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

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Sunday, February 1, 2015

This is the face of the War on Drugs

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

Baby suffers horrific burns thanks to War on Drugs, Part I.

Baby suffers horrific burns thanks to War on Drugs, Part II.

Baby suffers horrific burns thanks to War on Drugs, Part III.


Saturday, January 31, 2015

"You betcha I was wrong about Sarah Palin"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

"(Sarah Palin) squandered her opportunity for greatness, and instead became a fad."


Friday, January 30, 2015

Judicial activism and the rule of law

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 12:30 PM

The following passage from a recent article about the reach of the Fair Housing Act is a perfect summary of how our "judicial" system has been corrupted, turning the federal judiciary (and especially the Supreme Court) into a super-legislature instead of acting in the role intended by the men who wrote the Constitution.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer summed up the liberal argument.

"This has been the law of the United States uniformly throughout the United States for 35 years, it is important, and all the horribles that are painted don't seem to have happened, or at least we have survived them," he said. "So why should this court suddenly come in and reverse an important law which seems to have worked out in a way that is helpful to many people, [and] has not produced disaster?"

Source: The Washington Post

The fact that any of the justices is even considering public policy instead of the rule of law should be frightening to everyone on both sides of this debate. It is not, has never been and should never be the role of the courts to determine public policy. That is the role of the legislative branch and, to a lesser extent, the executive branch. Public policy should not even be considered by judges when deciding whether the implementation of a law is legal and/or constitutional.

To be fair, the court is also considering the legal arguments both sides are presenting, both regarding the original intent of Congress when it passed the law and when it renewed the law. Hopefully, those arguments will be the primary basis on which this decision is made when the court rules on "disparate impact" as a standard.

But the fact that public policy is even influencing this debate (and many others before it) is a dangerous perversion of our constitutional republic. We are moving more and more to being a judicial oligarchy, with nine people in black robes ruling the nation with little to no true oversight. If we value the Constitution, we need to put a stop to this and put the judicial branch back into its proper role.

Supreme Court justices are not legislators and they should not pretend to be. If a law violates the clear text of the Constitution or laws that supersede it, that law should be overthrown. If the enforcement of a law does not match the text of the law, then that enforcement action should be ruled illegal. The personal public policy preferences of a judge should never enter into the equation. If justices want to shape public policy instead of applying the law and the Constitution, they should resign from their seats and run for office.


Thursday, January 29, 2015

Not yielding to emergency vehicles is arrogant and heartless

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

Note: Since I moved the blog between a couple different hosting options, not all of the archives are on ConservaTibbs.com. Therefore, I will occasionally re-post things I wrote before 2010. This letter to the editor is from a little over ten years ago.

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, January 7, 2005

To the editor:

I was visiting family over the weekend in Fort Wayne. While I was stopped at a red light, I heard a siren. The siren belonged to an ambulance, which approached the intersection as my light turned green.

Naturally, I did not move. After all, pulling out in front of an ambulance is not only dangerous, it is illegal. Most importantly, I would not slow down an emergency vehicle, because seconds can mean the difference between life and death. I heard the person waiting behind me honk his horn because I did not proceed through the green light. Apparently, getting to wherever he was going was more important than the life-saving mission the ambulance was on. This combination of arrogance and heartlessness saddens me.

I am not sure what this individual hoped to accomplish. Even if I had been arrogant and heartless enough to pull out in front of the ambulance, there was not enough room for him to get out.

To those drivers who think their time is too important to yield to an emergency vehicle, I challenge you to answer the following questions.

What if the ambulance you delayed was carrying a loved one? What if the delay you caused resulted in the death of that loved one? Could you live with yourself knowing that you killed someone you love? What if the few seconds you delay a fire engine is just enough to prevent them from saving your home as it burns? What if you are seriously hurt because you are hit by the fire engine to which you refused to yield the right of way?

Is it really worth it?


Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Mike Pence is not Vladimir Putin. Stop freaking out.

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

From the freakout in some quarters regarding the Pence Administration's plan for a "state news agency," you would think the conservative Republican governor was setting up a Ministry of Information and Press like they had in the former Soviet Union. That's not the case. This is not state-run media. In fact, it is boringly normal.

What Pence is proposing is putting all of the state's press releases from multiple agencies into one easy to read and easy to navigate website, and providing additional content. It is not fundamentally different from what any number of elected officials have done for nearly twenty years now, from the White House blog and the President's weekly radio address (a tradition started by Franklin Roosevelt) to the State Department's Tumblr page.

Many elected officials do this. U.S. Senators such as Elizabeth Warren archive their press releases and editorials online. Literally hundreds of elected officials have press secretaries to release statements and talk to the media. They have official websites, blogs and social media accounts. So what exactly is the big deal here?

The answer is simple: This is not a big deal. Elected officials have always looked for ways to reach the people directly with their message and their policy agenda. If anything, the people complaining about the proposal should be praising it as a step toward greater transparency by government. We live in an age where many people get their news online, and this is just one more information source - much like Governor Pence's profiles on Facebook and Twitter.

If Pence's critics have a legitimate criticism, let's hear it. This story is much ado about nothing.


Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Men failing to be men

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

College men should be humiliated by this story. If men would be men and protect women from predators there would be no need for women to do it themselves.


Monday, January 26, 2015

The Indianapolis Star's online subscription service

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

The Indianapolis Star needs to move into the 21st century with its web content.The service is stuck in a late 1990's mentality that is not friendly to paying customers and is far too clunky.

A couple weeks ago, I subscribed to the Star's website, and immediately regretted that decision. My understanding (from talking to a customer service representative before I subscribed) was that all of the Star's content was on its website. This is simply not true. At least some of what is in the print edition never shows up on the website, though it is in the e-paper. The thing is, though, that I do not like the e-paper. It is not nearly as user-friendly as the website. It is clunky and it is slow. It is not possible to open multiple articles in multiple tabs.

From a technical standpoint, the website is far better.

The Star has a soft paywall, much like the Washington Post and other newspapers - you can read so many articles per month before you have to pay for the content. My understanding was that I could read unlimited articles and see content that you cannot see without a subscription on the website itself. That is not true. Either the representative did not understand my question or she was mistaken.

I do not mind the soft paywall, and I would not mind if some content was visible only to subscribers. I have no problem whatsoever with a hard paywall. Newspapers do need to make money, after all. Our local Herald-Times puts the vast majority of the content behind a paywall. What I do mind is not getting all of the content on the website, and being forced to use a technically inferior product to get that content. In the year 2015, it is inexcusable that all of the content in the print edition is not posted on the website, especially for paying subscribers.

I am not going to cancel my subscription, but I am certainly not going to renew it. I barely use the e-paper and it is frustrating not knowing what I am missing if I only use the website. If I did not pay for access, that would not bother me. Because I am a paying customer, it is very annoying. The Star needs to dump this e-paper nonsense and focus on putting all of their content on their website. A list of "what was published today" (like is on the Herald-Times, Washington Post, New York Times and many other newspaper sites) would also be a dramatic improvement.


Sunday, January 25, 2015

Nanny state ninnies in the GOP

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

Why are Republican legislators proposing a ban on cell phone use while driving? Reckless driving is already against the law. This nanny state stuff should not be coming from the GOP.

We got rid of a nanny state RINO last year, who supported making pseudoephedrine available only by prescription. Looks like more primary challenges are needed to get rid of some more RINOs.


Saturday, January 24, 2015

Murder is already punishable by death!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

A headline in the newspaper yesterday illustrated the absurdity of some of our state legislators: "Indiana Senate backs death penalty for beheading crimes."

Don't we have anything better to do? Murder is already illegal. Murder is already punishable by death, especially if aggravating factors are present. There is no need for another law.

This is just stupid and a waste of time.


Friday, January 23, 2015

Thoughts on protest tactics and coverage

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

This past Sunday, about 150 anti-abortion demonstrators blocked traffic on a heavily-traveled Bloomington street. Many of them wore bandanas to hide their faces (how gangsta!) and one of them was arrested for assaulting a police officer. The scene generated considerable outrage in the community and especially on Herald-Times story comments.

Now of course, that did not happen. Well, it did happen, but it was the "Reclaim MLK" protesters who committed those acts. If that is what we had done, you can imagine the reaction - and that reaction would be justifiable.

The anti-abortion protest was 225 people and had no illegal obstruction of traffic and certainly no assault on police. Christian Citizens for Life paid $500 to reserve the county courthouse (including a refundable damage deposit) and some volunteers picked up trash that was left on the courthouse lawn before we got there. The weather was nice this past Sunday, but young men from CCFL would often shovel and salt the sidewalks (with donated salt) around the courthouse to ensure the people attending are safe. Guess which protest was covered and which was not?

The "Reclaim MLK" protesters said they needed to block traffic to get people's attention and make the public face an important issue. One could argue that if the tiny number of police shootings necessitates blocking traffic to force people to face the issue, the 3200 babies killed every day by abortion (a disproportionate number of whom are black) would be a much bigger justification for blocking traffic. Yet you can imagine the reaction had we done that.

The covering of the protesters' faces is an unnecessary tactic. What is the purpose of hiding their faces? Do they really think they will face repercussions in Bloomington Indiana if their faces were not covered? This is a tactic that is common in anarchist protest and is arguably intended to be intimidating. If your message is that important, do not be afraid to show your face - especially since this was meant to honor Martin Luther King, who never hid his face.

The H-T again failed to cover the Rally for Life, which is consistently one of the biggest public events in Bloomington on an issue of social and cultural significance, as well as significance in the local political arena. The newspaper was notified of the rally well in advance, and there was no reason a reporter could not have been dispatched.

This was a great rally, and Pastor Jody Killingsworth delivered a powerful keynote address about abortion and our own culpability in it. The weather and turnout were excellent. It would be much better, though if we never had another rally because unborn babies' lives would be protected.


Thursday, January 22, 2015

Forty two years ago today

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

On this day in 1973, the Supreme Court thew out laws in all 50 states protecting unborn lives from abortion. Since that day, we have seen fifty million unborn babies slaughtered by the abortion industry. The number of abortions per years has dwindled, but we are still seeing over a million babies murdered every year. May God have mercy on us for this bloodshed.

This is the bloody reality of abortion in these United States:

Source: The Center for BioEthical Reform

Source: The Center for BioEthical Reform


Wednesday, January 21, 2015

We must constantly be on guard against censorship

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

As expected, the aftermath of the Muslim terrorist massacre in Paris has brought out not only defiance but a new debate over censorship. That debate reminds us why we must be vigilant and constantly fighting against censorship. We saw this in a letter to the editor last week.

The author makes the absurd claim that the Bill of Rights "identifies the possible limitations of those ideas." Perhaps she is referring to Supreme Court decisions, if we are being charitable. But there is clearly nothing in the Constitution that enables government to restrict free speech. The Constitution does the opposite - it prohibits government from restricting speech (before or after the fact) because the Founders assumed free speech was a fundamental human right that government could neither grant or deny.

The author is correct that free speech "cannot work in a vacuum." There are limits on speech that are socially enforced, and parents restrict what their children say - whether the speech is crass, insulting, rude or simply out of turn. ("Mommy and daddy are talking.") There are laws on the books that allow damages from slander and libel, because of the harm false accusations can cause to someone's family, career and reputation. But socially enforced speech codes, rules provided by parents and awards granted in a civil lawsuit are a completely different animal than censorship enforced by the power of the state.

By all means, we should encourage people to speak responsibly and with care to the feelings of others. But one thing cannot be tolerated, and that is violent suppression of speech by terrorists. There can be no rational discussion of appropriate or responsible speech with someone who is holding a rifle, a bomb or a sword. The terrorists need to put down their weapons or they need to die. Once the terrorists are in the ground where they belong, then we can have that rational discussion.


Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Coverage vs. non-coverage

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM

So apparently if 150 people block traffic, and a couple of them fight with police and get arrested, the Herald-Times finds that worthy of coverage. If 225 people rally peacefully on the courthouse lawn and are careful to obey all laws, that is not worthy of coverage. Brilliant. Way to go.


Monday, January 19, 2015

Answering some objections to my anti-abortion posts

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 10:00 AM

I do not get many comments on the blog, so I wanted to thank a couple people for their comments on recent posts on abortion, the rights of the unborn child, and the government role in regulating and/or banning abortion. (The first comment thread is here and the second one is here.) I wanted to take the opportunity to address some of those objections in a new post.

One objection was that traditional common law only saw abortion as a crime after the "quickening," or when babies start moving in the womb. Following up, here is a portion of that comment:

  • It is only at the third trimester that the state has any legitimate interest in the well being of the fetus.

The problem with the "quickening" argument is that our understanding of gestation and fetal development, based on the rapid advance of medical technology, is much more robust than it was when the Constitution was written. We now know that the unborn baby is far from an "unviable tissue mass" because we have seen the photographs that prove it. Furthermore, there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that states that "common law" is the basis for all of our laws. The only mention is the right to a jury trial in a lawsuit over a certain amount.

Obviously, people disagree on where life begins, but where life begins is a matter of verifiable scientific fact, not opinion or philosophy. That point is fertilization, where sperm meets egg and creates a completely new and unique human being. From that point on, all of the building blocks are there and given nutrition and shelter that new life - that one cell human baby - will grow and develop through the various stages of life.

  • perhaps your socially conservative argument against abortion would carry more weight if you didn't simultaneously try to lecture people as to every aspect of their "sexy time"

I have written at length about sexual morality and the harm caused by sexual immorality, as well as the need for our culture to embrace Biblical sexual morality once more. A lot of our problems as a society would be fixed by this. However, I have not advocated that government police sexual activity among consenting adults. In addition, the rights of the unborn baby to not be mutilated and murdered exist regardless of whether the person arguing for protection of those lives lectures about "sexy time" or not.

  • perhaps you would find more success at saving unborn lives by advocating for better access to birth control.

I am not opposed to non-abortifacient forms of birth control. I am actively opposed to abortifacients. As someone who cherishes religious liberty, I find it abominable that anyone would be forced to pay for abortifacient drugs. If someone wants abortifacient birth control, he or she can pay for it (because it's not that expensive) or seek employment with a company that does cover those drugs. Ideally, I would like to see those drugs banned, so as to protect unborn life from the moment of fertilization onward.

  • For example, do you support Sex Ed in schools?

It really depends on what is being taught. That is an incredibly wide term.

When I said "engaging in intercourse is a tacit agreement that pregnancy might occur," the following comment was posted.

  • Only if said intercourse is both "straight" and deliberately unprotected.

No contraception method (other than total abstinence from intercourse) is perfect. The pill, condoms and other methods reduce the chance of pregnancy but do not eliminate that probability. Therefore, I stand by what I said. The fact that a couple tried to prevent conception does not eliminate the rights of the unborn baby.

Now to deal with some other objections to my "inconsistency" on being pro-life:

Objection to government welfare programs is not an objection to aid for the poor. In fact, many charitable organizations that aid those most in need are explicitly Christian organizations, including Backstreet Missions and Hannah House right here in Bloomington, Indiana.

I do not advocate more war, so that is irrelevant. Militarily, I am an isolationist. We should use military force only when there is a direct threat to or assault ion national security. Military force should always be the last resort. I have also not defended "murderous" police officers. I defend the right to legally use lethal force as a last resort, and I abhor excessive force. I have written extensively in opposition to excessive force, especially in the name of the War on Drugs.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of capital punishment, but in my opinion that is a pro-life position. We show we value human life so much that we must terminate the lives of those who commit murder. We need reforms in our criminal justice system to protect the innocent from fraudulent convictions, but the truly guilty have forfeited their right to life by taking the life of another. When the ultimate crime is committed, the ultimate punishment is required.

Even if I am inconsistent (which I do not believe myself to be) that does not affect the logical validity of the arguments on abortion and the rights of the unborn child. Again, thanks for the comments.


Sunday, January 18, 2015

Obama needs to stay out of this

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:00 AM

From ABC News:

The FCC is already considering requests for Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, to prevent state laws from blocking the expansion of their broadband projects. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in June that communities that want to provide their own broadband service "shouldn't be stopped by state laws promoted by cable and telephone companies that don't want that competition."


I agree with President Obama on this issue, philosophically. But the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to do this. Once again, Obama is overstepping his authority as President.