E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

I will be honest. I used to sneer at the doctrine of election, dismissing it as a cruel and heartless view of God that unfairly and arbitrarily condemns people. I am not alone. As Americans, we generally hate the doctrine of election. We worship self-determination, so the doctrine of election goes directly against the basic principles we hold as Americans.

But as Christians, we do not worship the United States of America. We worship Jesus Christ, who willingly gave Himself as a sacrifice for our sins and took the punishment we so richly deserve. As Christians, we look to the Bible for what we should believe about our faith, so our views on election must be based on Scripture.

So what does the Bible say?

  • Ephesians 1:3-5 says that we were chosen "before the foundation of the world" and that God the Father "predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ."
  • Acts 13:48 says of Gentiles that heard the Gospel that "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Those are just three examples, as the doctrine of election is woven throughout Scripture. From God choosing Jacob over Esau to God picking the nation of Israel, it is clear that God is the one who decides.

But that's not fair. Right? Wrong. We are all responsible for whether we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and God is not wrong for showing mercy on some but not others. As Romans 9:15 teaches, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Instead of looking at it as unfair, we should be grateful that God chose any of us to be saved instead of sending all of us to Hell like we deserve.

As much as I used to sneer at election and as much as my wicked heart still hates it today, it is a beautiful doctrine because it is not our righteousness that brings mercy from God. We cannot look to our salvation with pride and say we are Christians because it was something we did or something we chose. We are fully dependent on God for our salvation and our faith, something that should obliterate our idolatrous pride. As our Lord said in John 6:37, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

Thank you, Lord, for showing compassion on me, a wretched and wicked sinner.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

I write editorials for the Evansville Courier now? Really?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:00 AM (#)

Last Sunday, the Evansville Courier wrote an editorial scolding the Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization for not including Interstate 69 in its transportation plan. On Wednesday, the Bloomington Herald-Times reprinted the editorial. Here is a comment from an anonymous poster on HTO:

Seeing that this editorial was written by the infamous, Scott Tibbs lapdog liar for the Republican toadies- no wonder it has so many flaws.

Actually, Tibbs' Editorial is about as truthful as Scott Tibbs actually living the good Christian life. But at least it is entertaining and humurous since it exposes yet another one Tibbs distractions so he can amp up his pitiful blog and control his little world in the google search engine of is name.

The only good thing is that Tibbs embellished Andy Ruff's bully argument which most everyone in Bloomington agreed with. That is why Ruff and all the others were elected by sweeping majorities into office. They are now doing what they were elected to do.

Off course the Tibbster doesn't want to follow Federal guidelines because it does not fit his Agenda.

Federal Laws have been violated: 1) EIS for Sections 4,5, and 6 has not been completed. Federal Law dictates that that must be completed BEFORE work begins. 2)Revenue Stream to ensure completion of the project. To date after many requests NONE has been provided to the MPO.

How does these several Billion of dollars of wasted taxpayer money fit the fiscally conservative GOP Model? It Doesn't!

Governor, I-69 offers a deal
One could say an important Bloomington group has offered our avowedly budget-conscious state government a chance to save $400 million.

That's not exactly how the Daniels administration looks at the Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization's decision not to include the extension of I-69 in its local plan.

The proposed 27-mile stretch from Crane to Bloomington, estimated to cost $400 million, is a key segment of the roughly $3 billion "new-terrain" route from Evansville to Indianapolis. Opposed by the city councils of Indianapolis, Bloomington and Martinsville, as well as thousands of petitioners concerned about property loss, environmental damage and sheer expense, the overall project has been accelerated by Gov. Mitch Daniels but will be far from completion when he leaves office at the end of next year.

Opponents argue there's still time to switch to a vastly cheaper, much less land-consuming route using existing U.S. 41 and I-70. While the state is having none of that, it faces tough questions as it persists with the new-terrain strategy.

If it fails to satisfy the Bloomington/Monroe County MPO's concerns about environmental and fiscal impact, the state may not be able to obtain federal funds needed for the Crane-Bloomington stretch.

Even if that hurdle is surmounted, the most problematic segment would remain. Funding has not been secured for the conversion of Ind. 37 from Bloomington to Indianapolis into the superhighway, and the formidable forces of opposition include not only tree-huggers and individual property owners but also state legislators and the Indianapolis Perry Township establishment. Tens of millions of dollars in property tax value would fall from the rolls with an I-69 link to the Southside area, whereas I-70 already supplies that hookup.
When the Star editorializes the very same poignant points made by Ruff and others at the recent MPO Meeting serious progress is being made. With I-69 Fast Track Mitch Daniels soon gone, with a Democratic Governor, I-69 can be stopped.

Republican City Councils in Martinsville and Indianapolis have voted NO Against the NAFTA I-69 Superhighway from being constructed as well as very conservative Republican Perry Township in Indianapolis for similiar reasons: No money to complete the project, pollution, environmental problems and congestion headaches, destruction of the character of their place, and a big waster of taxpayer monies- into the Billions of Dollars! I wonder why that is?

Once again it proves the already established fact not to take parrot Scott Tibbs seriously.

Source: Herald-Times Online.

I write staff editorials for the Evansville Courier? Really? I wish someone would have informed me of this, especially since I have already been writing editorials and did not even know it. I do not even recall applying for the job, but apparently I am already doing it. When am I going to get paid? Show me the money!

I suspect I have been infected with the Las Plagas from Resident Evil 4. Lord Saddler (a well known member of the CATABOLIC CABAL) must be controlling my mind. The evil Republican CATABOLIC CABAL has now turned on its own members, kidnapping me, infecting me with Las Plagas, brainwashing me and forcing me to write editorials supporting Interstate 69 without my knowledge or consent. This is shameful. How can I defend myself against this CATABOLIC CABAL?

Friday, May 27, 2011

Thoughts on the 2012 Republican field

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

I was very disappointed when Indiana governor Mitch Daniels decided he would not run for President in 2012. Many Republicans thought that Daniels - who was re-elected with nearly 60% of the vote the same day that Barack Obama became the first Democrat to win Indiana since 1964 - would be the best chance to defeat Obama next year.

That said, I cannot see why Republicans are so pessimistic about our chances of getting rid of Obama next year. There are even whispers that Republicans should focus on winning the U.S. Senate instead of defeating Obama.

I don't get the pessimism. I just don't get it. Look back at 2008. John McCain was a pathetic loser of a candidate, the GOP base was depressed, the Democratic base was energized, the economy collapsed right before the election, and people were sick of George W. Bush.

Even with everything breaking in his favor, Obama still got only 53% of the popular vote nationwide. He should have gotten 60% in that environment, but he didn't. That demonstrates to me that Obama's support was a mile wide and an inch deep. That support evaporated in 2010, and that election was a rebuke of Obama.

There are some good candidates who have decided not to run. There are good candidates remaining, however, as well as some good options who have not yet entered the race. I believe any of the Republicans listed below, with the exception of Ron Paul, could defeat Obama. This is not to say any of them are perfect, because some of them (specifically Romney, Paul and Gingrich) have significant flaws. If any of these people won the Republican nomination in 2012, I would cast a Republican ballot, though I would be more excited about some than others.

Herman Cain (Website - Facebook - Twitter)

Tim Pawlenty (Website - Facebook - Twitter)

Rick Santorum (Website - Facebook - Twitter)

Sarah Palin (Website - Facebook - Twitter)

Mitt Romney (Website - Facebook - Twitter)

Michele Bachmann (Website - Facebook - Twitter)

Newt Gingrich (Website - Facebook - Twitter)

Ron Paul (Website - Facebook - Twitter)

Thursday, May 26, 2011

ObamaCare's individual mandate, revisited

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

ObamaCare's individual mandate is back in the news along with the usual sniping about who supported the policy first. (Mitch Daniels was not one of those people, by the way.) Now is a good time to revisit the issue and two arguments that ObamaCare supporters use to justify the policy that has drawn more heat than any other aspect of the plan.

First, ObamaCare's individual mandate is not like automobile insurance. Generally, the point of mandatory automobile insurance is not to ensure that automobile owners are protected against the loss of their own vehicles. The point is that people carry liability insurance so that other people are covered in the event of an accident. This is why people who drive older vehicles often only carry liability insurance and not insurance on the vehicle itself. The point is to protect others.

There is simply no comparison here. If I cause an accident, I should be insured so that the other person's property damage and/or injuries are covered. It is reasonable to require this as a tradeoff for using roads paid for and built at taxpayer expense. I am not required to have insurance to protect myself in the event of an accident. Furthermore, I am not required to purchase automobile insurance if I do not own a vehicle.

Automobile liability insurance mandates are also state -level mandates, which leads to the second point.

ObamaCare's individual mandate is not the same as the individual mandate implemented by Mitt Romney's health care reform in Massachusetts. The primary difference is scope and constitutionality. RomneyCare's mandate is a state-level mandate for the people of Massachusetts, while the ObamaCare mandate is a one-size-fits all national mandate for a nation of 300 million people that stretches all the way across the continent.

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they envisioned a system where the states would have wide latitude in what they are permitted to do. Meanwhile, the federal government would be much more limited in what it is permitted to do, confined to specific areas such as national defense. This is why ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional, because there is no specific authority in the Constitution to mandate everyone in the nation buy anything.

ObamaCare's individual mandate was the biggest overreach of a a Democratic supermajority that was prone to overreaching. While we do not have a realistic chance of actually repealing ObamaCare while Obama is President, that should be the first thing that happens after a Republican President takes office in January 2013.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Obama proposes Israel sign a suicide pact

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Last summer, Democrats were apoplectic about polls that showed a significant minority of people believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim. Obama has professed Christian faith multiple times, so how could this be? One needs only look to this story in the Washington Post for a good example of why this persists.

Obama proposed on May 19 that Israel go back to the 1967 borders as a means of making peace with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. Let's not forget that the reason Israel took the occupied territories in the first place is because of aggressive military maneuvers by its enemies, who were calling for the obliteration of Israel. Let's also not forget that this was just 20 years removed from the Nazi Holocaust, so the Jewish state had reason to be worried.

The reality is that Israel faces a number of enemies that would love to wipe them off the map, and the occupied territories are strategically vital to the security of Israel. This is why Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Obama's call for militarily indefensible borders. President Bush recognized those borders are unrealistic in 2004.

The fact is that it if Israel gave up the occupied territories and recognized Palestinian statehood, it would not matter. Israel's enemies - especially the Muslim terrorists in Hamas - will not be satisfied with "land for peace" deals. Their goal is the annihilation of the state of Israel. Is President Obama so naïve that he does not understand this? Or is he really so arrogant that he believes he can succeed where everyone else has failed?

Obama's proposal is not a peace deal, it is a suicide pact. Orrin Hatch is correct to introduce a resolution in the U.S. Senate rejecting Obama's foolish and dangerous demands on a consistent U.S. ally to appease Muslim terrorists. Indiana Senators Richard Lugar and Dan Coats should support this resolution.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Pure hypocrisy: In order to value diversity, we must discriminate

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

"Chick-Fil-A has no place on Indiana University Bloomington's campus, A campus that values diversity!" - Tagline for the "Kick Chic-Fil-A off IUB's Campus!" group on Facebook.

OK, so let me get this straight: In order for Indiana University Bloomington to value diversity, we must practice discrimination by banning Chick-fil-A from campus for holding opinions that are not approved by militant homosexuals. Somehow, I am pretty sure that discrimination does not honor diversity and tolerance.

Militant homosexuals claim to want "tolerance," but that is a fraud. What they actually demand is acceptance. If you do not accept homosexuality as a moral choice, you must be censored and/or punished. This is a very intolerant way of dealing with disagreement, but this is nothing new for militant homosexuals at Indiana University.

We saw this in action back in 2003, when militant homosexuals demanded that the university censor Professor Eric Rasmusen's MyPage site due to politically incorrect statements on his blog. (See previous articles from September 8, 2003, September 14, 2003, September 21, 2003, September 24, 2003 and October 4, 2003.)

Acceptance is very different from tolerance. As Mike Adams points out, "Tolerance presupposes a moral judgment." Militant homosexuals who demand that Chic-fil-A be punished for donations to unapproved issue-advocacy organizations do not know the first thing about tolerance. For them, it is "My way or the highway."

Let's keep in mind that there is absolutely no evidence that Chick-fil-A has in any way discriminated against any student at Indiana University, either in employment or in providing services to customers. If that were the case, there would be legitimate grounds for removing the chain from campus. Simple disagreement with homosexuality is not legitimate grounds for punishment by the Thought Police that militant homosexuals fantasize about.

Finally, read the description for the group written by an alleged "student" at Indiana University:

As many of you know Chick-fil-a is a chain of restaurants that Openly donate food and money to some of the most hateful Anti-Gay organizations in the country including Focus on the Family, the Ruth Institute, the National Organization for marriage, and many others!
Chick-Fil-A is currently located in the basement of The Wells library, a place thousands of students pass through everyday. The library is a place where every student, facility member, and staff member should feel welcomed and safe. This can be hard to do when a company that is so ingrained in the Anti-Gay movement is right under their noses.
As Students we have a voice and the right to stand up and defend ourselves and our University against Homophobia and Bigotry!

Here's an idea: Learn the basic grammatical rules of the English language, specifically what should and should not be capitalized. Spend more time being a "student" and less time advancing hypocritical censorship.

Previous post: Tolerance and censorship do not mix.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Pro-life arguments banned by HeraldTimesOnline

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Back in January, I posted about the Herald-Times' quirky religion rules, when the H-T told me that I had to remove a Bible verse from the letter to the editor I submitted about the 2011 Rally for Life. I was told that if I did not remove the verse, it would be published on the religion page instead of as a LTTE. I pointed out that my LTTE was well within the guidelines and it was published as written.

Now, it is really getting strange

A number of polls over the years have shown that a majority of the American people say that abortion is murder. In a June 2000 Gallup poll, 57% said that abortion is murder. Tens of millions of people nationwide and tens of thousands in Monroe County believe that abortion is murder. Obviously, I agree with that position. I do not see how one can view the results of abortion and see otherwise.

On Wednesday night, I made a comment on a letter to the editor about Planned Parenthood losing taxpayer funding. In this comment, I quoted Governor Daniels' statement that "any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions."

My comment was: "In other words, stop murdering babies and you can have the money."

Because of this statement, my post was deleted.

So what happened? The H-T took some heat for its moderation policies after a Democratic activist accused former Republican city council member David Sabbagh of felony voter fraud for voting in the Democratic primary. One anonymous commenter whined that the H-T allows me to "claim that Planned Parenthood commits felonies" and yet my posts are never censored by the HTO moderators. (See pages 21, 22 and 23 of that thread.) In an e-mail last week, H-T editor Bob Zaltsberg referenced that controversy:

We (and the Associated Press style we follow) believe "murder" is a legal term that refers to an actual charge in a court system. This is consistent with the dictionary definition which is the "unlawful and malicious or pre-meditated killing of one human being by another."

After a recent HTO exchange in which one commenter said another committed a felony based on that commenter’s point of view and not actual law, we discussed this use of the term “murder” and decided it was in a similar ballpark.

So, the new policy of HeraldTimesOnline.com is that statements such as "stop murdering babies" are suddenly a violation of the HTO terms of service agreement, despite the fact that such statements have never been a violation at any time in the last four years since comments were enabled. The Herald-Times has decided that it is now against the rules to articulate the basic premise of the pro-life movement.

Obviously, the H-T has the right to publish or not publish whatever it wants and HeraldTimesOnline.com is free to impose whatever rules it wants on its website.

It is beyond shameful, however, for the primary news source in Monroe County to censor a commonly-held viewpoint about a controversial social issue such as abortion. Banning statements that abortion is murder is an underhanded and cynical attempt to tilt the rhetorical battlefield in favor of abortion rights. After all, most abortion opponents would not oppose abortion if we did not believe it was murder. This type of heavy-handed censorship is antithetical to the free exchange of ideas that should be the cornerstone of debate and discussion in the comments.

The HTO comment guidelines forbids posters from using "obscene, libelous, harassing, racist, hateful or violent language or images." Had I named the abortionist at PP and said "X is a murderer" then I could see why the comment would be deleted - even though that individual is a murderer. I did not even name any specific abortion provider in my comment. Any suggestion that my post even approached libel is laughable.

This is a shameful decision by the Herald-Times. If this policy remains in place, there can be no further doubt about the level of integrity at 1900 South Walnut.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Carding for alcohol and common sense

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Last year, the Indiana state legislature was subjected to much well-deserved ridicule for a law that required retailers to ask for a photo ID for every customer, with an exception for customers who appear to be at least 50 years old. Many retailers decided to simply card everyone to be certain they were in compliance with the law, leading to the silly scenario of 85-year-olds being asked to produce a photo ID for a bottle of wine.

This law was beyond silly. There was no reason to meddle with the current law, but nanny state ninnies are always looking for a reason to "do something" to solve a problem - even if the solution is worse than the problem. In this case, that solution was forcing every business with a liquor license to card everyone, no matter how old they are.

What is beyond perverse about this situation is that that our legal system allows the murder of children while we fiddle with these petty regulations. My pastor Tim Bayly often says that when you abolish God's moral law, you do not end up with fewer laws. Instead, always replace it with an infinite number of man's petty laws. You can murder your child, but you better show ID to buy a beer and "show your papers" to get some cold medicine.

The legislature patched the law to "only" require stores to card people if they look like they are younger than 40. It is still silly. Look, the law should be this: If someone looks like they could be younger than 21, card him before you sell alcohol to him. If not, then don't card him. Why is this so hard?

Thursday, May 19, 2011

No handouts for Planned Parenthood

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Printed in the Herald-Times, May 18, 2011

To the editor:

Planned Parenthood of Indiana reported $8,433,018 in total operating revenue for this fiscal year through February 17. PP also reported 8,145,847 in total operating expenses through the same period.

The national organization and all affiliates combined for over $1.1 billion (with a B) in revenue in the most recent fiscal report on PP's website. Once again, PP's revenue exceeded its expenses, this time by $63.4 million.

Now Planned Parenthood is coming before the Bloomington City Council for yet another handout. This is ridiculous. This request - and the city council's inevitable decision to approve the request - has nothing to do with need. Planned Parenthood wants a political endorsement from city government, and the Democrats are happy to provide that endorsement.

We hear every year about helping social service agencies in need. This is a fraud. If this was about need, Planned Parenthood would not get one penny from city government.

It is shameful that the social services funding process has become so corrupted that tax money entrusted to our elected officials is used in such a recklessly irresponsible manner. I have a message for the Democrats who approve this abomination every June. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Petulant Lugar lashes out, insults fellow Republicans

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

So now we see Richard Lugar's true colors. Rattled by the fact that he is facing a serious primary challenge in 2012, Lugar petulantly lashed out in a May 9 e-mail to supporters. See the text here.

First, Lugar lashes out at Republican county chairpersons, saying they have been "duped" into endorsing Richard Mourdock. Is this what Lugar really thinks of those who support his opponent? Does Lugar really believe they are stupid? Does he believe insulting these county chairpersons will be more likely to support him now?

Second, you can't compare Mourdock to Christine O'Donnell (1, 2, 3, 4) or Sharron Angle. With all due respect to both women, neither are proven winners. Angle lost a primary for a seat in Congress in 2006 before losing to Harry Reid in 2010, and O'Donnell ran for the U.S. Senate three times and lost all three times.

Mourdock is a proven statewide vote-getter. He was elected Secretary of State in 2006 with 52% of the vote (in a year where three incumbent Republican members of Congress were defeated) and won re-election with an overwhelming 62.5% of the vote last November. He is also a former candidate for Congress.

Furthermore, Indiana is a solidly Republican state. That can't be said of Nevada, and Delaware is a solidly Democratic state. Mitch Daniels was re-elected with nearly 60% of the vote in 2008 and Dan Coats ran over Brad Ellsworth with 57.7% of the vote in last year's U.S. Senate election. Mike Pence will almost certainly be elected governor by a wide margin and Barack Obama will lose Indiana next year.

To suggest that 2012 will follow in the same pattern as Nevada and Delaware in 2010 and that the Democratic nominee will defeat Mourdock is just silly - especially if that nominee is Joe Donnelly, who was barely re-elected with a plurality of 48% of the vote last November.

Richard Lugar has been in office for a long time, and it is clear he feels entitled to his office. He's not entitled to anything, especially after his votes for Barack Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court. Lugar supported both the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, earning the ire of gun-rights advocates. He has more than earned a primary challenge, and it is exactly this kind of arrogant, petulant response that demonstrates why he should be defeated next year.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Indiana "justices" give al Qaeda major victory in War on Terror

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Less than two weeks after the death of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda terrorists have won a major victory in the War on Terror without firing a single bullet thanks to three so-called "justices" on the Indiana Supreme Court. Islamic terrorists are no doubt cheering as their efforts to destroy freedom are aided by America's own "justice" system.

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

Source: Northwest Indiana Times.

For centuries, it has been assumed that citizens have the right to resist unlawful intrusion into their homes by agents of the state. America's founders recognized the importance of this right when they wrote the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Notice how this amendment is written, because this is critical. The right to be secure from unwarranted government intrusion is assumed to be automatic, and the Fourth Amendment is a restriction on government's ability to violate a right that the people already have independent of government. You see this all through the Constitution.

The case stems from a domestic violence call in 2007, where a man was very loud and obnoxious. When the man and his wife went back into their apartment, the police attempted to follow them and were denied access. The man shoved the police officer against the wall when he attempted to enter. He was arrested and appealed, claiming he had the right to resist unlawful entry by police into his home.

The problem here is that the so-called "justices" are using a twenty pound sledgehammer to kill a spider, when a flyswatter would work perfectly and not put a hole in the wall.

The "court" could have easily ruled that this was not an unlawful entry, and that the police officers had the right to enter based on a reasonable assumption that violence was going to take place. It has been well established that law enforcement has the right to enter your home without a warrant in specific circumstances, such as halting a crime in progress. The court could have taken that position without taking a dump on the Constitution.

The state legislature should immediately begin work on legislation confirming that Indiana residents have the right to resist unlawful entry by agents of the state. That legislation, once passed, and signed into law, would be temporary solution until the legislature can adopt a constitutional amendment and send it to the voters for approval.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: An outrageous Supreme Court decision
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 12:17:42 -0400
From: Scott Tibbs <tibbs1973@yahoo.com>
To: R61@IN.gov, R60@IN.gov, S40@IN.gov
CC: H6@IN.gov, H1@IN.gov, H42@IN.gov, H88@IN.gov, H23@IN.gov, H29@IN.gov, S16@IN.gov, S6@IN.gov, S24@IN.gov, S25@IN.gov, S8@IN.gov

Dear Monroe County legislators and Indiana legislative leaders,

I am shocked and outraged by the decision by the Indiana Supreme Court (Richard L. Barnes v. State Of Indiana) that we have no right to resist unlawful entry into our homes by agents of the state. The court could have easily ruled that police officers had the right to enter the home in this particular case because of reasonable suspicion that domestic violence was to take place. Instead, they chose to shred the Fourth Amendment.

As a patriotic American, I implore you to protect our rights against this abomination. You should immediately pass legislation confirming our rights, to be followed by an amendment to the Indiana state constitution. I expect these should pass 50 to 0 and 100 to 0 respectively.

Thank you,
Scott Tibbs
Bloomington, IN

Monday, May 16, 2011

Rush Limbaugh is wrong about Mitch Daniels

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Rush Limbaugh has been on a tear about Mitch Daniels lately, reacting to a Washington Post columnist who suggested that Daniels would be Barack Obama's strongest challenger. Limbaugh's reaction to the endorsement was logical: do we really believe that either Obama or the "state controlled media" wants to see the most credible Republican as the nominee in 2012?

The problem is that Limbaugh seems to believe Mitch Daniels is not a true conservative. Some of this Daniels has brought on himself with ill-considered comments about a "truce" on social issues, something I criticized last summer. But Daniels is not suggesting we throw social conservatives overboard as Limbaugh suggested. Daniels' argument is that our fiscal crisis is so pressing that we have to put all of our efforts toward solving it. But while I may disagree on strategy, I do not doubt Daniels' commitment to social conservatism.

First and most importantly, Daniels signed legislation defunding Planned Parenthood, making Indiana the first state in the nation to defund the nation's most prominent abortion provider. This is a critical victory for the pro-life movement and a major step toward de-funding the Left's pet cause. This is not someone who wants to toss pro-lifers aside.

Let's examine some of Daniels' other accomplishments.

We have seen major battles regarding the rights of public-sector workers to unionize, a battle that has boiled over in Wisconsin and became a cause that rallied conservatives around the country. On his very first day in office in 2005, Mitch Daniels took away collective bargaining rights for state employees. This is something Limbaugh has pounding the table about for months, so shouldn't Limbaugh be praising Daniels for this? Or does Limbaugh simply not know about it?

At a time when other states and the federal government are piling up debt on top of debt, the state of Indiana is running in the black because of wise fiscal choices made by Daniels. Keep in mind that he did this with the Democrats controlling the Indiana House of Representatives. Not everyone is happy with all of the choices Daniels has made but there is no doubt he takes the need for fiscal responsibility seriously - something that cannot be said about Barack Obama.

Mitch Daniels pushed education reform through the legislature, including private school vouchers - something conservatives have long advocated. While I disagree with Daniels on vouchers, I recognize it was a significant accomplishment in the face of almost hysterical opposition from Democrats and unions.

Upon taking office, Daniels began pushing for Major Moves, including the controversial lease of the Indiana Toll Road. He did not shy from controversy and moved quickly with a plan to fund improvements in Indiana's infrastructure. After decades of dithering by state government, we are finally starting to build the much-needed Interstate 69. Does anyone think that I-69 would be under construction if Joe Kernan or Jill Long Thompson was governor?

Daniels also implemented Daylight Savings Time. Some people agree with DST and some people despise it, but this is another example of Daniels getting something accomplished after a parade of leaders attempted unsuccessfully to implement it over decades.

Finally, Daniels implemented significant reforms for Indiana's property tax system. Indiana homeowners will now pay no more than 1% of the assessed value of their home in property taxes. If local government feels it needs more, voters can choose to support additional taxes in a referendum. Furthermore, some capital projects also require a referendum, providing further protection for taxpayers.

The reality is that Mitch Daniels has a strong record of fiscal and social conservatism. His statements about a "truce" may confuse some people and create worry about his commitment, but those worries should immediately vanish upon an honest examination of his record as governor. Limbaugh needs to educate himself on Daniels' record.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Andrew Bynum should be thrown out of the NBA

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

As the Los Angeles Lakers were being blown out in the final game of a 4-0 sweep by the Dallas Mavericks, Lakers' center Andrew Bynum brutally attacked a Dallas point guard. Bynum didn't even bother pretending to make a play on the ball as J.J. Barea drove the lane - Bynum jumped up and drove his forearm directly into Barea's chest as he was airborne, driving Barea to the arena floor. It was a sickening display by a thug of a player.

Bynum and the Lakers were understandably frustrated by the humiliation of their defeat. The problem is that this is far from a one-time event. In January 2009, Bynum pulled the same brutal move on Gerald Wallace, who had to miss seven games due to "a broken rib and partially collapsed lung." Less than two months ago, Bynum pulled the thug move again and viciously attacked an airborne Michael Beasley, bashing him in the chest with a hard forearm.

There is simply no room in basketball for this kind of thuggery. It is particularly dirty to attack a player who has left his feet and can result in a serious injury. (In Bynum's case, he has seriously injured an opposing player.) This is the kind of move that can literally end a player's career. This is not the National Football League, where such collisions are expected and where players wear equipment to protect them - and even then, severe injuries happen.

Bynum should be expelled from the NBA. He has demonstrated that this is not a one-time event by a frustrated player who lost control of his emotions. This was the act of a thug who presents a serious danger to other players on the court. Opposing players should not have to worry that they could suffer a debilitating injury when driving into the lane against the Lakers. Bynum is not an NBA center; he is a thug and he does not deserve to be paid one dime as a player.

But that is not enough. Given this pattern of behavior, Bynum should be criminally charged for his flagrant foul on Sunday. He should spend some time behind bars. Professional sports players should not be exempt from consequences for felony assault and battery simply because it occurs in the course of a game played on national television.

In addition to throwing Bynum out of the league, his team should be punished as well for allowing this to take place. One possible solution is to force the Lakers to play in next year's playoffs with a depleted roster. (Obviously, the Lakers players not permitted to play should still be paid for those games; it is the team that should be punished, not individual players who are not thugs.) Another possible solution is to take away a key Lakers' player, perhaps Lamar Odom or Pau Gasol, and send him to another franchise via lottery.

Are these drastic and even unprecedented punishments? Yes, they are. But Bynum's pattern of attacking and injuring opposing players is a drastic action that requires a drastic response. NBA teams should be put on notice that this type of thuggery will never be tolerated and will be harshly punished. By making an example out of the Los Angeles Lakers, the NBA will provide a strong deterrent to this type of behavior in the future.

Unfortunately, you can be assured that the NBA front office will not have the integrity to punish the franchise that operates in the league's second-biggest market in any meaningful way.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Indiana Dems getting a little ahead of themselves?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

With Joe Donnelly's announcement that he would be running for the U.S. Senate, the Indiana Democratic Party immediately sent an e-mail announcing that he would be "our next U.S. Senator." Aren't they getting a little ahead of themselves? It's normal for political parties to announce their nominee as "our next (fill in the blank)" but Donnelly is not the nominee yet. He is not even on the May 2012 primary ballot yet. That will not happen until next January.

It is possible, after all, that Donnelly will have a challenger in next year's primary election. Shouldn't the Democrats wait and see before anointing Donnelly? Do Democrats have a problem with allowing their own voters to choose their nominees in a contested primary election? History indicates that is the case.

As you may recall, the Democratic establishment had anointed Jim Schellinger as their candidate for governor, before Jill Long Thompson came in and won the primary. (See here, here and here.) Apparently, Democratic voters had a different idea of who should represent the party.

The Democrats learned from this in 2010, and would not allow the rabble to prevent the anointing of their chosen candidate. Evan Bayh was facing a challenge in the Democratic primary, though it was a race he would surely have won by a huge margin. When Bayh decided not to run again, he timed his announcement to prevent his opponent from gaining the momentum needed to get on the ballot. The Democratic establishment then anointed Brad Ellsworth, who went on to lose by a huge margin in the fall.

Will the same pattern follow with Donnelly's race to be 2012's sacrificial lamb? Will the Democratic Party once again demonstrate that their name does not describe the party at all?

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Companion animals? Political correctness runs wild

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Do we need to be more compassionate when speaking of animals? The Journal on Animal Ethics thinks so:

"We do need to examine our language about animals because a lot of it is derogatory in the sense that it belittles them and our relations with them," journal co-editor Andrew Linzey said.

Source: Seattle Post Intelligencer, May 4, 2011.

Yes, we should respect animal welfare, but this is just silly. The idea that our current terminology "derogatory or disparaging language "makes it easier for us to justify exploiting" animals smacks of political correctness run wild.

What I find ironic is legislation to replacing the term "destroy" with the much more antiseptic "euthanize." If we are truly interested in animal welfare, why would we soften our language? After all, euthanizing an animal sounds so much kinder than destroying an animal, even though the terms mean exactly the same thing. Euthanizing an animal may even be an act of kindness if the animal is suffering. Obscuring the reality of death makes it easier to kill, not more difficult.

I own two dogs. I am not the "human caregiver" or "guardian" for them. They are not my companion animals, they are my pets. There is no need for this effeminate terminology, and the more time we spend debating political correctness the less time we have to deal with real issues of animal welfare.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

No corporate welfare for the merchants of death

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Planned Parenthood's grant request
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 19:33:01 -0400
From: Scott Tibbs <tibbs1973@yahoo.com>
To: piedmoni@bloomington.in.gov, ruffa@bloomington.in.gov, satterfm@bloomington.in.gov, mayert@bloomington.in.gov, sandbers@bloomington.in.gov, sturbauc@bloomington.in.gov, wislerb@bloomington.in.gov, rollod@bloomington.in.gov, volans@bloomington.in.gov


Back in March, I spoke at a city council meeting and said the social services funding process has become corrupted. Some of you were offended by this statement, but frankly I cannot see another way to describe it. The 8 Democrats on the city council have taken what is supposed to be a program to help local social service agencies provide help to those in need and turned it into an avenue to provide a political endorsement to Planned Parenthood. For this, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

You gave a $5,000 grant to Planned Parenthood last June despite the fact that PP does not need the money and despite the fact that local charities without the backing of a billion-dollar corporation could use it much more. You gave PP this money despite the fact that you know that the national branch and all affiliates combined for a profit of $85 million. Even worse, you gave PP this grant despite the fact that you knew it would be used to cover up felony sexual abuse.

You have repeatedly betrayed the trust that the people of Bloomington have placed in you to wisely and fairly spend the money entrusted to you, and you have insulted and disrespected the other social service agencies that have been denied funds so you can use taxpayer dollars to fund a political agenda.

This year, I invite you to prove me wrong, and demonstrate that the social services funding process is not corrupt by rejecting Planned Parenthood's cynical request for a political endorsement in the form of a $5,600 grant. In their own fiscal report that they submitted to you, Planned Parenthood of Indiana admitted they have more than enough money to fund their request without money from the limited funds available to the John Hopkins program.

It is not even worthwhile to debate the request itself. Even though reduced cost HIV testing is a good thing, this request has nothing to do with detecting HIV or helping the people infected with HIV. This is about getting a political endorsement and Planned Parenthood is cynically using these people as pawns.

It is long past time for the 8 Democrats on the Bloomington City Council to put aside these cynical and irresponsible political games and start acting like a respectable governing body that takes your responsibilities seriously.

Scott Tibbs

Previous articles:

Monday, May 9, 2011

Osama bin Laden is burning in Hell

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

One week ago yesterday, Osama bin Laden was killed by a Navy SEAL team. For the past week, bin Laden has been suffering in horrible burning agony in Hell, and will continue to suffer in horrible burning agony for all eternity. God is a just, righteous and holy God, and bin Laden will now pay for his crimes and his idolatry. Thank God for Hell!

First, let me congratulate the heroic Navy SEAL team that brought bin Laden to justice. They are the real heroes here. Presidents Bush and Obama are also to be congratulated for initiating and continuing the mission in Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda and remove them from power.

Unfortunately, President Obama decided to give bin Laden a proper Muslim burial at sea - a respectful ceremony that was denied to bin Laden's victims on 9/11 whose bodies were never found in the rubble of the World Trade Center. The fact that U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to give this war criminal a respectful funeral is damnable.

This is why so many people believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, folks. Why would we afford any measure of respect to a man behind the brutal murder of thousands? Osama bin Laden makes Jeffrey Dahmer look like a saint. Of course, Obama is not a Muslim, though he's certainly not a Christian.

If I was President, we would have smeared Osama bin Laden's corpse with feces, wrapped it in pig skin and left it in the sun to rot. We should have showed Obama the same respect that his allies showed our troops in Fallujah, when the corpses of Americans were desecrated and dragged through the streets by Muslim terrorists. We should make it clear to Muslim terrorists that once they decide to join the war against us, their beliefs will get no respect.

I have seen Tweets and Facebook posts asking if we can leave Afghanistan now that Osama bin Laden is in Hell where he belongs. The short answer to that is "no."

We are not dealing with a supervillian. Osama bin Laden was not Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom. He was an important figure in global terrorism, to be certain, but there are still plenty of Muslim terrorists (such as Moqtada al-Sadr) who are enemies of the United States and who mean to do us harm. We must still remain vigilant and aggressively seek to exterminate Muslim terrorists when they attack us.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Monroe County considering a Rain Water Tax

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

On Thursday evening, the county drainage board held a public hearing on the proposal for a Rain Water Tax and a number of people showed up to object to it.

The concern I addressed in my comments was that this is not a fee. A fee is something you pay in exchange for a service, such as the $21 fee to renew your driver's license. I can choose whether or not to pay a fee by using or not using the service funded by that fee. I cannot choose whether to pay a tax. The Rain Water Tax is going to be applied to every property owner in the county. It is a tax on its face. No matter how the state legislature defines it, we need to be very clear about what we are doing. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

So why go with a "fee" instead of a tax? Primarily, because it is much easier to implement the Rain Water Tax as a "fee" instead of seeking a new tax.

We do have issues with drainage in Monroe County, and we do need to deal with those issues. We are also under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency. There is no disputing that. There are questions, however, about whether this is necessarily the best option. Do we really need a $1 million budget for a new Rain Water Department in county government? Does that new department really need five full-time staff members?

We also have to seriously think about the economic impact of this proposal. The Herald-Times reported on Wednesday that large employers including General Electric, Cook Medical and Baxter "would be expected to pay more than $10,000 a year" if the Rain Water Tax is implemented. As we struggle to shake off the recession and as drastic increases in gasoline prices are putting a major strain on everyone, do we really need a significant tax increase on some of our biggest employers?

County commissioner Mark Stoops responded to concerns about the cost of the Rain Water Tax on businesses looking to expand here by arguing that Monroe County has a low tax rate. This is only one portion of how we should view the tax burden. As a hypothetical example, a home valued at $75,000 on Greene County may be valued at $150,000 or more in Monroe County, especially if it is located near the Indiana University campus. You cannot only look at the tax rate to determine the tax burden.

It is unfortunate that the Chamber of Commerce immediately endorsed the idea of the Rain Water Tax, especially given the large amount of money that some local businesses will be paying. I have known for years that the Chamber has been at best a weak advocate for local business and at worst openly hostile to business interests. Local business needs a Chamber that will stand for them, instead of jumping on board with new taxes and regulations proposed by city and county government.

In order to be implemented, the Rain Water Tax must be approved by the drainage board, and then approved by both the county council and county commissioners. Here's hoping that they carefully consider this proposal and the objections to it before they smack us with yet another tax increase.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Republicans need to show some backbone

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

President Obama finally released his full birth certificate last week, after notorious thief Donald Trump had been hounding him about it for several weeks.

Let me be clear. Donald Trump is a clown. He is not a serious candidate. I do not believe for one second that Trump is ideologically conservative, especially given his history of using government as a hired thug to steal other people's property. The Republican Party does not need to be nominating a faux conservative when there are a number of legitimate candidates available. I also think the "birther" stuff is nonsense.

So why is an egomaniac non-conservative getting so much support from Republicans?

The reason is simple: As nonsensical as the "birther" theories are, Trump has gone after Obama with no reservations. He is willing to take political hits in order to land a few himself. He has not backed down after all of the criticism. In short, Trump had demonstrated the backbone that Republicans wish our leaders in Congress had. Republicans are crying for a leader that will take it to Obama as aggressively as possible.

Look at what we have gotten from Republicans since they took over the House. While I recognize that the GOP's power is limited and I applaud the fact that the national discussion has shifted from how much more government we need to how much we should cut, the budget compromise was pathetic. Even if the $38 billion in "cuts" the GOP secured a few weeks ago was a genuine $38 billion (which it wasn't, and not by a long shot) it would still be pitiful. When you have a $1.7 trillion deficit, $38 billion in cuts is meaningless. We are talking about pennies.

Republicans should take notes from what has worked for Trump and stop acting like they are afraid of their own shadow. There are many legitimate issues we can exploit to attack Obama, starting with his reckless and irresponsible spending that threatens the future of this nation. Republicans ran roughshod over Democrats in 2010 because of an anti-Obama tide. As I have explained before, Obama-mania was never real.

I am amazed that so many Republicans think we cannot defeat Obama next year. The economy is in shambles, gas prices are headed toward $5.00 a gallon (if we're lucky) and this administration is spending us into oblivion. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann could all defeat Obama and I would be more than happy to support any of them. I'm less than thrilled with Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, but I would vote for either over Obama.

Barack Obama is easily the worst President of my lifetime, and arguably the worst President in the last 100 years. I cannot understand the mentality of Republicans who argue we cannot defeat him. How could we not defeat Obama? If I was the GOP nominee, I could defeat Obama next year. Why are we afraid of this guy? We need to emulate Trump's aggressiveness and take the fight to Obama.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

GenderF*** demonstrates the sad state of higher education

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

On April 29, the IU Student Association (student government) and the office of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Equality (SAGE) at Indiana University sponsored an event called GenderF***. (Use your imagination.) The article reporting on the event included pictures that indicated how completely depraved it was. (Link is NSFW.)

This is the sad state of higher education in modern America.

What was the purpose of this event? Was it to stress "gender expression as a performance for communicating social messages" and to promote tolerance? If so, it did a poor job of that, especially considering the mean-spirited mocking of straw men Christians. No one is educated or enlightened by debauchery for the sake of debauchery.

Did GenderF*** reinforce or dispel stereotypes about homosexuals or those with a "gender identity" different from their biological sex? Or did GenderF*** instead reinforce negative stereotypes about those groups? Do the organizers of GenderF*** think they advanced the causes of homosexual rights and transgender rights with this garish display, or did they only manage to push people away?

Let's be honest; the only purpose of GenderF*** was to be offensive for the sake of being offensive. The purpose was to ridicule, mock and offend Christians. Well, GenderF*** was successful, but both SAGE and IUSA should be aware of the fact that when the Westboro Baptist Church shows up at a funeral with signs such as "God hates fags" or "AIDS cures fags" they are also being offensive for the sake of being offensive.

This week, many students are graduating while others look to the next step in their academic career. For those who organized and participated in GenderF***, how do you think this will affect your job prospects? If a prospective employer finds your name attached to an event that was organized for the sole purpose of being offensive, do you think this will improve your chances of getting that job? How do you think this reflects on your maturity?

The first chapter of Romans provides a warning to those who abandon God's natural use for sexuality. Thankfully, the shed blood of Jesus Christ provides an escape from sexual sin as well as forgiveness for those sins. You are welcome to attend at ClearNote Church of Bloomington for information on how to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord as Savior. We are no better than you are; we seek God's forgiveness because we know how wicked our hearts really are.

See Alex McNeilly's commentary here.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Tolerance and censorship don't mix

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Leftists at Indiana University South bend are trying to get Chick-fil-A thrown off campus, because of the organization's ties to socially conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council. A number of students have taken the unusual step of filing complaints against the IUSB chancellor because she allows Chick-fil-A to operate on campus.

So let me get this straight. If you refuse to discriminate, you are violating the anti-discrimination policy? What?

This line of attack is as hypocritical as it is nonsensical. Today's lesson in hypocrisy comes from Hannah Stowe, a junior at IUSB. Consider the following two statements by Stowe:

  • "I didn't feel that Chick-fil-A belonged at my university."
  • "IUSB is a place where everyone is welcomed and ideas can be exchanged freely."

Right. Ideas can be exchanged freely unless we disagree with those ideas. Then, not only will you not be allowed to express those ideas, you will be punished economically. It is sad that a university "student" is unable to think critically.

This is ridiculous. What this really demonstrates is that the intolerant Left has no interest in tolerance and certainly no interest in the free exchange of ideas. If you step out of line, you will be silenced and punished.