere. Right to Work actually gives employees more choice by making compulsory union membership illegal. Which raises the obvious question: What are unions and Democrats afraid of, regarding allowing employees to choose?
♣ President Obama opened his State of The Union speech by praising soldiers returning from Iraq for making us safer. Obama is famous for saying the war in Iraq was "a dumb war." Obama said in January 2008 that Al Qaida was stronger that it was in 2001 because Iraq "distracted" us. Obama said in October 2004 that the Iraq war has made the United States less safe from terrorism and that it was a bad strategic blunder. Could Obama be any more of a hypocrite?
| Thursday, January 26, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:50 AM
There was some extra-pathetic whining and crying in a letter to the editor from a Penn State fan today:
Dressed in our Penn State gear, my wife and I were treated very rudely by many different people. I have never seen such blatant disrespect by people of all ages.
I know Penn State’s reputation has taken a big hit recently, but maybe people in Indiana don’t realize that every person who roots for Penn State did not commit a horrible crime. |
No, but Penn State "fans" did behave like Muslim terrorists when Joe Paterno was fired. As I said before, I actually have exponentially more respect for the Muslim terrorists than the Penn State "students" though, because (while their religion is false) the Muslim terrorists are at least rioting in defense of their god's honor, instead of something so meaningless as college football.
| Wednesday, January 25, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM
This is where we are in racial politics in America: Recognizing the problems faced by minorities and proposing the need to fix those problems is a "racist" argument that amounts to "scapegoating" minorities. This is why it is so difficult to address racial issues in America.
Enter Newt Gingrich, who has criticized Barack Obama as a "food stamp President" and argues we need to find a way to have blacks earning paychecks instead of getting government benefits. Gingrich was immediately attacked for being divisive and racist, and his rhetoric was compared to shouting "n****r, n****r, n****r."
Because I live in Literalville, I am compelled to examine the statistics. TheGrio.com article even admits that 2010 Census data shows that 26 percent of food stamp recipients were black. That is more than double the percentage of blacks in the population. Clearly, this is a problem.
Government benefits, ideally, should be a stop-gap measure to help people though a difficult time and let them get on their feet. (Of course, in a perfect world all poor relief would be handled by churches and private charities.) For far too many people off all races, government benefits have become a way of life instead. This is not compassionate. It is oppressive. People are designed by God to want to provide for themselves, not to be provided for by others.
There are reasons why blacks tend to get some government benefits at a higher rate than whites, and some of those root causes (like out of wedlock births) will need to be addressed in a rational and adult manner. (It should be pointed out that illegitimacy is a problem across all races.) But the important thing here is solutions to improve the lives of as many blacks as possible. How could that possibly be racist?
| Tuesday, January 24, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 AM
Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. -- Ephesians 6:1-3
Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. -- Colossians 3:20
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM
About two hundred people attended the 2012 Rally for Life on Sunday, about the same amount as has attended the last several years. It has been ten years since I got active in the annual event to oppose abortion, and this particular year was very encouraging due to the inclement weather and the previous day's ice storm.
Joseph Bayly (pastor of ClearNote Church in Indianapolis) opened with a quote about a great moral evil:
| We must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion... and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong! |
That was Abraham Lincoln speaking about slavery, but it could easily have been said by someone today about the even greater evil of abortion. Too many churches abandon God's commandment to defend the innocent from those who would oppress them because they don't want to get into politics. When Christians speak about the evil of murdering unborn children, we are told that you can't legislate one religion's beliefs.
Pastor Bayly saved his exhortation for the crowd, rather than our opponents in the fight over abortion. He spoke of a hypothetical pro-life Republican who practices in vitro fertilization, not understanding that the embryos discarded are made in the image of God. Christians do not speak nearly often enough against the "morning after pill" or stem cell research, and many Christians are willingly ignorant of the fact that the birth control pill can kill a newly created life by preventing implantation. We do not speak because we fear losing ground financially.
We have had counter-protesters before, but this year was different in that the immature pro-abortion activists tried to actively shout down the speakers. In this, they demonstrated their hatred for free speech by seeking to silence those advocating a viewpoint they disagree with. I do not respect these people for this reason and another reason.
If you want to be taken seriously, make a serious argument. By holding a sign that reads "fun ends at conception" or "free vasectomies for pro-lifers" you are proving that you do not take the argument seriously enough to make a coherent case for your position. If you do not behave in a way worthy of respect, then you should not expect to be treated with respect. Furthermore, chanting that abortion opponents "don't care when women die" is absurd on its face for an event that is more than half female.
Perhaps in the future, we can have a reasonable debate with counter-protesters at the Rally for Life, but when the only purpose is to mock, taunt and ridicule, reasonable and serious discussion is impossible.
See pictures from the 2012 Rally for Life here.
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:30 PM
See pictures from today's event here.
Check back tomorrow for my report on the rally.
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:30 AM
2012 Rally for Life
When:Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
Where: Monroe County Courthouse lawn
Why: To be a voice for the victims of abortion.
| Thursday, January 19, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:30 AM
I have often complained about Republicans' uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and Mitt Romney proved that he also has that ability by comparing his tenure at Bain Capital to Barack Obama's takeover of automotive companies. This was such a missed opportunity to contrast his record to Obama's record.
The differences between Romney and Obama are striking. First and most importantly, Romney's action was one of private enterprise, not centralized government control. Romney should have said that Obama eliminated jobs as President, and people in private industry will not have to worry about having that happen if Romney is President. The distinction between private enterprise and top-down government control is one that cannot be emphasized strongly enough.
Secondly, Romney could have pointed out that decisions made by Bain Capital were market based decisions, while Obama's actions with the auto companies were motivated by politics. Aside from the fact that all decisions made by government are inherently political decisions, Obama's goal was not to help the auto companies. Obama's goal was security for the unions, to be repaid with campaign volunteers and contributions to both Obama and the Democratic Party.
Republicans also need stop attacking Romney for his "I like to fire people" remark. First of all, it is dishonest. Romney was clearly talking about the free market working in consumers choosing a different health insurance company, or any other company that doesn't serve you well. People make those decisions all the time, whether it is to shop at one grocery store over another selection and prices to switching to a different phone company or internet access provider because the offer from the new company is better. I have "fired" a certain phone company twice, and I thoroughly enjoyed it both times.
Republicans are also handing Obama a weapon to use against us. If Romney is the nominee, Obama will echo Republicans attacking Romney over Bain Capital. Even if Romney is not the nominee, Obama will use that line of attack against the Republican nominee by saying the GOP would not protect workers against the "evil" corporations. Because the corporations sit there in their corporation buildings, and they're all corporationy, and they make money.
Bottom line: Republicans should not be attacking free enterprise. Republicans should be defending free enterprise and attacking government overreach into our lives and into the economy. When Republicans use the rhetoric of the Left, we set ourselves up for defeat.
| Wednesday, January 18, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:30 AM
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. -- 1 Corinthians 6:18
A physician in Bloomington is joining with the CDC to advocate that boys get the vaccine for the Human Papilloma Virus.
First, given the public health issues on the table, it is a good idea to have wider use of the vaccine. Fewer people will become infected with HPV, and therefore fewer will die from cancer caused by HPV. But the good this does is basically using your finger to plug the hole in a structurally unsound dam instead of repairing the dam.
The sad thing about this is that the vaccine for HPV only works to prevent the symptoms of sexual license rather than dealing with the problem of sexual license itself, which has led to innumerable broken lives, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, HPV and many others, and the breakdown of the American family. As society has been under assault by sexual license, we have to pay more taxes to deal with the problems caused by sexual license.
The reality is that those who practice Biblical sexual morality will not get HPV or any other STD. These diseases are called "sexually transmitted diseases" for a reason, because unless you engage in the behaviors that spread the disease you will not be exposed to the disease.
Yes, there are exceptions to this. However, can we please be adults and recognize that limited exceptions to a general truth do not invalidate that general truth?
If we are going to be serious about stopping the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, we are going to have to have a realistic conversation about what we can to do eliminate the behaviors that spread those diseases. You simply cannot separate the ST from the D, and we cannot continue to hide from this plain and simple fact. Government should not advance any policy that encourages sexual immorality, buy beyond that there is little that can be done in public policy.
No, the real failure here is with the church. The church has completely and utterly failed to preach and teach about sexual morality and the boundaries God has placed on sexual behavior. The church has failed to rebuke and discipline sexual sin, instead choosing to remain a few steps behind the culture's latest foray into depravity. In order to honor God and safeguard public health and the structure of society, that needs to change.
See previous posts from December 31, 2005 and February 28, 2007.
| Tuesday, January 17, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 10:00 AM
Bloomington Herald-Times, January 16, 2012. (Comments.)
To the editor:
The question hovering over the sex abuse scandal at Penn State "University" is why no one intervened to stop the abuse, especially when someone walked in on the abuse.
The question hovering over the disappearance of Lauren Spierer is why someone who knows what happened to her has not come forward to share the information and find her.
It is easy to sit in judgment and say we would have done something or we would have said something in those cases. But are we really any better?
Four blocks south of the Monroe County Courthouse, children are killed every Thursday by the abortionist at Planned Parenthood. There were 845 unborn babies killed in Monroe County in 2007 alone. (See http://www.in.gov/isdh/reports/itp/2007/tbl12.htm)
Yet most of us drive on by the "clinic" where babies die every week, blissfully unaware of (or purposefully ignoring) the slaughter that goes on behind those dark grey walls. Who will stand up to Planned Parenthood and tell them to stop this wicked abomination in the eyes of God?
January 22 will be the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Come to the Monroe County Courthouse at 2:00 pm and be a voice for the victims of abortion.
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:30 AM
Note: This editorial was originally written back in 2008. With the Presidential campaign in full gear, and with local and state elections heating up, negative campaigning needs to be defended again.
We hear it every election year. People complain about negative campaigning, attack ads, and the "uncivil" tone of the campaigns. Those complaints get the most attention in a Presidential election year, but there are complaints about candidates going negative in city, county and state elections as well. And yet, every single election season, there are more negative ads from both parties, and within party primaries. Why? Because they work.
It seems that many people casually observing politics think that "negative" and "uncivil" are the same thing. That is not the case. While it is true that nasty personal attacks are common, there are also many valuable, issue-oriented negative ads that inform the voters and enhance the debate. I would argue that in many cases, a candidate for elective office has a responsibility to the voters to go negative at some point in the campaign, especially in a policy-making office from Congress down to county commissioner.
Suppose Candidate A believes Candidate B's tax policy will slow economic growth and/or is unfair to a significant portion of citizens, and B's tax policy is getting no (or favorable) coverage in the media. A should then run an advertisement and communicate with voters about why B's tax policy will not only fail to solve the problems it proposes to fix, but will actually make things worse. B then has an opportunity to respond to the A's arguments in his own ad, perhaps criticizing A's tax plan. Voters then come away able to make a more educated choice.
Obviously, the above is a purely hypothetical example you're likely to hear in a political science class instead of what often happens in the real world. But the fact of the matter is that there are good negative ads that serve a useful purpose in every election season. Those who complain that a campaign is "too negative" lump the good negative ads in with the bad negative ads. It is a "pox on both houses" argument that may make someone feel above the fray, but provides little in the way of content.
Clearly, positive campaigning is needed too. Candidates and political parties need to give voters a reason to vote for them in addition to voting against the other candidate. The 1994 Contract with America provides a good template for how to do that. The Republicans certainly attacked the Democrats for supporting President Clinton's policies, but they also outlined a positive agenda and gave people something to vote for. Republicans should have learned in 2006 that telling voters, especially your base, that the other side is worse simply is not good enough. You have to provide a reason for people to vote for you. Unfortunately, I do not think that lesson has been learned.
| Saturday, January 14, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 8:30 AM
After an utterly sickening episode of ABC's Nightline this past week, it appears the next big push to break down the standards of sexual morality will be for polyamory. Let's examine what God's word has to say in Genesis 2:24:
| Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. |
Notice how "wife" is singular, not plural. The Apostle Paul follows up in Ephesians 5:31:
| For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. |
Notice how Scripture says the two shall become one flesh, not three or more. Also notice that this is a creation ordinance, having been established prior to the Fall. Christians need to be prepared to fight the world as it tries to make this depravity mainstream.
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM
Rick Santorum has the Left in a tizzy with his unashamed and unapologetic Christian faith and his uncompromising positions on sexual morality and protecting innocent human life. But some of the most hysterical screeching has come from those who say he would ban contraception. He won't.
As National Review points out, Santorum's position is actually the classic libertarian position regarding federal policy. State governments can choose to do what they wish and can ban it, while the federal government stays out of the debate. Furthermore, Santorum would eliminate federal funding for contraception as well as federal mandates that insurance coverage must cover contraception.
It is true that Santorum said a while back that he is the only Republican candidate who would address the issue of contraception. But he didn't actually say that he was going to seek to ban contraception. He said he would be the only candidate who would use the bully pulpit to speak about the issue and the harm it has done.
There's no question that Griswold v. Connecticut began the downhill slide regarding sexual morality. Once sexual activity became disconnected from responsibility for the consequences of the sex act, promiscuity and other sexual immorality followed. The divorce rate spiked, but even as the divorce rate stabilized we have seenb a worse consequense, which is an increasing number of couples are not getting married at all. Griswold laid the legal foundation for Roe v. Wade and a slaughter that is unprecedented in human history.
But let's say, hypothetically, that Santorum actually was advocating a federal ban on contraception. I happen to live in the real world, and in the real world that is not going to happen. There is not the political will to get it done. For crying out loud, it took eight years to finally get the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion banned, from when Congress started trying to pass it over President Clinton's veto in 1995 to it finally getting signed into law in 2003.
I take a position that goes a little bit farther. I think we should ban "contraceptives" that act as abortifacients. (This includes the so-called "morning after pill" as well as RU-486.) One of the great things about the debate over the "personhood" amendment in Mississippi is that after years of denying that the birth control pill acts as an abortifacient, abortion-rights advocates were forced to admit that the birth control pill can actually kill a fertilized egg by preventing implantation. If abortion opponents are serious when we say that human life begins at fertilization, then we should extend protection for all human life from that point forward.
See previous articles:
| Thursday, January 12, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:20 AM
Last week, Bloomington mayor Mark Kruzan (who had been very tolerant of Occupy Bloomington's camp on Kirkwood Avenue) decided to evict the Occupiers after one of them assaulted and injured a police officer during a rally.
Now, Occupy Bloomington gives us the stupid statement of the day:
| Strange that a similar response was not seen when Indiana University students recently rioted in the streets of Bloomington after a basketball game against the University of Kentucky. Students broke car windows and a sunroof, surfed on cars and blocked traffic at an intersection while police stood by and smiled. No arrests were reported related to that incident, and I didn’t hear any threats of getting rid of IU’s gym. |
Source: Bloomington Herald-Times
Really? Do I even need to explain how stupid this statement is?
| Wednesday, January 11, 2012 |
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM
I have often complained about nanny state ninnies trying to micromanage our lives with things like legislation mandating prescriptions for pseudoephedrine. This is yet another step in punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. So given my disdain for the nanny state, I found Reason's "nanny of the year award" interesting.
The age of consent in Michigan is 16, but that increases to 18 "if the relationship involves a school administrator or teacher," according to WoodTV.com. After a high school teacher had sex with an 18 year old female student, a Michigan state senator proposed removing the age limit. (See articles here, here, here and here.)
One of the criticisms of the law is that it is too broad and could have a 25-year-old adult education teacher go to prison for having sex with a 30-year-old student. That is silly and indicates the law was written in haste. The language should be tightened so that it only applies to traditional high school students.
But the main point of the law is reasonable. Because teachers have authority over their students and the power to influence the students' grades (and therefore their chances for getting into college as well as future career prospects) it should obviously be illegal for school employees to have sexual relations with high school students. The point is not regulating sex between consenting adults. The point is protecting students from possible academic blackmail.
