Note: This was submitted to the Washington Post as a letter to the editor on November 21.
I wish I could say that Dana Milbank's editorial was shocking departure from traditional morality. Sadly, as sexual depravity has become more and more commonplace, I cannot even do that.
It has been determined that Petraeus' adultery presented no "risk" to national security. But the reason there are rules against it is obvious: A CIA official can easily be blackmailed by someone with knowledge of the affair. Adultery is a security risk, as we saw in the Moscow embassy scandal in the 1980's.
But even if we could be certain that adultery would not threaten national security, it should still be prohibited for government employees for two reasons.
First, we should expect a higher standard of behavior from our public officials. They should serve as example for us of high moral character. Furthermore, if the CIA director's wife cannot trust him, how can these United States trust him with our secrets? Answer: We cannot.
Second, rules against adultery are a merciful protection to the aggrieved spouse. In this chattering about "consenting adults" the spouse is often forgotten. But the fact remains that Petraeus has a wife who was harmed in a real way by his adultery.
Steve Chapman had a thought provoking column on November 15 at Reason, and he makes a good point - it is time to scrap the Electoral College. It's an anachronism and it has gotten to the point that it is anti-democratic.
This particular election underscored the absurdity of the system. We have a national election for President in a nation of well over 300 million people, but the election was decided by a just handful of the fifty states - because they are the "swing states" that determine the winner of the Electoral College.
The problem is that this makes the vast majority of the country irrelevant in determining the President. If you are a Democrat in a deep red county in a deep red state, what reason do you have to vote for President? If you are a Republican in a deep blue county in a deep blue state, what reason do you have to vote for President? You are tilting at windmills and your vote is not going to change anything.
Moving to a national popular vote would change that. One benefit is that it would encourage more turnout. Someone living in an area dominated by the other party may not have much hope of changing their local and state government, but their votes added to the pool of votes nationally would make a difference, joined with the votes of like-minded voters in swing counties and swing states, as well as states where your chosen party is in control.
It would also force the candidates to run a truly nationwide campaign instead of a regional campaign that focuses on ten or twelve swing states while ignoring the other forty. Republicans are not going to win California, but Republicans would be foolish not to conduct a significant get-out-the-vote effort to get California Republicans to the polls. The same could be said of Democrats in the Deep South states.
There was a lot of talk about abolishing the Electoral College after Al Gore barely won the popular vote by the slimmest of margins, but George Bush won the election by winning Florida. A significant number of Democrats would already support the proposal, so making this a bipartisan effort would make it much easier. Most voters would approve of the idea that they are voting for the President directly instead of indirectly.
If we're going to elect a President of the whole country, then let's have a truly nationwide campaign instead of having the candidates only focus on a few states while either taking the rest of the states for granted or writing them off as unwinnable. We are not the same country we were when the Electoral College was implemented, and now is the time to move past it.
Without evidence of corruption or gross incompetence, the President should have the ability to appoint whoever they want for positions in their administration. The Senate may reserve the right to block a nominee, but most of them should go forward. This is why I think it was a mistake for Republicans to block IU law professor Dawn Johnsen. Her extremism may be repugnant, but she is cut from the same ideological cloth as Barack Obama and would only implement her employer's agenda.
This is not the case with Susan Rice, who Obama wants to appoint as Secretary of State. Here' we have clear evidence of corruption, broadcast worldwide two months ago and preserved on the Internet for history. Rice went on the Sunday talk show circuit the weekend after the terrorist attack and flagrantly lied about the attack, pretending it was a protest over a video that got out of control when it was obvious from the very beginning that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack to coincide with the anniversary of the war crimes of 9/11.
I keep hearing these conspiracy theories about the Benghazi attack, about how Obama did this, or didn't do that, and so forth. We can dismiss each and every one of these theories and still have more than enough evidence of corruption to deny Rice the honor of serving as Secretary of State. The fact that she knowingly and intentionally lied to the American people about what really happened in Benghazi is more than enough evidence to block her nomination.
On top of the lies, this scandal exposes the anti-American agenda of the Obama regime. Obama desperately tried to blame this pre-planned terrorist attack on Muslim anger over a silly YouTube video, deflecting blame from the terrorists and placing blame on someone exercising his First Amendment rights. It was obvious from the beginning that the angry protests had nothing to do with the video, and that the video was simply an excuse to push for a ban on all criticism of Islam. Our President actually sided with the terrorists against free speech. This attitude cannot be rewarded!
Of course, because Rice is a black woman (because that apparently excuses being a liar) we are hearing the usual shrill screeching about racism and sexism. Give me a break. Her sex and skin pigmentation are irrelevant. This is an issue of character, and she has shown a clear lack of character by lying to the American people. The architects of the Benghazi cover up should not be rewarded with high positions of prestige in our government. The American people deserve better than that.
But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. -- Proverbs 6:32
The fall of General David Petraeus due to his adultery with Paula Broadwell can be an example of how sexual sin can destroy lives, but our increasingly depraved culture sees it as a way to tear down our standards for behavior. We have seen this in Rachel Maddow's uncharacteristically dim-witted comments about this being a "private" matter and a shallow editorial in the Washington Post.
Why does this matter? Even if you set aside the issue of morality in public service, this was a national security risk - Petraeus could have easily been blackmailed with the threat of exposing the affair. Petraeus is an honorable man and would most likely not give in to blackmail, but why take that risk? Does anyone remember the "sex for secrets" scandal in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in 1986? More recently, young Russian spy Anna Chapman was found to be attempting to use her aesthetic gifts to get information for her government.
Of course, the national security risk presented by this scandal is not the only reason it was right and proper for Petraeus to step down as head of the CIA. As Americans, we should expect a higher standard of morality by those in positions of authority. It is a good thing that adultery is a criminal offense in our military. This lets our soldiers know that they must hold themselves to a high standard and is a merciful protection for the wives of adulterous soldiers. The Petraeus adultery scandal should not be an opportunity to destroy this godly standard.
I do agree with agree that it is wrong to sympathize with Petraeus while condemning Broadwell as some sort of seductress. Petraeus knew what he was doing was evil (yes, evil) and the scorn should fall much more harshly on him than on his mistress, because of his position of authority.
Adultery is a terrible and destructive thing. The national security dangers of high officials committing adultery and the moral corruption it brings is more than enough reason to keep our high standards for both our military and our high government officials.
Republicans do not need to "moderate" our position on abortion, nor do we need to become pro-choice in order to reach out to women voters. We hear this canard after every election, even after the huge red tide in 2010 that saw Republicans not only take the U.S. House of Representatives, but also state legislatures and governors. After all, winning elections nationwide is a sure sign of a party in trouble!
The theory that our position on abortion is hurting us with women assumes that there are either no pro-life women (which much of the rhetoric on this issue would lead you to believe) or that the number of pro-life women is very small. That is simply not the case. National Review pointed out in August that a Gallup poll found that women are narrowly pro-life by a margin of 46% to 44%. That may not be a majority, but it is a plurality. Furthermore, there is a consistent overall pro-life majority in the Gallup poll on the issue.
In fact, over 50% consistently say that abortion should be legal only "under certain circumstances" - a position that is certainly opposed to the radical abortion-on-demand philosophy of the Democratic Party. In fact, depending on what those "certain circumstances" are, many of those likely hold an effectively pro-life position.
There were two problems that abortion presented for us in 2012.
First, we failed to articulate our position on the issue. One US Senate candidate lost after an anti-factual and unscientific statement on abortion and rape, for which he was pounded relentlessly for months. Another candidate lost after bringing predestination theology into the debate, which most voters are not spiritually discerning enough to understand. (He was defeated by a Democrat who campaigned as a "pro-life" candidate.) Yet another candidate showed he was intellectually incapable of explaining himself on the issue.
Second, our presidential candidate was wishy-washy. Mitt Romney went out of his way to describe himself as a "moderate" opponent of abortion, emphasizing his support for exceptions. Romney also failed to attack Obama for his pro-abortion extremism. If the Republican establishment thought Obama's defense of infanticide was played out (it wasn't, by the way) they could have ripped into him for forcing Christian organizations to fund abortifacient drugs.
Meanwhile, Obama exploited Romney's wishy-washy stance by making his pro-abortion position clear in no uncertain terms. The contrast between the Democrats' position and the Republicans' wishy-washy position was striking.
We are a pro-life country, overall. Much of this is due to improved medical technology that has been exploited by anti-abortion organizations. We may not be ready for an immediate national ban on abortion (though banning it incrementally is certainly politically possible) but the American people are far closer to the Republicans than the unhinged extremism of Barack Obama and the Democrats.
The following is an open letter to the Monroe County Council. See my post from earlier this year with links to other articles I have written about the repeated grants to Planned Parenthood.
-------- Original Message --------
From: Scott Tibbs <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:42 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: No corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood
I am writing you once again to oppose the grant request for Planned Parenthood of Indiana. I was very encouraged a year ago when PP was not invited to present to the social services funding committee, and further encouraged when the City Council, for the first time since 1999, actually rejected Planned Parenthood's request for a handout. I hope this marks a new era in fiscal responsibility for local government.
First, let's get to the real reason Planned Parenthood is asking for another $5,000 handout from county government - they are seeking a political endorsement. Planned Parenthood does not need the money. Not only does the national office as well as all PP affiliates combine for a healthy profit (and have for many years) Planned Parenthood of Indiana reported 15,292,802 in total revenue and 14,947 ,209 in total operating expenses - more than enough to cover a $5,000 grant for the Bloomington branch.
The fact of the matter is that there are legitimately local charities that do not have the backing of a national corporation that have requested money from you. These legitimately local charities are much more in need of your limited funds for community service grants than Planned Parenthood, and every time PP gets a grant from local government they are denying the funds to truly local charities. This is cynical political gamesmanship at its worst.
Yes, Planned Parenthood does some good things. They also murder babies every Thursday. Because of this, many of the people who pay your salary as a county councilor have deep moral objections to having their money confiscated by force and given to people who murder babies, even when that money is not going directly to the murders committed every week, just four blocks south of the Monroe County Courthouse. When you factor in the fact that Planned Parenthood does not need this money, it is even more egregious.
If abortion is banned, should there be an exception for pregnancies caused by rape? We have seen much debate about this in recent months. I respectfully submit that our focus is wrong. The question is not whether there should be an exception for rape.
The question is whether abortion should be banned at all. That question can only be answered by understanding what the fetus actually is.
If the fetus us a human being with an inalienable right to life, then we cannot allow abortion. Morally speaking, the willful and intentional termination of that life is murder.
If abortion is murder, then it is simply not logical to allow an unborn baby to be executed for the crimes of his or her father, just as it would be illogical to allow five year old children to be executed for the crimes of their fathers.
Biology tells us that the fetus is a separate organism from the mother. We know from ultrasounds as well as photographs of aborted fetuses that it is a human being.
God says in Jeremiah 32:35 that infant sacrifice is so evil it never entered His mind. What would He say about the millions killed by abortion?
So Rachel Maddow is spending a lot of time asking who the national leader of the GOP is after George W. Bush, as if this is some sort of crisis for the Republican Party. Hint: It isn't. The party that does not hold the White House does not have a national leader, regardless of which party it is. It wasn't a crisis for the Democrats to not have a national leader from 1981-1992 or from 2001-2008, it wasn't a crisis for the Republicans to not have a national leader from 1993-2000 or from 2009-2012 and it isn't a crisis now.
Republicans can win the Hispanic vote. There is no reason to cede Hispanics to the Democrats, but we are going to have to deal with reality to win those votes.
Republicans need to get off this anti-immigrant kick. Hispanics are hard working, socially conservative voters - natural Republicans. We need to realize that if not for immigration, we would have a declining population, which would make us a country in decline. Immigration has saved us from that. Democrats are actively trying to destroy Hispanics by making them a permanent underclass, like they did to blacks. We cannot let that happen.
We obviously need to secure the border, because that is an issue of national security. But we have to deal with the tens of millions of illegal aliens who are already here. We are not going to deport all or even a majority of them and we are not going to get them to self-deport. That is nothing more than a fantasy. No matter what you think of people living here illegally, the facts are what they are and we have to deal with reality instead of fantasy.
Making illegals' lives harder does not help, harassing them legally with "papers please" laws does not help, and it annoys their families who are citizens and vote. This means we need a path to citizenship for the people who are here. We need a guest worker program. We need to stop talking about getting rid of the people who are here. They are not leaving.
There is an appeal after every election - even the massive Republican landslide of 2010 - for Republicans to moderate our positions on social issues. If we want to reach out to blacks and Hispanics, that is a bad idea. As I pointed our four years ago, when an amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage was on the ballot in California and Florida in 2008, 70% of blacks voted for it in both states. In addition, 64% of Hispanics voted for the measure in Florida.
Abortion also provides an opening to win both black and Hispanic votes. Blacks are 13.1% of the population and account for 30% of all abortions. Hispanics account for 16.7% of the population and account for 25% of all abortions. (See here and here.) Why should blacks and Hispanics continue to vote for a political party that is decimating the black and Hispanic population by killing so many black and Hispanic babies?
There is no reason for us to cede the Hispanic vote to the Democrats or become depressed about Hispanic support for Democrats. There is no reason we cannot make significant inroads with black voters, if we bring our conservative message on social issues as well as our message of economic empowerment to them.
As much as last week's election results are frustrating for conservatives, there is also some good news.
Thanks largely to the Democrats running to Urbana in 2011, Republicans picked up nine more seats in the Indiana House of Representatives for an astonishing 69-31 majority to go along with the supermajority we already have in the State Senate. Republicans have run the table in Indiana.
As far as national election results, have we really lost the country in only two years? The big red tide of 2010 - an election where people turned out to stop Obama's agenda - actually happened. That was not a dream.
The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to unseat an incumbent President. Of the last eleven Presidents before Obama who were up for re-election, we've only unseated 3 of them - Ford, Carter and Bush 41. It is very unusual, historically, for an incumbent President to lose.
Gerald Ford's defeat in 1976 was very unusual for obvious reasons, and when George H.W. Bush was defeated in 1992, the challenger who unseated him got only 43% of the popular vote.
There are other positive signs to consider. This is not 2008 and the Democrats do not have a supermajority in Congress. We still hold the House of Representatives, which can be a roadblock to any further bad policy by Obama.
As far as some of our losses, McCaskill would have lost if not for Akin's stupid and antifactual comment about women's bodies and rape. Richard Mourdock would have probably won if not for bringing predestination theology into the race. And let's not forget that Joe Donnelly pretends to be a "pro-life" and "conservative" Democrat. The Democrats could not have won with a traditional liberal Democrat.
In addition to our dominating majorities in the state of Indiana, we have Republican majorities in a number of state legislatures and a bunch of Republican governors.
Yes, this is frustrating. Yes, I am discouraged by Obama being re-elected. But now is not the time to give up. Obama won by demonizing Mitt Romney, who got fewer votes than John McCain did four years ago. For some reason, many Republicans who voted in 2008 simply did not show up for Romney. Had Hurricaine Sandy not hit and allowed Obama to shore up his image, we may have Romney as President-elect right now.
Even better, we were about 380,000 votes away from a Romney presidency. Had a few hundred thousand more Republicans voters turned out spread across Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Colorado we would have have President Romney. If we are going to elect a Republican in 2016, we must figure out how to get those voters back to the polls.
We can win in 2014 and 2016 and there is reason for optimism. The mid-term elections for second-term Presidents are almost always bad for the party in power and as more of Obama's destructive agenda is implemented people will sour on him and his party. We have an opportunity to win simply by bringing Republicans back to the polls and reaching out to minorties with our social and economic policies. Now is not the time to give up. Now is the time to fight harder!
The moderation policy on HeraldTimesOnline.com is hopelessly broken and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with clear standards that eliminate "judgment calls" that are little more than the whims of the moderators.
On November 9, I made the following comment on HTO.
Saulter's win proved the voters are stupid, and deserve whatever they get. He's the chief financial deputy - there's no way this mess happened without him knowing about it.
This is why administrative positions should not be elected, because the voters are too stupid to pick them.
Congratulations, morons. You have the government you deserve.
My comment was harsh and maybe even uncivil, but it was a completely honest assessment of what I think about the election. I did not personally attack or insult any specific individual or call any individual person a name. There is nothing in HTO Terms of Service that would indicate such a comment is in violation of posting guidelines, but my comment was deleted on the whim of the moderators.
If a sweeping criticism of a wide swath of voters is the standard for deleting posts, then the Herald-Times might as well shut down HTO comments, because the mods will be doing nothing but deleting posts. In fact the standards that Zaltsberg established in his editorial months ago indicate that comments like mine would not be taken down.
A comment that calls out an individual commenter in what we perceive to be an uncivil or unfair way would be more likely to be taken down than one that paints all Republicans as greedy or all Democrats as liars, as comments have suggested in recent days.
The deletion of my comment was complete nonsense, and the moderators know it. So I called their bluff and reported every single comment that quoted the full text of my deleted comment. Rather than being adults and admitting they were wrong, the moderators deleted every single post that quoted mine.
Every. Single. One.
This is amazing. Literally amazing.
My post is not prohibited by HTO posting guidelines or the precedents established by previous HTO moderation decisions over the last several years. Virtually identical things are said each and every day on HTO, and are not touched by the moderators.
Zaltsberg admitted in an e-mail to me last week that "Whether to take down comments or leave them up is a judgment call." He further admitted that because of "fighting" between me an other posters, I am more likely to be deleted than others.
Deleting posts should never be a "judgment call." It should never be up to the whims of the moderators. The fact that Zaltsberg admitted that specific people are more likely to be deleted demonstrates that the moderation policy is hopelessly broken. Instead, there should be clear standards as to what is allowed to be posted and what is not allowed to be posted, and all of the moderators should be familiar with that standard.
The standard Zaltsberg established months ago is that posts attacking a generic group - Democrats, Republicans, voters generally, etc. - would be "less likely" to be taken down than attacks on specific individuals. That standard should be solidified and clarified. One possible solution is that no "uncivil" comments at all are allowed - including attacks on critics of the Community Reinvestment Act as "racists".
Another possible solution is that comments that target specific people are the ones that will be deleted while more generic criticisms/attacks are allowed to stay. Then, the moderators should be fully trained as to what is and is not allowed.
Like I said above, if HeraldTimesOnline.com is going to be deleting posts that generically attack large groups of people then there is no reason to have a comment section at all. Literally hundreds upon hundreds of posts virtually identical to mine in tone remain. My posts are deleted because there are no solid rules or standards and because I am being targeted for deletion.
Right now, the "standard" is the whims of the moderators, not any kind of concrete guidelines. That is simply unprofessional and disrespectful to paying customers. The complete lack of clear moderation standards (as opposed to soft and fluid "guidelines") creates far more work for the moderators than is necessary.
Finally, this business of "squabbling" between posters is a silly "pox on both houses." The vast majority of my posts and are issue-oriented and do not attack any specific poster on HTO. Do I defend myself when I am attacked? Yes, I do. But I am almost always responding directly to an attack on me, by name. I am attacked, often personally, then blamed for defending myself. The "pox on both houses" meme is intellectually and morally lazy. Using discernment and judgment is much more challenging.
It was yet another bad night for Monroe County Republicans, who cannot seem to get out of the slump we have been in since the anti-Bush tide of 2004. It was only ten years ago that Republicans picked up two seats on the county council for a 5-2 majority and unseated an incumbent county commissioner for a 2-1 majority. Republicans even defeated the mayor of Bloomington in the secretary of state race when Todd Rokita got more votes than John Fernandez in Monroe County, but 2002 seems like a lifetime ago now.
Even so, I am unwilling to say that Republicans cannot win Monroe County. Remember, as of three years ago the Republican Party in Monroe County for all intents and purposes did not even exist. We were utterly decimated in 2008, between the Barack Obama landslide and the discouraged Republican base. Basically, we are building a party organization from scratch and it is unrealistic to expect a new political party to win right away. It may take a couple more election cycles but we can win.
There are reasons to be hopeful. In terms of party organization, we had very little in 2010 other than Todd Young's campaign and some very motivated IU College Republicans, and Ryan Langley won his seat on the county council anyway. Even with the losses in 2012, The 40% Republican base vote is there.
Even with the Monroe County GOP in a rebuilding phase, there was no excuse for electing a Democrat as county auditor. This just shows the voters are not qualified to make these decisions, and that these jobs should be appointed rather than elected. No private corporation that handles the kind of money county government does would have their chief financial officer decided by a vote of employees and customers - they have the human resources department pick the most qualified person.
That said, I doubt any private corporation that handles that much money could hire a competent Chief Financial Officer for the money we pay the county auditor. If we are going to hire someone qualified, we are going to have to pay enough to get a qualified person. This means that the salary for the position is going to have to double, and maybe increase above that. No one qualified to serve as a hired county auditor is going to be willing to work for $53,778 per year.
Here's the key to winning local elections in 2014 and 2016 - we cannot stop fighting. We need to keep plugging away at local issues, publicly. We need to keep informing and educating Monroe County voters. We need people at city council meetings, county council meetings, county commissioner meetings and plan commission meetings. We need to watch township government, because the Herald-Times will not.
The one thing that will assure that we will never win is giving up.
Steve Saulter's election as county auditor proves the voters are stupid, and deserve whatever they get. Saulter is Amy Gerstman's the first financial deputy - there is simply no way this mess happened without him knowing about it.
This is why administrative positions should not be elected, because the voters are too stupid to pick them. Well, congratulations, morons. You have the government you deserve.
This is not just sour grapes because my party did not win. While I disagree with the election results for state senate, county council or county commissioner, I do not look down on Monroe County voters for their votes and I do not think those votes mean the voters are stupid. Those are policy-making positions.
Obviously, the voters disagreed with the policy positions of Dallas, Daley, Mickel, Ellison, Shaffer and Newlin. That's fine. As Republicans, we have to convince them our policies are better for Monroe County and the state of Indiana, and we have thus far failed to do so. Right now they disagree with us, and they have the right to pick whoever they want.
County auditor is different. The auditor does not make policy. The only qualification is whether he or she can balance the books. Steve Saulter cannot. He is not qualified. I do not care what the auditor's political positions are if they can balance the books - I do not agree with Vivien Bridges on all of her positions on public policy, but she is experienced and qualified. Saulter is not.
But the voters chose Saulter, because he is in the same party as Barack Obama. That's just stupid.
When GTECH won the contract to run the Indiana Lottery, they promised to increase profits - but it is likely that the planned expansion of the lottery will come at the expense of the poor. While lottery critics may be tilting at windmills, this does provide another opportunity to examine the lottery itself.
We know that the lottery is a tax on the poor, to the point that the lottery's relationship with the poor is predatory. Who can forget the scandal involving the Ohio Super Lotto, in which "the advertising plan for Ohio's SuperLotto game stated that lottery promotions should be timed to coincide with the receipt of Government benefits, payroll and Social Security payments?"
Will GTECH implement a similar strategy to advertise the Hoosier Lottery?
The question should be obvious: Why should government be in this business at all? Why is the government in the business of gambling? To the extent that gambling is legal in Indiana, government is not only competing with private business but government actually makes it illegal to compete directly with the Hoosier Lottery.
We know the lottery is destructive to the poor, and we know that the lottery is counterproductive in terms of government anti-poverty efforts. At the very same time we give benefits to the poor, we encourage them to spend money on a "get rich quick" fantasy that will never pan out for the vast majority of players and offers no inherent value to the players.
We have seen a great deal of discussion about the proper role of government, especially over the last four years. Now is the perfect time to re-examine whether we should have a lottery at all, and instead focus state government on the essential services government should provide.
With a 69-seat supermajority in the Indiana House, a 37-seat supermajority in the Indiana Senate, and a Republican governor, the Republicans can do pretty much whatever they want. This may be as much of a fantasy as winning a $300 million Powerball jackpot, but one of the things that should be considered is abolishing the Hoosier Lottery altogether.
The re-election of Barack Obama is obviously a big disappointment and there are ominous signs about the future, especially as it relates to religious freedom. We're moving toward being more of a welfare state, with annual budget deficits of well over $1 trillion for the foreseeable future. We cannot afford to continue on this path. The tea party movement will need to step up even more, electing more conservatives to the House and Senate.
A lot of people will complain abut the tea party, but we should remember that 2010 would never have happened without it. When the Republican establishment was depressed and on the verge of giving up, the tea party movement led the charge against Obama and his reckless and irresponsible spending.
Republicans managed to pick the most moderate candidate of the 2012 pack and we lost. Fortunately, we have a few good candidates lined up already for 2016, starting with Paul Ryan. Governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Mitch Daniels of Indiana are excellent choices as well, along with governor-elect Mike Pence. Rick Santorum should try again too, because he came so close with so little.
Republicans cannot continue to lose Hispanics by the margins we lost in 2008 and 2012. This does not mean that we embrace amnesty but we are going to have to soften our stance on immigration. (This is good policy anyway. If not for immigration we would have a declining population - meaning we are a nation in decline.) Many Hispanics are socially conservative and will be with us on those issues.
Furthermore, if we managed to reduce the Democrats' dominance of the black vote to even 70% we will have a national majority. Democrats know this, which is why they fight it tooth and nail. Many blacks are with us too, especially on social issues like the protection of marriage. The fact that abortion has decimated the black population is another opening for Republicans - why vote for the party that is killing so many black babies?
The 2012 election looks very bad, nationally. Barring a miracle election in 2014, all hope of repealing ObamaCare is gone and Obama will stand against any and all efforts to restore fiscal sanity. We have very dark days ahead if we continue down this path. But as bad as it looks, we have to keep fighting and have faith that this country will be spared the coming disaster.
I'm obviously unhappy with Obama winning another term, but this isn't over. There is still 2016 (Paul Ryan for President!) and we still hold the House. I'm surprised Pence did win by more, but it appears we have 69 of 100 seats in the Indiana House. If Saulter wins, it proves the voters of Monroe County are idiots. You want 4 more years of financial disaster? You got it. Morons.
I will post a full election wrap up tomorrow after I see the full results.
Can we know God's will? This is a question that we have been trying to answer as long as man has worshiped God - meaning that we have tried to answer this for all of human history. If you worship the One True God, the answer is a clear "yes" because we have the Bible.
First, we know what God requires of us. This is plain throughout Scripture, as the Bible is filled with positive commandments of things we are to do and negative commandments of things we are told not to do. The Bible is filled with commandments such as do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, show mercy to widows and orphans, love your wife, discipline your children and so on and so forth.
Second, we know that God is sovereign over all things. We see this truth in Psalm 115:3, Psalm 22:28, Daniel 4:35, Isaiah 46:10, Romans 8:28, Exodus 9:12, Colossians 1:16-18 and many more places in Scripture.
If you are a Christian, there is simply no foundation upon which to base an argument that we cannot know the will of God in a great many things. While God does give us free will, there is no question that we are to use that will to serve Him - though we are incapable of doing so unless we are freed from the bondage of sin through the blood of Jesus Christ.
So what about in everyday life? We know from Scripture that God does intervene in both large and small matters. The first thing that comes to mind is how God obliterated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but there is another striking example in 2 Samuel 21:1-14. God caused a famine in Israel during David's reign as king because of the wicked actions of King Saul. There are examples all throughout Scripture of God punishing wickedness in earthly ways.
But this does not mean all suffering is due to sin. Jesus promised His followers that we would be persecuted for His name's sake, for example. In John 9:1-3, Jesus corrects his disciples in assuming that sin had caused a man to be born blind, pointing out that his blindness was a means to glorify God.
The short answer is, yes, we can know the will of God, by examining His Word. We will not be able to find answers to every single question about things we see happen on this world, but we can apply general principles to understand how we are to respond, both in what we should do and what we may not do. Those who claim we cannot know the will of God are either ignorant of Scripture or they are liars. More often than not, it is the latter.
The polls are now closed in Indiana. We should start seeing very early results in an hour or so. You can watch local results at HeraldTimesOnline.com and national results at pretty much every news site on the 'Net. It might be a very long night.
Among the questions before Hoosiers today is whether John G. Baker (so-called "Judge" of the Court Of Appeals Of Indiana, First District) should be retained in office. The answer is simple: Vote "No!" Baker is a child murderer and should not be allowed to continue holding his position.
That's a shocking claim, isn't it? That a sitting judge is a child murderer? Am I making things up?
Sadly, I am not. You see, it has been thirty years since a Down Syndrome baby was born in Bloomington Hospital. In addition to his genetic disorder, "Baby Doe" had a much more serious and immediate condition: His esophagus did not connect to his stomach. Obviously, this is fatal, but it could be corrected with emergency surgery. The "parents" said no. They did not want a Down Syndrome baby, so they decided to murder their child.
Over a dozen offers poured in to adopt this little boy. Ronald Reagan and his attorney general intervened to try to save Baby Doe's life. The parents could have allowed their son to be given a good home by any of the families who wanted to adopt him, and his life could have been spared. No, their bloodlust would not be satisfied if their son was allowed to live. Baby Doe needed to die and "Judge" Baker refused to allow him to be saved.
Baby Doe survived for six agonizing days before he finally died and his suffering ended. It would have been far kinder to throw Baby Doe onto the floor and stomp him to death. His suffering would have been over in minutes instead of six days. At least then the government would have been willing to bear the sword and avenge Baby Doe's murder.
Baby Doe never got a chance to live, because he was was brutally tortured to death. He was denied a chance at life by his evil "parents" and a thoroughly corrupt so-called "judge" who refused to show compassion on this precious little boy. Baby Doe is dead because a so-called "judge" rebelled against the authority of Almighty God and stubbornly refused to protect the innocent. "Judge" Baker should not only be thrown out of office. He should be in prison.
We have gotten used to the idea that you cannot smoke in "public places," but now the government has taken it a step farther: You may not smoke in your own home. This is thanks to a new push from the Obama regime.
People living in subsidized housing in Fort Wayne have to agree not to smoke in the common areas of their apartment buildings, near the entrances or even in their own apartments. They have until January 1 to agree to this provision.
Banning smoking in government buildings is a good idea - there is no reason that people should be required to be exposed to secondhand smoke when they go to a government building to conduct business. I've railed against bans on smoking in "public places" on property rights grounds, but this is a whole new ballgame. The Obama regime is now telling you that you may not use a legal product in your own home.
This is how it starts, folks. They will roll out this regulation in public housing, and then we will see increasing pressure to ban smoking in all multifamily housing. So if you are not in a position to own a home and you are in an apartment, the Obama administration will tell you what legal products you may or may not consume. Do not worry, homeowners - your time will come soon enough.
Does the Obama administration have the legal authority to do this? Considering this is government-owned housing, I do not see a reason why not. But this is a dramatic nanny-state overreach into someone's private living space. This sets a dangerous precedent that will be used to take away all sorts of liberties.
What are we going to see next from Barack Obama? Will alcohol consumption be banned in public housing, even when done responsibly? Will junk food be banned? Will there be a mandated regular exercise regimen for tenants? How much control over people's private lives is enough for Barack Obama?
Folks, this is insane. This is why Barack Obama needs to be a one term President. His vision of a all-powerful government running our lives is foreign to the values this nation was founded to protect. Four more years of Barack Obama will bring more regulation, more taxes, and more intrusions into our lives. This is only the beginning.
One of the big reasons Sue Wanzer should be denied a fourth term on the MCCSC School Board is her disrespect for parents' rights and the rule of law. No elected official should ever openly defy the law as Wanzer did in 2005, and no government school official should ever trample over the parents' right to raise their children as we see fit.
Back in 2005, in the beginning of Wanzer's second term, MCCSC attempted to dishonestly sneak a "sex survey" to not only middle and high school students, but elementary school students as well. Once parents heard about it, they began meeting to oppose and protest the decision. Parents and concerned citizens turned out en masse to send a very clear message to the school board that they do not have the moral and legal authority to be asking sensitive questions of students about their sexual history.
The most egregious part of the survey was that it was to be conducted with "passive consent." Instead of sending children and teens home with a permission slip for their parents to sign allowing them to take the survey, parents would have to explicitly opt of the survey. As an uncle of nine and a great uncle of four at the time, I found this dishonest and sneaky tactic to be an abomination. Now as a father myself, I find it even more despicable. The hope was that MCCSC could deliver this perverse "survey" without the parents ever finding out about it.
But "passive consent" was more than a violation of parents' rights. It was illegal. Indiana Code 20-10.1-4-15 (b) prohibits schools from issuing a survey about sexual activity without the prior written consent of the parents.One of two things happened here: MCCSC either was ignorant of the section of the Indiana Code prohibiting this behavior (highly unlikely) or the administration and the school board simply did not care that it was illegal and were trying to sneak it through anyway. It is important to note that Wanzer actively opposed active consent and advocated for "passive consent."
This is simply not acceptable. No one who expresses such obvious disregard for parents and for the law should serve in elective office at any level. It is highly unfortunate that voters did not throw Wanzer out of office when we had the chance to do so in 2008. There is no reason we cannot fix this egregious error in 2012. However you vote, vote against Sue Wanzer.
See previous articles on the infamous sex survey here and here and here and here.
I voted early the first day early voting was possible, and I proudly and enthusiastically voted for Mitt Romney. But as we are within three days of hopefully electing Romney as President, I am convicted that we as Christians need to be very clear about Romney's faith. Therefore, I am linking to an article I wrote a little over a year ago regarding the heresy of Mormon doctrine.
What does it say about the Democrats' candidate for auditor when a prominent local Democratic volunteer and donor (not to mention the husband of the Democratic city clerk) openly endorses his Republican opponent? If anything, it makes the choice very clear. The Auditor's Office race is about qualifications, and Vivien Bridges is by far the most qualified candidate. She deserves to be elected.
Don Moore is a prominent local Democrat, and is an activist and donor. He is the husband of Bloomington City Clerk Regina Moore and serves on the Monroe County Redevelopment Commission. In the most recent campaign finance reports for local Democrats, Moore donated $100 to Elizabeth Lee Jones for Monroe County Council and another $100 to Julie Thomas for Monroe County Commissioner.
In the 2006 election cycle, Moore donated $240 to County Council candidate Vic Kelson, $140 to County Council candidate Mark Stoops, and $100 to to County Council candidate Jill Lesh. In the 2004 election cycle, Moore donated $175 to County Commissioner candidate Mike Englert and $250 to judge candidate Steve Galvin. In the 2002 election cycle, Moore donated $500 to county commissioner candidate Brian O'Neill.
Every single one of these candidates are Democrats.
Moore posts as "DRM" on the HeraldTimesOnline.com, where he has openly endorsed Bridges several times:
October 9, 2012: 4:28 pm: I plan to vote for Viv for county auditor. I've always liked her and her hubby, and really don't want a continuation of the last four years in that office. So much for your assumption that all electoral deecisions are made on the basis of partisanship.
October 25, 2012: 5:46 pm: I use to even then occasionally switch to the R office seeker if I knew something I liked about them (last decade or so I have not done this as I am not thrilled with even the R's I like for not speaking up publicly about the direction of their party, or working hard enough to change it back--on the other hand, I plan to do it for county auditor this election).
Childish trolling aside, Moore repeated his endorsement for Bridges on October 28.
This is huge news, but the Herald-Times has been sitting on this story. When a devoted partisan like Moore is endorsing a Republican candidate for elective office, the newspaper should be asking a very important question: Why? Does Bloomington City Clerk Regina Moore - elected four times as a Democrat - also support the Republican candidate for Auditor? What about Bloomington's Democratic Mayor, Mark Kruzan?
The fact of the matter is the last eight years have been an utter disaster, and Steve Saulter is likely to deliver more of the same. Even prominent Democrats recognize this, and are jumping ship to endorse the Republican candidate. If you have "had enough" of Democratic incompetence and corruption in managing county finances, vote for Vivien Bridges.
I am sick of hearing Republicans whine about how we should not discuss social issues like abortion. There is NO issue more important than 1.2 million murders each year. None. Jobs and the economy are important, but nothing - and I mean NOTHING - even approaches the bloodshed of abortion. We have murdered over five times as many people as Nazi Germany did. How can we argue our pocketbooks take precedence over that? I am especially disappointed in Christians who make this argument. Do we worship Almighty God or do we worship Mammon?
Richard Mourdock stopped by Monroe County Republican Party headquarters on October 27 and addressed a large crowd of local Republicans and College Republicans who are all excited about making Barack Obama a one-term President. As Mourdock spoke, his devotion to saving this country was obvious.
As state treasurer, Mourdock has been part of the Republican leadership team that has made Indiana a national leader. Mourdock pointed out that Mitch Daniels came into office facing a deficit, and now Indiana is not only one of two sates in the black, but Hoosier taxpayers will see some of our money come back when we file our taxes.
Contrast the Republican leadership in Indiana with Obama's "leadership" nationally. The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate has not passed a budget in three years and we have added over $5 trillion in debt during Obama's presidency. Obama's reckless and irresponsible spending has put our great nation on the path to financial collapse, and Joe Donnelly has been supporting this fiscal irresponsibility the whole time.
The fiscal mess has coincided with an economic mess. Under Obama and Donnelly, we see high unemployment that is well over 10% when you count all of the people who are underemployed or have dropped out of the workforce. Obama has promised to make sure new coal plants are not feasible - something Hoosiers should be very worried about given the importance of the coal industry to Indiana's economy.
We should also not forget about ObamaCare and the burdens it will place on business, not to mention the fact that ObamaCare's individual mandate represents a huge and unprecedented tax increase on every American. Hoosiers who cannot afford health insurance will be punished by Obama and Donnelly for being in that position.
This is why Obama and Donnelly want to make this election about social issues - both to distract from their disastrous financial and economic record as well as to distract from the Democrats' own extremist positions on social issues. After all, Barack Obama opposed legislation in the Illinois state senate that would make infanticide illegal.
We simply cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama and Joe Donnelly. When Hoosiers step into the voting booth, they will hand Indiana's Electoral College votes to Mitt Romney by a large margin. That same margin should go to Richard Mourdock so that he can provide Romney with the critical vote he needs to implement his policies.