thePoliPit.com

The Straubification of Spokane has Begun!

noreply@blogger.com (MacReady) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:51:00 +0000

Now that persistent problems at the new public safety facility at the old Eastgate Mall are finally coming to light and receiving some attention, it’s a good time to keep everybody up to date on what former Director Straub has been up to in Spokane. While we all breathed a sigh of relief when we woke up December 22^nd and realized the world had not ended, the good residents of Spokane may not have been so fortunate. On 12/21/12, the Spokane Police Department (i.e. Chief of Police Frank Straub), unveiled “Making Spokane a Safer City:Spokane Police Department Strategic Plan.” This is the official memorandum outlining the city’s crime-fighting strategy and five-year plan for operational improvement. Sound familiar?

Highlights include, but are certainly not limited to,

-“we will track, report, and respond to crime at the neighborhood level using an enhanced CompStat model. We will look at crime data on a daily basis and use weekly crime strategy meetings to direct our neighborhood resource officers, patrol, investigative, and specialized units to address the persons, activities, and places that our disrupting the quality of life in our neighborhoods.”

“The ultimate goal of policing is to prevent crime and disorder from occurring in the first place.”

“We will continue to look for opportunities to reduce bureaucracy and operating costs. We will ensure that the right people with the appropriate training are in the right positions to successfully execute and assess the implementation of our strategic plan.”

Again I ask you, is any of this sounding familiar yet? I found much of the report disturbing. Despite the numerous questions that have been raised as to the effectiveness of CompStat (and the tactics used to achieve that “effectiveness” have been detailed here), we have another city that will be spending taxpayer dollars to implement what has become at best a questionable policy. Furthermore, claiming that the goal of policing is to keep crime from ever happening in the first place is just as absurd as expecting everyday men and women to put on uniforms and change the hearts and minds of EVERY criminal, from a common scofflaw to an armed robber. Oh wait, that’s exactly what it’s claiming! Finally, it’s common knowledge that during his tenure here the Director vastly increased both bureaucratic positions and operating costs. For Pete’s sake, within the first month of current Director Riggs’ appointment he was able to eliminate several redundant civilian positions alone!

I will say one thing in defense of former Director Straub. He probably composed this report on his own, as evidenced by the occasional typo and flood of run-on sentences. When he was here he had the habit of dropping five or six figures outsourcing to a private contractor.

According to news sources in Spokane, Chief Straub also demoted his Assistant Chief and placed him on administrative leave the day before this report was unveiled. Upon being notified by news sources, over two weeks later the local city-council had neither received notification of this demotion, nor received an explanation from Chief Straub. I can’t say for certain if that’s common in Spokane, but reading what’s coming off the wire it sounds like something that caught everybody off guard. Again, sound familiar?

“Are you ready to rumble?”….then send your child to the mall

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:00:00 +0000

The out-of-control “juvies” are at it again. A shooting a few days ago at the Lafayette Square Mall and yet another large fight at the Circle Center Mall has the media and local leaders trumpeting the need to “do something”…..again. Is anyone else tired of the same media types, the same local politicians, and the same “Concerned Clergy” saying the same things after the same type of behavior from the same juvenile delinquents?

Just once I would like the Chief of IMPD, the Mayor and/or the Director of Public Safety to say the following:

“Our officers are NOT going to try and figure out why these juveniles are acting like turds, we are NOT going to talk with them, and we are NOT going to try and understand their motives. However, what our officers ARE going to do is enforce the law and keep the peace without fear of being labeled racist, un-caring, or heavy handed. Our officers have been instructed to arrest, ticket and disperse disruptive juveniles with little concern for the offenders’ safety, but great concern for the safety of visitors to our city and actual patrons in the mall establishments. To the absent and lackluster parents, if your teenage child is causing a disturbance in our mall do not error and think our police officers will be gentle, caring, understanding and compassionate to your child. They will enforce our laws will zeal, efficiency, and effectiveness. If you want your child to experience the criminal justice system and copious amounts of Pepper Spray then please encourage your teenage child to act like an idiot and come to our shopping malls. However if you would like your child to experience compassion, understanding, and love then you should provide that or take them to one of the many churches being led by the multitude of “Concerned Clergy.” Supposedly they are “concerned” for your child, even if you are not. Proverbs 29:15 teaches us, ‘The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.’” –End of Press Conference

What are the odds we will ever hear this type of press conference? The very nature of our law enforcement has been corrupted by Godless politicians that think they can convince people to “do right.” Police officers are great at doing their job, enforcing laws; however when they are expected to do the job of a parent, pastor or teacher, they will not be effective at what they do best. What is the Biblical purpose of government (which is what law enforcement officers are)…“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” (Romans 12:3) “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 12:4b)

iPhone's Rule

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:26:00 +0000

For those of you who have “tweens” or teenagers this article might interest you. A mother in Cape Cod, Massachusetts bought her 13 year old son an iPhone for Christmas. Fortunately for this 13 year old boy he has a mother that not only loves him but has great wisdom for perceiving the real dangers associated with electronics and teens. This mother clearly understood the necessity to establish some rules if her son was going to use the phone.

Many parents have young teenagers that constantly hound them for iPhones, iPads or “i-whatevers”, and I encourage you to look at this Cape Cod mother’s example of how to handle these requests if you choose to acquiesce to the electronic desires of your children. Our children need to be protected from others and from their own “ill-advised” desires at times. The “rules” this Cape Cod mother asked her son to follow are common sense and clearly intended to protect him from a myriad of dangers. Unfortunately the electronics we enjoy, and our children desire so much, make our lives more dangerous at times, and “tweens” and teens often don’t possess the will to self-regulate; which is why God gave us parents. The only way this Massachusetts 13 year old was going to be able to use this awesome gift was if he agreed to a few simple rules his mother wrote down. The list of rules she asked her son to agree to is below:

Dear Gregory

Merry Christmas! You are now the proud owner of an iPhone. Hot Damn! You are a good & responsible 13 year old boy and you deserve this gift. But with the acceptance of this present comes rules and regulations. Please read through the following contract. I hope that you understand it is my job to raise you into a well rounded, healthy young man that can function in the world and coexist with technology, not be ruled by it. Failure to comply with the following list will result in termination of your iPhone ownership.

I love you madly & look forward to sharing several million text messages with you in the days to come.

1. It is my phone. I bought it. I pay for it. I am loaning it to you. Aren’t I the greatest?

2. I will always know the password.

3. If it rings, answer it. It is a phone. Say hello, use your manners. Do not ever ignore a phone call if the screen reads “Mom” or “Dad”. Not ever.

4. Hand the phone to one of your parents promptly at 7:30pm every school night & every weekend night at 9:00pm. It will be shut off for the night and turned on again at 7:30am. If you would not make a call to someone’s land line, wherein their parents may answer first, then do not call or text. Listen to those instincts and respect other families like we would like to be respected.

5. It does not go to school with you. Have a conversation with the people you text in person. It’s a life skill. *Half days, field trips and after school activities will require special consideration.

6. If it falls into the toilet, smashes on the ground, or vanishes into thin air, you are responsible for the replacement costs or repairs. Mow a lawn, babysit, stash some birthday money. It will happen, you should be prepared.

7. Do not use this technology to lie, fool, or deceive another human being. Do not involve yourself in conversations that are hurtful to others. Be a good friend first or stay the hell out of the crossfire.

8. Do not text, email, or say anything through this device you would not say in person.

9. Do not text, email, or say anything to someone that you would not say out loud with their parents in the room. Censor yourself.

10. No porn. Search the web for information you would openly share with me. If you have a question about anything, ask a person ? preferably me or your father.

11. Turn it off, silence it, put it away in public. Especially in a restaurant, at the movies, or while speaking with another human being. You are not a rude person; do not allow the iPhone to change that.

12. Do not send or receive pictures of your private parts or anyone else’s private parts. Don’t laugh. Someday you will be tempted to do this despite your high intelligence. It is risky and could ruin your teenage/college/adult life. It is always a bad idea. Cyberspace is vast and more powerful than you. And it is hard to make anything of this magnitude disappear — including a bad reputation.

13. Don’t take a zillion pictures and videos. There is no need to document everything. Live your experiences. They will be stored in your memory for eternity.

14. Leave your phone home sometimes and feel safe and secure in that decision. It is not alive or an extension of you. Learn to live without it. Be bigger and more powerful than FOMO — fear of missing out.

15. Download music that is new or classic or different than the millions of your peers that listen to the same exact stuff. Your generation has access to music like never before in history. Take advantage of that gift. Expand your horizons.

16. Play a game with words or puzzles or brain teasers every now and then.

17. Keep your eyes up. See the world happening around you. Stare out a window. Listen to the birds. Take a walk. Talk to a stranger. Wonder without googling.

18. You will mess up. I will take away your phone. We will sit down and talk about it. We will start over again. You & I, we are always learning. I am on your team. We are in this together.

It is my hope that you can agree to these terms. Most of the lessons listed here do not just apply to the iPhone, but to life. You are growing up in a fast and ever changing world. It is exciting and enticing. Keep it simple every chance you get. Trust your powerful mind and giant heart above any machine. I love you. I hope you enjoy your awesome new iPhone. Merry Christmas!

xoxoxo

Mom

GOD BLESS PARENTS LIKE THIS!

Where was God? Huckabee's Response

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:48:00 +0000

Many have asked the question, "Where was God during the school shooting?" Mike Huckabee has done a pretty good job of expressing the truth of the matter. Without getting into a long and drawn out explanation of theology, I thought this video would suffice.

Gun Patrol -NOT- Gun Control

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:32:00 +0000

The murder of 20 children in a Connecticut public school has sparked new debate about gun control. Regrettably, the debate is completely misguided and focused on the wrong issue. Our federal and state laws offer more than enough controls for guns. What politicians and gun control advocates fail to acknowledge is the need for self-control, and that’s not something a secular government law can accomplish. Liberals improperly place their faith in the belief that manmade laws can somehow change hearts, in effect force self-control, but “the law” is not designed for this end. The written law is designed to define what is proper and improper; laws cannot force a human heart to apply all things righteous. Instead of politicians being so arrogant to think they can pass a perfect law, they should focus their energy on passing laws that permit citizens who self-govern their lives to protect themselves from those who don’t. The more Godless and selfish our culture becomes, and the more our society slides into lawless violence and uncontrolled behavior, the greater the need for an armed citizenry made capable of protecting itself. Our society needs Gun Patrol, not Gun Control.

I yearn for a utopian society where violence isn’t brought on the innocent and everyone treats each other as they desire to be treated; however, this is unrealistic because our world is fallen and sinful. The society I yearn for is yet to come. Unfortunately we are all directly and indirectly influenced and victimized by the sin of others. The only responsible action righteous governments should take is to allow the innocent and peaceful minded citizens to defend themselves against the violence of the lawless - “Gun Patrol, not Gun Control.” Imagine a society where the criminal has no fear of the law and its designated punishments, and a wealth of targets disallowed by law to protect their own life. What is the logical outcome? Now image a culture where the criminal fears immediate reprisal at the hands of those he intends to victimize and a government that supports the reprisal. I choose to live in the second society; one that recognizes my natural right to defend my family, myself and any other victim being targeted by someone who selfishly desires violence. Violence is either brought upon the innocent or brought upon the criminal.


If you were a criminal, who would you choose to victimize?

Newtown, Connecticut Shooting

noreply@blogger.com (PoliticoMonk) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:52:00 +0000

"Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Ecclesiastes 8:11 (NKJV)

We can add another shooting to our American culture of death and the growing vocabulary of mass shootings.

The following are excerpts from an article a year or so ago on thePoliPit.

"What happens when you are (un)lawfully disarmed and criminally forbidden to carry a firearm on school property?..."

"Again I ask what happens when you are (un)lawfully disarmed and criminally forbidden to carry firearms on school properties (or anywhere)? What options do you have when a murderer is dissuaded by laws and walks through the empty air of rhetoric?..."

"Unfortunately, under liberal guidance, the use of deadly force has been stigmatized in the same way the death penalty has been. The truth is, deadly force can never be abolished; it may only be transferred from the hands of the honest people to the hands of the criminal. The same is true with the closely related capital punishment. The death penalty can never be abolished; either the criminals will rightly receive the death penalty or honest people will have the death penalty unjustly administered against them by the hands of criminals...."

"Deadly force and the death penalty are so closely related it is hard to speak of one without touching on the other. As a society, we need to change our thinking on these concepts. If we do not, we will face some serious consequences that will be even harder to reverse...."

Ballard's Hybrid Brain

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:38:00 +0000

Mayor Ballard wants to help reduce the nation’s foreign oil dependency by mandating all city vehicles operate on alternative fuels by 2025. He stated, “This choice will save lives…will save taxpayer dollars. And we’ll shift the balance of global strategic power.” Wow, I didn’t think a Midwest city with a vehicle fleet of just over 3100 could do all that, but apparently the Mayor has thought this through….?

The year 2025 is barely a decade away, and I have serious doubt any hybrid or fully electric vehicle will be substantially cheaper to purchase than a gasoline vehicle; even in 2025. Furthermore, I noticed the 12/13 IndyStar article cited the benefit of money saved through gasoline usage, but failed to explore the inevitable increased maintenance costs required of hybrids and electric cars. And did they forget that electricity for charging electric cars is not free, even in Obama-nation.

Mayor Ballard seems to think 3100 alternative fuel vehicles will “save lives,” which seems a bit over-stated regarding our soldiers, and it’s certainly inaccurate when considering the safety of the operators driving these death traps. There are real concerns with batteries catching fire in crashes, and there’s some question as to the overall safety in crash testing. Indianapolis could experience an increase in liability payments and medical bills for work related crashes. (Police officers would be the most at risk considering the great number of hours they operate their cars)

I realize 10 years from now technology, markets, and a whole lot of other things can change to improve “alternative” fuels and “eco-friendly” vehicles; however it’s foolish to put all our eggs in one basket when the future is uncertain. I suppose my biggest problem with Mayor Ballard’s grandiose world-saving eco-friendly vehicle initiative is this: Rarely do we see government (local, state or federal) accomplish what it says it will, and I have no reason to believe this will be any different. Promises from politicians are about as reliable as electric motors in cars.

Let’s suppose this program goes forward and Mayor Ballard successfully replaces the city’s entire vehicle fleet with hybrid/electric cars. I predict the following: Money will NOT be saved. Maintenance costs will skyrocket. Death and serious injury to mechanics and vehicle operators will increase, Indianapolis citizens will curse the mayor for his brain-dead master plan, and Indy will begin drilling for oil in the middle of The Circle Center.

Immoral Federal Spending

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:24:00 +0000

Republicans hate poor people, immigrants, the elderly, women, children and minorities…..right? Liberals often accuse Republicans and/or Conservatives of being insensitive to the needs of the less fortunate; people with insufficient health care, no job, and no education. Conservatives are accused of presenting budgets and endorsing spending priorities that won’t help “alleviate” the perceived economic injustices. Obviously people who find themselves in financial trouble can often trace their predicament back to foolish personal decisions, but sometime people actually encounter times where jobs, education and healthcare are more difficult to acquire at no fault of their own. What should a compassionate government do? Is it within the federal government’s constitutional function to provide tax payer dollars to those who have fallen on hard times? Maybe it is, or maybe it isn’t, but I submit that this question of the federal government’s role and responsibility in meriting out economic justice is a moot point. Why? Our federal government doesn’t have the necessary financial resources because of their own foolish decisions.

If I am a wealthy individual and yet a poor steward of my financial resources I am of no use to anyone…let me explain. If I spend more money than what I earn, and then rack up thousands of dollars of credit card debt, what am I left with to help my neighbor who lost his job and can’t feed his family? What ability do I have to plan for emergencies that may arise in my own family? I might have a $500,000 annual salary, but if I’ve spent it all and owe even more to creditors, then I really have nothing at all to give anyone, including those in need. Our federal government is facing this reality, and the big spending politicians are too morally bankrupt to admit we have nothing to give.

Obama may continue to blame Bush for a number of problems he “inherited,” and some of his complaints are probably valid. However, when Obama became President in 2008 he “inherited” 10 trillion dollars in debt. Faced with the largest debt in our nation’s history President Obama does what any rational and responsible person would do, he encourages Congress to pass the largest government spending program ever…in the history of any government throughout the history of government! Why? “To help people who don’t have insurance.” How much help is “Obamacare” going to extend to those without insurance when our nation grinds to a halt under the burden of massive debt and super inflation caused by the foolish printing of worthless paper currency? The current national debt is more than 16 trillion dollars and growing rapidly. The U.S. Dollar is losing its value and standing within our borders and internationally. How does any of this “help the less fortunate”?

Some might ask how economics or spending money can be a moral issue. We are taught to be good stewards of what God provides and for good reason. Being frugal and not spending more than you earn allows you to help those less fortunate because the money is available for charitable use. Our politicians have not only spent too much of our money, but they were so irresponsible with their spending they have all but eliminated the likelihood our federal government has the ability to help out those who are in need. Their spending has and will continue to weaken the dollar, harm our economy, wreck our standing in the world of international business, and ruin job creation; yet Conservatives are labeled heartless old white men for pointing out that we have no money to “help.” It would be like my poor uncle getting hit by a car and sent to the hospital. He pleads with me to help him pay the hospital bills because he has no money. I sympathize with his plight but I humbly admit to him that I am unable to help because I’ve foolishly spent all my money. My uncle becomes angry and accuses me of being uncompassionate for “refusing” to help with the medical bills, even though I have foolishly spent away my ability to help. Uncompassionate? No. Foolish? Yes.

Tax Myths Part II: We MUST Reform Social Security

noreply@blogger.com (MacReady) — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:42:00 +0000

With all the talk of the rapidly approaching fiscal cliff, it certainly seems as if “all options” are on the table. Unfortunately, it also looks like there hasn’t been any agreement on a single issue in regard to figuring out our deficit issues. Easily the most divisive issue, to an even greater extent than tax increases, is “entitlement reform.” For the most part this refers to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which basic math tell us are becoming an enormous liability on maintaining our fiscal solvency.

Reforming generally revolves around a few key issues, namely privatization, reducing benefits for incoming or current participants (whether by reducing payouts or increasing payroll taxes), or increasing the minimum age at which participants can collect. I’ve generally adopted the notion that social security is a losing proposition, where everybody who pays in generally gets a lot less in return for their investment. For example, somebody entering the work force at the age of 20 averaging $50,000/year over the course of their career, assuming an average Social Security payroll tax of 12.4%, can easily turn 65 with $2,500,000 in the bank, if they can pace the market’s historical average of about 8% a year. At a 3% drawdown that’s $6,250 a month! With Social Security however, it’s much more complicated than that.

First of all, Social Security participants get COLA raises (Cost-Of-Living Adjustments), and the hypothetical example above doesn’t account for inflation. Secondly, Social Security is guaranteed in that someone turning 65 KNOWS that it will be there to provide for them. In this manner it functions more like an insurance instrument. Now, we are told that Social Security is “risk-free,” but there are in fact numerous downsides to the way the program works. People very commonly pay into the program for decades and then pass away before they are old enough to collect, or before they have received a “fair share” of the amount for which they paid, at which point all monies accumulated would revert back to the Social Security Trust Fund. So is it worth it? Again, that depends. Determining how much of a return people receive on Social Security is really dependent on a lot of individual factors.

FICA taxes have obviously grown substantially since the inception of Social Security, so the time at which you began paying in is a factor. Benefits are inversely scaled as a proportion of income: lower-income earners get more bang for their buck than high-earners. Tax filing status plays a role, as single-filer heads of household get more back per capita than those who are married and file jointly. One of the biggest, and most overlooked factors, is life expectancy. A low earner who dies at 70 isn’t going to see nearly the benefit of somebody who lives to be 95, regardless of income level. In trying to navigate this maze of numbers and factors I went directly to the source: the official website of the Social Security Administration. What I found was truly surprising. In summary, Social Security has slowly been “reformed” since its inception.

For example, a two-earner couple with medium income (defined, roughly as being between $33,000 and $52,000 a year on average) who retired in 1985 have an average annual return of 3.62%. The same two-earner couple with medium income retiring in 2014 averages 2.39%. While this may not seem like a substantive difference, interest compounded over the course of a career shows a reduced benefit of nearly 25%, and that’s only over the course of a single generation! Lower earners see a much greater benefit, but under the same hypothetical scenario two-earner low income couples retiring in 1985 are seeing a return of 6.37%, while their counterparts retiring in 2014 are projected to see a 4.61% return, a reduction in benefits of nearly a third! If you don’t believe me, see for yourself here, as the charts are too big to post:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran5/an2004-5.html

It is VERY clear that while social security taxes have essentially gone up since the initial 1% pay-in and 1% employer match, benefits have NEVER kept up with payments into the system and return on investment has slowly diminished. As the authors of the article summarize:

“Based on the provisions for benefits in the Social Security Act that have evolved since 1935, it is clear that the goal for the program has been to provide similarly adequate monthly benefit levels for men and women, and for married and non-married workers with comparable career earnings. The goal has not been to provide similar lifetime benefits or internal rates of return for these groups. Thus, while this note illustrates the fact that the internal rate of return has varied considerably across and within generations and will continue to do so in the future, it is clear that this kind of variation was both expected and intended.” (Emphasis mine)

See, we don’t have to “reform” Social Security. The program is set up to make certain that members of a demographic receive the same check every month. The intention was never there to provide a monthly benefit that is in any way relative to how much a participant has paid into the system. Is Social Security headed to insolvency? While many would argue yes, the evidence certainly suggests that benefits will simply continue to be reduced to the point where we get a long-term negative return on our payments. I guess it depends on how you define "insolvency."

Beware: Braindead, Morally Bankrupt, College Educated Police Haters

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:08:00 +0000


Click to enlarge

I was forwarded a picture of a poster that has been placed in and around the IUPUI campus in downtown Indianapolis. Take a good close look: Any police officer reading this website should take note of this poster because there are college educated idiots that truly believe this dung. PoliPit cautioned our state’s lawmakers months ago that their reckless amendment to the self-defense law, specifically the portion regarding police entry into a home, would embolden an ignorant public. This law will eventually get an officer injured or God forbid, killed. Unfortunately our nation has an ever-increasing mixture of anarchists, revolutionary leftists (communists), anti-government fascists, Muslim extremists, and a hoard of brain-dead government parasites. This “wonderfully diverse” mixture could result in bloodshed. Our officers have a job that will not get any easier as our nation continues its plunge into the depths of immoral decay. God speed local police officers.

Charlie Brown is an evolved monkey

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:46:00 +0000

A Little Rock Arkansas school, Terry Elementary School, offered its students a chance to see a play titled, “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” The teachers sent letters home to parents and sought their permission to take the students to this theatrical play. Seems innocent enough…right? The only “problem” is the play is being held at Agape Church, a Christian church…..the HORROR! Here is a portion of the letter sent home with students: “This production will expose your child to the amazing world of theater productions and enhance your child’s creative imagination in the area of dramatic arts. . . . This production does expose your child to Christianity through some of the songs and scenes. (If you prefer your child to not attend the program they may stay at school and be allowed to sit in another classroom. Please let your teacher know if your child will not be attending).”

Expectedly, a Little Rock Arkansas atheist group voiced its anger over the perceived violation of the “separation of church and state” doctrine. A public school taking children to a CHRISTMAS play that has some CHRISTIAN themed content at a CHRISTIAN church? Can you imagine anything more horrible and disgusting!? Little Rock children could be exposed to the horrors of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, prayer and thanksgiving, etc.” How horrific is it when public schools indoctrinate students with Godless evolution theory as fact, (i.e. survival of the fittest, we all came from monkeys, and there is no God or absolute truth), ignore the moral foundation required to impart knowledge and discipline, and show “educational” movies with foul language and sexual content.

I’ve written previous articles about my consternation with public education and some of the steps I’ve had to take as a parent to exclude my children from classrooms because of inappropriate material being presented. The letter sent home by the Terry Elementary School teachers is the same type of letter I’ve received for giving my child permission to view movies and take field trips. However, I’ve never received any letter asking for my permission to teach my child about the theory of evolution, a religion unto itself. One atheist emailed me and said the following, “…if Christians don’t want their children subjected to evolution and climate change facts, let them homeschool them. No doubt their children will thank them later/sarcasm”.

Atheists can scream “separation of church and state” all they want, but they are just being greedy; which isn’t a problem for someone who doesn’t believe in absolute truth and right or wrong. Atheists secured our public schools a long time ago and need not worry about relinquishing their influence in a nation full of luke-warm lazy Christians. However, as a minority with rights I ask, “What’s the harm in letting school children experience a play that teaches charity, love and peace as God desires?” We sure don’t want our kids learning those horrible lessons, do we?/sarcasm. More interesting yet, I’m sure the atheists would have been fine with a “classical” play that portrayed murder, sex and general debauchery, just as long as it was titled as a “classic” and the author of the play had a British accent.

November: Our Founding Fathers-The Pilgrims

noreply@blogger.com (PoliticoMonk) — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:00:00 +0000

November is one of the finest times for reflecting on our American cultural heritage; a traditional heritage that is slowly disappearing from the hearts and minds of the people and morphing into a dissimilar culture. Second only to Christmas, Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. It is a time for me to read, study and contemplate the history of our original founding fathers: the Pilgrims.

Throughout this month, I intended to share with you some facts, ideas, stories, and applications of the Pilgrim heritage that are, in many respects, even more important for us today than they were in the early to mid 1600s. Unfortunately, I got side tracked with the election and I am off to a very late start. I hope that each of you will also read, study and contemplate the history of our original founding fathers and begin to forge anew our political and spiritual future.

The following are excerpts from the forward to the 1965 edition of The Christian History of...(think about these words:)

"TO EDUCATE THE CHILDREN OF TODAY is to construct the foundation of the nation of tomorrow. Faithless teaching makes for unfaithful citizens.
Shall our nation continue in the faith of our Founding Fathers or shall we veer in the direction of secularizing the citizens of tomorrow?
This is not merely one of our nation’s problems. It is the problem of all problems, for as we educate our youth today so will be our nation tomorrow.
Our nation now is standing at the crossroads. Today our American youth is being trained in state schools whose educational program is committed by law to secularize the citizens of tomorrow and that at state expense!
To save our country from the dry rot of secularism we are in need of a nation-wide education that honors God and that teaches study content in the light of God’s Word.

Especially during the past generation our secular and secularizing public education has lost that which is most precious in our national life. We have lost that which inspired our Founding Fathers to come to the bleak shores of our country. We as a nation have lost our former national conscience. It was for the purpose of preserving this “conscience” that our Founding Fathers came to this country.

Where is the faith in God—where is the heroic devotion to Christian conscience which characterized the founding of the Plymouth Colony in 1620?

In coming to the rocky western shore of Cape Cod Bay in south-eastern Massachusetts, the primary concern of our Founding Fathers was not financial gain or mere adventure. Like their counter-parts of the first century of Christianity, they would rather die than lose their faith. They were ready to endure every hardship, even death itself, rather than lose their faith for future generations. Even though 52 of their number died the first year, they were unperturbed. When their ship, the “Mayflower,” returned to England, NOT ONE WENT BACK. What a testimony; what a manifestation of CHRISTIAN CHARACTER, CHRISTIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT, CHRISTIAN ECONOMICS, CHRISTIAN EDUCATION AND BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN UNITY!

The coming of the Christian Founding Fathers, like the coming of Christ, was by Divine Design. Both happened in the fullness of God’s time.

The planting of Christianity on American soil was immortalized by the Mayflower Compact which stated that the Pilgrims were to establish themselves as a “single covenanted body of Christians, united for civil as well as spiritual purposes.” Theirs was to be an “undertaking for the glory of God and for the advance of the Christian faith.”

Today the national laws of our country are such that our state schools which teach seven-eighths of the nation’s children are forbidden by the courts of our land to teach the faith of our fathers. To all intents and purposes they must teach an ever-growing educational program—but it must be one that disregards that which was central to our Founding Fathers—the glory of God.
May the number of schools that are true to the Faith of our Fathers ever increase. May the preparation for life fostered by these schools ever be true to the faith of our Founding Fathers and may our present day Christian schools ever be motivated as were their schools: “For the glory of God and for the advance of the Christian faith."

Dr. Mark Fakkema
Chicago, Illinois
March 19, 1965

PM

Government Continuity vs. Political Administration Continuity

noreply@blogger.com (PoliticoMonk) — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:00:00 +0000

I am an optimistic person. My faith in God, the Lord Jesus, naturally gives me hope. So, after this last election cycle (and every cycle) , unlike some of my over dramatic conservative friends, I don't believe America is absolutely doomed for failure. Indeed, I have hope; But not in the general population that will vote for anyone as long as you give them free stuff (as one of our readers commented last week), but in people like me and the majority of our readers.

So don't misunderstand me when I say, it matters little who we vote for or what administration controls the powers of government, as our government currently operates. Don't mistake my realism for pessimism. Read on.

As it is, most of the so-called problems in government that need to be fixed are really symptoms and not the actual problems themselves. With this understanding, there are a few core changes that must take place in government before we will stop spending, stop social programs, reduce the deficit, fix the upside down social issues and everything else. I believe the most pressing issue that is crippling us and from which we will never break free from until it is resolved are term limits; and I am not talking about term limits for politicians.

In America, we have diverted our focus from the continuity of government to the continuity of political administrations.

All administration of government- its functions, policies, funding, etc.- must be limited to a short time period and thus restricted to short term goals, operations, and funding. This is crucial to understand if we are going to solve the problems that keep piling up from one administration to the next. What I am suggesting is the exact opposite of an empire; empire building focuses on the long term by incrementally building over greater time spans, so that government becomes bigger and bigger, requiring and demanding greater funding and fewer legitimate civil liberties to support its increase. The Roman empire is a great example of this. Who wants to be a historically great, but dead nation? I don't either! I don’t want a governmental empire for that is the seat of dictatorships.

United States President Barack Obama
Who can forget the comedic YouTube, Obama phone video? It is funny, sad, and true to life at the same time. It also angered a great number of people; some of them unable to buy their own cell phone and so, do without. I concur that Obama received his just criticism. But, as some pointed out, this phone program is actually a Ronald Reagan program called Lifeline created in 1984. Do you think the Republicans were complaining in 1984? I doubt it; but they sure are today.

The lifeline program was expanded by Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush, and then Obama. This is worth repeating; follow me very closely. The "Obama phone program" started with President Ronald Reagan, was expanded by President Bill Clinton, further expanded by President George W. Bush, and finally President Obama. This is what happens with most government programs: one administration builds on what the previous administration did. So much so, it matters little who the new administrators are, they are simply going to build onto the house that the previous administration left for them to build on. So how are our votes looking now?

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
In 2006, Mitch Daniels closed the Seventy-five year Indiana toll road deal. This act of government with Daniels, a Republican, at the helm, extends through approximately eighteen gubernatorial cycles. That means for eighteen, four year election cycles, it doesn't matter if you like what Governor Daniels did or not, you and the candidates you vote for will have to live within the programs and funding that Daniels leaves behind. This is assuming there are no contractual exit routes built into the contract (and if there are, they are pricey I'm sure).

"Indiana Department of Transportation spokesman Will Wingfield, “we think that the investments that are being made under Major Moves are going to reap returns through the life of the lease.”

I don't care how much revenue is collected up front or the vast amount of money to be collected over the life of the lease, the government has no business extending tax payer money and commitments 75 years into the future. This is stupid; and very Republican by the way.

It matters little who the new administrators are, they are simply going to build onto the house that the previous administration left for them to build on. So how about those votes at the ballot box?

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard
A few years ago Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard worked a deal that didn't sit too well with many people, but for all the wrong reason. Claiming to create two-hundred new jobs, the collection of fees in the millions up front, and anticipated long term revenue for the City, a nearly split council voted to lease the Indianapolis parking meter system for a period of 50 years. The life span of this contract is eleven mayoral election cycles.

"Huber added that the city determined a 50-year lease was most advantageous to taxpayers because meters begin generating more revenue later in the lease as rates increase and more meters are installed."

Setting aside revisions, calculated revenues, realized losses and the like, this contract extends too far beyond what city leaders should be allowed to negotiate. The most vocal opponents listed all kinds of objections except the one dissension that matters: the duration of the contract. Now, at least a ten year termination option was built into the contract, but even ten years a too long for governments to be negotiating into the future. On the other hand, I don't know what the details of the termination option are so it could be worthless.

It matters little who the new administrators are, they are simply going to build onto the house that the previous administration left for them to build on. So how about those votes at the ballot box?

In these three examples from the federal, state and local governments we can see the core, hidden problem that is responsible for the more visible problems seen in economics, social programs, and social issues. We have sacrificed government continuity for years and years of political administration continuity; one administration building on the policies, programs of the previous administration.

The theory behind our elections is that if we don't like the current administrators, we can vote to remove them. The removal in theory should wipe the slate clean for the newly elected leader. But it doesn't. The new leader must labor under the burdens of the previous leader. This is why our favorite leaders almost always fail. It's not because they have necessarily lost their way, but because the previous leader leaves their mark on government, for good or bad, and restricts what the newly elected leader is able to accomplish.

Remember how Obama was going to end the wars? Yet, within his first week he was ordering the killing of terrorist with military resources. His paradigm was already established by all of the presidents before him and George W. Bush in particular.

What should we do?
Governments should be made (figuratively speaking) to live paycheck to paycheck with only minimal revenue. The natural outworking of minimal revenue will force governments to be smaller and limited. It will also, if done properly, force our elected leaders to reduce layers of government funding and projects due to the sheer burden of administering them. So the first step is to place term limits on funding and all government programs; not some but all government funding and programs. Even right now, we are facing problems with the impending expiration of the Bush-tax cuts and the Budget Control Act of 2011. These items had longer than desirable term limits, but limited nonetheless. That is where we need to be looking. All programs and funding must expire. Right now, some programs and funding do have expiration dates, but some is not good enough. The quantity of some leaves the door open for illegitimate expansion.

Governments cannot predict the stability or instability of the distant future nor can they look into a crystal ball and see the future. Because of this, and the fact that it is the peoples money and liberty that are on the line, governments need to be limited to a three to seven year operational restriction. Absolutely nothing should be extended beyond this short time frame; no phone programs, no toll road programs, and no parking programs. We can feasibly work and plan accurately within this time frame. Beyond that, we are blindly gambling and the house is killing us.

Keeping a watchful eye on the fiscal year budgeting is certainly a part of the solution but it obviously cannot by itself reduce long term political administration continuity. Otherwise, we would not be in the difficulty we are in. We must not only demand conservative fiscal budgeting but we must also impose termed policies, programs, and administrative continuity in exchange for short term government continuity.

It matters little who the new administrators are, they are simply going to build onto the house that the previous administration left for them to build on. Unless, we impose on them the theory of government continuity over political administration continuity.

PM

Veterans Day...Courage and Honor

noreply@blogger.com (PoliticoMonk) — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:30:00 +0000

Last week, I intended to have original content up for you this morning, particularly on the continuity of government vs. the continuity of administration succession. I am pushing this article back until later in the week so that we can observe veterans day with a great speech by Ronald Reagan in 1985.

But for you political junkies, if you want to read a plan that will guarantee that Republicans never win another election, check out Ogden's plan. Ogden doesn't take into account the three million voters that sat out, the likely millions of voters that in fact voted, but did not cast a vote for a president, and the remaining unregistered voters that will remain unregistered until a real conservative steps up. The Republican party is a losing party with Ogden's suggestions. I will provide counter-points next week that you won't want to miss, because Ogden is so wrong.

Now...

Join us in not only honoring our veterans as courageous, honorable people but also in praying for our government leaders that God will restrain governmental evil and head off dishonorable use of our servicemen.

Secretary Weinberger, Harry Walters, Robert Medairos, reverend clergy, ladies and gentlemen, a few moments ago I placed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and as I stepped back and stood during the moment of silence that followed, I said a small prayer. And it occurred to me that each of my predecessors has had a similar moment, and I wondered if our prayers weren't very much the same, if not identical.

We celebrate Veterans Day on the anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, the armistice that began on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. And I wonder, in fact, if all Americans' prayers aren't the same as those I mentioned a moment ago. The timing of this holiday is quite deliberate in terms of historical fact but somehow it always seems quite fitting to me that this day comes deep in autumn when the colors are muted and the days seem to invite contemplation.
We are gathered at the National Cemetery, which provides a final resting place for the heroes who have defended our country since the Civil War. This amphitheater, this place for speeches, is more central to this cemetery than it first might seem apparent, for all we can ever do for our heroes is remember them and remember what they did -- and memories are transmitted through words.
Sometime back I received in the name of our country the bodies of four marines who had died while on active duty. I said then that there is a special sadness that accompanies the death of a serviceman, for we're never quite good enough to them-not really; we can't be, because what they gave us is beyond our powers to repay. And so, when a serviceman dies, it's a tear in the fabric, a break in the whole, and all we can do is remember.

It is, in a way, an odd thing to honor those who died in defense of our country, in defense of us, in wars far away. The imagination plays a trick. We see these soldiers in our mind as old and wise. We see them as something like the Founding Fathers, grave and gray haired. But most of them were boys when they died, and they gave up two lives -- the one they were living and the one they would have lived. When they died, they gave up their chance to be husbands and fathers and grandfathers. They gave up their chance to be revered old men. They gave up everything for our country, for us. And all we can do is remember.

There's always someone who is remembering for us. No matter what time of year it is or what time of day, there are always people who come to this cemetery, leave a flag or a flower or a little rock on a headstone. And they stop and bow their heads and communicate what they wished to communicate. They say, "Hello, Johnny," or "Hello, Bob. We still think of you. You're still with us. We never got over you, and we pray for you still, and we'll see you again. We'll all meet again." In a way, they represent us, these relatives and friends, and they speak for us as they walk among the headstones and remember. It's not so hard to summon memory, but it's hard to recapture meaning.

And the living have a responsibility to remember the conditions that led to the wars in which our heroes died. Perhaps we can start by remembering this: that all of those who died for us and our country were, in one way or another, victims of a peace process that failed; victims of a decision to forget certain things; to forget, for instance, that the surest way to keep a peace going is to stay strong. Weakness, after all, is a temptation -- it tempts the pugnacious to assert themselves -- but strength is a declaration that cannot be misunderstood. Strength is a condition that declares actions have consequences. Strength is a prudent warning to the belligerent that aggression need not go unanswered.

Peace fails when we forget what we stand for. It fails when we forget that our Republic is based on firm principles, principles that have real meaning, that with them, we are the last, best hope of man on Earth; without them, we're little more than the crust of a continent. Peace also fails when we forget to bring to the bargaining table God’s first intellectual gift to man: common sense. Common sense gives us a realistic knowledge of human beings and how they think, how they live in the world, what motivates them. Common sense tells us that man has magic in him, but also clay. Common sense can tell the difference between right and wrong. Common sense forgives error, but it always recognizes it to be error first.

We endanger the peace and confuse all issues when we obscure the truth; when we refuse to name an act for what it is; when we refuse to see the obvious and seek safety in Almighty. Peace is only maintained and won by those who have clear eyes and brave minds. Peace is imperiled when we forget to try for agreements and settlements and treaties; when we forget to hold out our hands and strive; when we forget that God gave us talents to use in securing the ends He desires. Peace fails when we forget that agreements, once made, cannot be broken without a price.

Each new day carries within it the potential for breakthroughs, for progress. Each new day bursts with possibilities. And so, hope is realistic and despair a pointless little sin. And peace fails when we forget to pray to the source of all peace and life and happiness. I think sometimes of General Matthew Ridgeway, who, the night before D-day, tossed sleepless on his cot and talked to the Lord and listened for the promise that God made to Joshua: “I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”

We're surrounded today by the dead of our wars. We owe them a debt we can never repay. All we can do is remember them and what they did and why they had to be brave for us. All we can do is try to see that other young men never have to join them. Today, as never before, we must pledge to remember the things that will continue the peace. Today, as never before, we must pray for God's help in broadening and deepening the peace we enjoy. Let us pray for freedom and justice and a more stable world. And let us make a compact today with the dead, a promise in the words for which General Ridgeway listened, “I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”

In memory of those who gave the last full measure of devotion, may our efforts to achieve lasting peace gain strength. And through whatever coincidence or accident of timing, I tell you that a week from now when I am some thousands of miles away, believe me, the memory and the importance of this day will be in the forefront of my mind and in my heart.

Thank you. God bless you all, and God bless America.

- Ronald Reagan

A Nation Transformed

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:00:00 +0000

Our nation has officially completed the turn away from a constitutional republic and is now speeding towards some type of socialist-oligarchy hybrid government. Sixty million people, half of our voting electorate, are clearly addicted to government and they just re-elected their supplier; just as an alcoholic would gladly invite a liquor distributor to live with them.

The sad truth is there are 60 million people who appear indifferent about matters that should matter. They routinely elect politicians who endorse theft of property from one group of people to give it to another group, they elect people who permit and endorse the killing of unborn babies; they support politicians that promote the destruction of the family by redefining marriage and restricting religious liberty in schools, and they vote for those who deny the crucial requirement of self-governance. Obama may speak of “hope”, but as of last Tuesday I lost all hope that our nation’s government might return to its intended size, scope and mission. I now fully understand that Christians who care about the things that matter are vastly outnumbered. Obama was correct when he stated that our country is no longer a “Christian nation.” Simply stated, a majority of our nation’s electorate have decided which path they want to pursue. Consequently, my vote for president matters very little in these days of Noah.

So where do I go from here. My God, my family and my church will remain the 3 most important institutions in my life, and I encourage everyone to prioritize their life in this manner. I will pray for Obama and beseech God to convict his heart with the truth that his immoral spending habits, his immoral endorsement of gay marriage, and his criminal stance on abortion are sinful and wrong. I will also pray for the 60 million people who voted for President Obama and ask that their eyes be opened to the lies they are being told and the consequences of selfish voting behavior. Liberals love to talk about “corporate greed”, and I’m sure it exits, but our nation has a bigger problem of “voter greed.” As my wonderful pastor summarized in a recent sermon, “we suffer from confused politicians, compromising preachers and complacent citizens.”

American voters have proven they would rather enslave themselves for “free stuff” than be poor, free and virtuous. Our nation will continue its inevitable slide into the pit of immorality and fiscal irresponsibility; leading to our eventual destruction. Please understand that I’m under no delusion that if Romney had won the election our country would have been transformed into a nation of God fearing, self-motivated charitable wonder citizens. However, considering the current course of our nation and how our electorate voted, the truth is that we don’t have enough logical, rational and Christ-focused citizens left to select the type of government leaders we so desperately need. I will continue to challenge all government leaders to “do what is right” and leave the results up to God, but I will no longer waste time voting for politicians that put power and money before righteousness.

America, the charade is over. A time is rapidly approaching when our nation’s foolish wild living is laid bare, and all will experience the consequences. As for me, I wash my hands of it and lay the burden before God. May God have mercy on a nation that legalizes drugs, promotes immorality of all kinds, destroys the family, kills its children, and spends more than it has.

“Give me one hundred men who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I will shake the world.” John Wesley.

Look for Politico Monk's article on Monday, "Government Continuity: Elections and Succession"

Obama Wins: What Now?

noreply@blogger.com (PoliticoMonk) — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:00:00 +0000

Many of my friends have been a little angry with me or at least disappointed over the last year for my opposition to Mitt Romney. Today is no different. Don’t think that I have shed a single tear over the Romney loss or that I fear one minute of an Obama second term. Tonight proved that when two liberals are offered up, the Democrats simply do progressive liberalism better. It was a loss well deserved. But how will the Republican Party respond? Will they continue to supplant their national platform with watered down ideology to accommodate moderates? Will they continue to offer up liberal candidates and tell us that their liberal is better than the democrat liberal? Well, they do continue to do whatever we allow them to do. Are we done laying down?

There are many practical things that we conservative-libertarians need to change. So after numerous phone calls, a few one on one sermon’s, a premium cigar and an Obama speech, I started searching my vast library of literature for motivation. Not motivation for me; for I am fired up and standing at attention. But for others, maybe even you. If we are going to do politics, let’s do it and do it good.

“Before we can solve any problem we must understand its component parts. Knowledge of the subject matter usually defines and dictates the solution. This is true in politics as well as in any other discipline. In this case, we should know how the opposition thinks and the resultant methods that flow from their basic beliefs. We also must understand ourselves. It should be obvious that we don’t understand either side too well. When one consistently loses political ground, it is imperative to ask honest, introspective questions about why our losses occur. Is it our conservative principles? Are our ideas sound? I contend that our ideas are valid and ultimately defensible. If it’s not our ideas, then could it be that the conservative American’s methodology of combating the left is the problem?

Definitely! The average Conservative has little knowledge regarding the techniques and unconsciously uses in the cultural battle.

[I]nspect both combatants and the methodology each uses. By now, Conservatives should recognize that being “right” isn’t enough; if that’s all it took, we would have won long ago.

Two thousand years ago Sun Tsu, the famous ancient sage, wrote in his book The Art of War, “know thy enemy as well as thyself”. Notice Sun Tsu said “know thyself” as well as knowing the enemy. Self-inspection hasn’t been a conservative strong suit. Instead of looking inward, a great number of conservatives have found solace in blaming either our opponent, the referee, or the audience. This is a bad habit too many have sadly acquired. We should remember an old saying, “A fox always sniffs his own den first.

- H.L. Richardson

Note: I also got to vote twice at the polls. Apparently, according to some, not voting for Romney was by default a vote for Obama. Well I didn’t vote for Obama (or a third party) either, so by default it was a vote for Romney. So I got two votes and didn’t vote for either. Strange how things work out. Luckily for me, a withheld vote is NOT a vote for the other candidate. That is a shallow proverb that hasn’t been thought through. Sometimes witty political proverbs are as worthless as the candidates they defend.

Reality Based Political Humor

noreply@blogger.com (PoliticoMonk) — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:54:00 +0000

It took me forever to find this throwback Simpsons episode from the 1996 Presidential cycle. It is a little rough but not too bad and still bearable to watch. This spoof on politics proves that the more things change the more they stay the same.

PM

Voter’s Guide to the 2012 Presidential Election:

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:00 +0000

Allow me to highlight some of Obama’s great accomplishments over the past 4 years. My intention is to help you make a proper voting decision this coming Tuesday. This list is by no means exhaustive and much more could be said of his great leadership, but I choose to state “just the facts”. The appropriate links are included with each stated fact:

Pros:

Obama personally killed Bin Laden.

Obama slowed the “rise of the oceans” and “healed the planet”….right?

Obama has a brother that lives in a hut in Kenya!

Obama was an excellent community organizer in Chicago.

Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for being elected President of the United States.

Cons:

Obama increased our national debt to more than 16 trillion dollars. In his first 3 years in office he spent 4.21 trillion dollars, more than the total amount of money spent by George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined!

Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan; vehemently pro-Abortion, anti-Life, pro-Murder, Pro-Women’s Health…any way you describe their abortion position it’s immoral and should be illegal.

Obama cut federal permits for oil exploration and drilling on federal lands. Excellent decision considering we face $4 a gallon gasoline.

Obama oversaw the spike in fuel cost as he said, “electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”

Obama ordered the government take-over of a privately owned American auto manufacturer. Because the U.S. Government can run a business so well!

Obama gave billions in tax dollars to failed “Green” companies.

Obama gave Marxist Venezuela 2 billion in low interest loans to explore off shore oil…but his EPA limits our own nation’s oil companies from off shore oil exploration and drilling.

Obama bowed to the Muslim Saudi King….or he was checking out the King’s new Jordan’s.

Obama snubbed the Israeli Prime Minister….Jeremiah Wright doesn’t like Jews either.

Obama encouraged the efforts of the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood to gain power in Egypt and Libya. They are now killing Americans.

Obama oversaw “Operation Fast and Furious” that permitted guns to be sold and transported to Mexican drug lords. These guns are now being used to murder Americans inside our borders.

Obama removed federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research…because killing more fully developed babies just isn’t enough.

Obama stated his belief that America is NOT a Christian nation and is no more exceptional than any other nation. And we certainly are NOT with him as President.

Obama plays a lot of basketball and golf (at least 72 rounds since becoming President).

Obama”nomics” is responsible for an unemployment rate that is still stagnant at around 8%.

Obama failed at his “one term proposition.” Unless we vote him out.

Obama hung out with a convicted domestic terrorist and a racist black church pastor that teaches false doctrine. He said we should judge him by the company he keeps…..so….

Obama accepted foreign donations for his re-election.

Obama attempted to bring incarcerated Muslim terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to New York City to conduct federal court trials. This would have been fine if I could have been on the jury.

Obama smokes.

Obama supports gay marriage.

Obama enjoys spending tax dollars on lavish parties at the White House. In fact he has spent millions more than any previous President.

Obama hates puppies! At least I think he does.

Obama said, “The police acted stupidly.” Stupid is as stupid does.

There are consequences associated with our voting decisions.

God Didn't INTEND It, but He Can MEND It.

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:36:00 +0000

A friend of mine produced this video for a Christian pro-Life foundation that is supporting Richard Mourdock. It's about 5 minutes in length, but well worth the time. This video is an excellent compliment to Politico Monk's recent article "Mourdock Potpourri."

Trick or Treat, Smell My Feet... Wait, You Said There Isn't Money for Public Safety Raises?

noreply@blogger.com (MacReady) — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:15:00 +0000

In case you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve seen the local news headlines about the City being unable to pay for contractually agreed upon 3% raises for the IMPD and IFD. The mayor has gone so far as to threaten a line-item veto because locating the funding for these raises has become such a touchy issue. Looking at the city budget proposal for next year the numbers seemed a bit inconsistent. I’m a bit of a novice at reading government budgets, but nonetheless I think we can make some headway.

I was unable to find year-after-year staffing levels for IFD, however I was able to get some numbers from the IMPD website. According to their 2009 Annual Report (used because it looks like they didn't release annual reports in 2010 or 2011, and if they did they’re not posted on the city's website), IMPD had 1,617 sworn personnel at the end of 2009. According to indy.gov IMPD added a net of 27 officers in 2010, lost 15 officers in 2011 and as of the middle of this year there have been an additional 22 fewer officers. This gives us a working total of 1,644 officers at the end of 2010, 1,629 in 2011, and, assuming no changes, 1,607 at the end of this year. Again, can’t find staffing numbers for IFD.

Looking at the expenditures in the 2013 introduced budget, Personal Services for IMPD has been allocated $163,733,774. According to the same 2009 Annual Report I mentioned earlier, the Personal Services expenditure is defined as salary, benefits, and overtime. Now, the actual final budget in 2011 showed Personal Services at $158,813,483, and this paid for a department that ventured between 1,634 and 1,619 sworn policemen and women. Now, assuming all other spending was flat, if we round up and account for the 1% raise that IMPD received in 2012 they should have been comfortable with $160,401,617. We get $165,213,667 when we factor in the 3% raise in 2013, which creates a shortfall of $1,479,893. This is the fiscal shortage for public safety raises, right? Wrong.

Remember those staffing levels? There will be at least 37 fewer officers at the beginning of 2013 as there was at the beginning of 2011. If we divide annual total compensation cost by total manpower, that means that the average officer received total compensation of salary, benefits, and overtime in 2011 of $96,601, but in 2013 this number divides out as $101,887, which per officer is well north of $1,000 more than raises received in 2012 AND scheduled raises for 2013. I was unable to locate any information on civilian pay or how that relates to this line item, however the 2009 statement reported 278 civilian personnel and IMPD’s website currently reports “over 250.” Thus, I think it’s safe to say civilian staffing levels have been flat. I can’t speak to property tax caps or TIF expansion as to how it relates to revenue, which is why I’m dealing directly with the money that’s already been budgeted. It appears as if the pay scales IMPD and IFD employ are relatively set in stone, so any other raises that would have been handed out should have been made public. I wasn’t able to locate any concrete information on civilian compensation packages. The only reason there should be any kind of budget shortfall is if IMPD plans on hiring more officers, but most media outlets are reporting that it isn’t in the works. I believe I had heard that IFD may be hiring more firefighters but I haven’t been able to confirm that.

The math clearly indicates the city has already budgeted AT LEAST 5.5% MORE per officer in 2013 than in 2011, but the city is saying the money isn’t there for a 3% raise? Like I said I’m an amateur at reading city budgets, but if I am wrong somebody help me out here. Where did the money go? Is IMPD getting a reduction in insurance premiums, or will there be significant amounts of funding for overtime this year? If the money did go somewhere else who put it there and why? And does anybody know where I can find staffing levels for IFD?

Mourdock Potpourri

noreply@blogger.com (PoliticoMonk) — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:04:00 +0000

Stop the cycle of violence! Kill the rapist, not the child. - Politico Monk

Only the abortion issue could pull me away from my October hiatus. I didn't intend to comment on the Mourdock statement at all (or anything else), but some of our readers have been waiting for me to weigh in. I forgot that I didn't announce that I would be taking October off. I also wasn't sure if I could even add anything to the conversation that I haven't already made clear.

On the first day of research, I noticed that every blog in Indianapolis had written something about it. I think that may be a first. I also noted something else of greater value: I opposed what every one of those bloggers had to say. So there it was, the ground work for my approach was already laid. Following a few words on Mourdock himself, I have collected bits and pieces from some other blogs, a potpourri of Mourdock, and filtered their words through the Christian worldview.

"I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."- Richard Mourdock

And that is how it all began.

If I had any apprehensions about voting for Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, those concerns have all disappeared. Come November 6th, Mr. Mourdock has secured my vote, and my families votes. I stand 100% behind Richard Mourdock. If you can logically refute what I am going to offer then you may with a clear conscience not vote for Mourdock. If, however, you are convinced of the truth that I offer, then have the courage to vote for Mourdock.

Now, having said that, I think Mourdock's articulation of his personhood position was awkward; I am sure he does too. But awkward articulation doesn't negate the validity of his intended meaning. It is not his pro-life stance- which by logical necessity demands no exceptions to qualify as pro-life- that is causing all the problems, it is how he expressed it. But, still, can we put our finger on what exactly the problem is in his articulation?

Mourdock, like Todd Akin, (another great pro-lifer with articulation issues) took a bold stance that just a few years ago would never have been expressed by a politician. So many are so "personally" pro-life that cowardice is the only word to describe them. But, instead of cowering, Mr. Mourdock, with boldness and unambiguity, faithfully stood up for defenseless children being bullied by adults. Mourdock publicly refused to allow hateful Molechian adults to bully unborn children, silently any longer. This is a man of substance and courage (as far as the protection of human life goes). He knew the backlash he would receive from phoney conservatives occupying the Republicrat party right now, not to mention the venomous Dumacrats; and he defended all life anyway. So there is nothing wrong with his core belief, nothing at all.

Mourdock's error was a simple one that wasn't caught beforehand; probably because he lacks competent advisers that understand the issue. The manner in which he chose to defend human life involved a very complicated philosophical view about God's interaction with the world. It was a heavy theological defense that cannot be explained with a few sentences. A great body of literature exists on this very subject; still with no unanimous consensus. But, many Christians hold a theological position that posits that God controls everything that happens and nothing comes to pass without Him ordaining those very things. Calvinism is one such body of doctrinal statements along these lines.

His words seem to flow from those theological doctrines that I do not support; mainly Calvinism, or fatalism, or the various other schools of thought on the subject. With years of theological and politically contentious debates under my belt, I understand the depth of thinking required to process the ideas he was appealing to. It was never going to happen. No one, except a few interested, we're even going to grasp the concepts he referred to.

The irony is that many other prominent politicians also believe the same things. According to records, governor Mitch Daniels (the god of many local repubs) is a Presbyterian; one of the most hardcore Calvinistic Christian sects. They too believe and teach others that everything, including rape and conceived children, are directly ordained by God. It is a sick, twisted idea, but one that many, many good Christians believe to be true. It is heavily rooted in early Greek paganism and sadly it has crept into Christianity in some watered down respects.

What about Joe Donnelly? His immediate response was "The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen--ever. What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape."

Really? As a Roman Catholic, Donnelly too holds some views or at least passively accepts them by virtue of his affiliation. Consider this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time

Do you find much difference between what Richard Mourdock said and what the faith that Joe Donnelly affirms? I guess the real problem is that Mourdock said it. Who is the fool: the one that believes and lives what he believes without cowardice or the one that believes but does what is politically expedient even when it's contrary to their faith? The only thing we can legislate is morality. The man willing to do right and risk the consequences is the better man.

What I find more shocking, stunning and offensive is that Donnelly, who claims to be a Catholic, would disrespect God by thinking he can usurp God by advocating that it is okay to kill some unborn children. And then suggest that those respecting the unborn are disrespectful to victims! Calling evil good and good evil?

Only Richard Mourdock has proven himself to be genuine, courageous and correct on the issue. Now he just needs to work on his articulation.

On to the potpourri of Mourdock.

"a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8)

Advance Indiana wrote: "Is all I have to say is that if your wife or daughter were raped and you expected her to carry that baby to full term, then you're just sick in my mind. I find the practice of abortion as a means of birth control abhorrent, but I find forced conception even more abhorrent."

Response- I have four children and a wife and all of them are girls (just clarifying for the deviants). I raised my daughters to be ladies not bullies and killers of unborn children. They wouldn't even consider killing a child. Are my daughters sick in their mind?

Conception cannot be forced, it is an autonomous process. Once fertilization takes place a third person is brought into the mix. By virtue of God's creation, women are the safe haven for children to develop. Women did not choose this on their own. By design, He didn't give them a choice; He blessed them with this honor; to protect human posterity with a mother's love and commitment. A women does not have to love the father's side but every child conceived in rape is also half of the mother. The child may have been conceived in crime, but the mother can still love the child because he/she bears not only the image of God, but also the image of the mother.

That child, after birth, will reach for mommy without any knowledge of the rape. That child will give mom butterfly kisses, homemade birthday cards, curl up on her lap to watch a movie in the dark, and finally, hold her hand giving her her final kiss before she passes away. That child will love his mom and righteously hate his father. Every mother in return, loves her child naturally. Shame on Advance Indiana for his abhorrent jack-assed statement.

"For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.(Matthew 24:5)

Indy Democrat wrote:"My first inclination is just to explode about how Mourdock's view of God and mine are entirely different"

I think the Indy Democrat writer is being very intolerant. He wanted to explode because his view of god is different? How is that tolerant? Where is his room for diversity? Many people will claim to be Christians and pledge that Jesus is God but will promote all types of filth in His name.

"Even when a fool walks along the way, He lacks wisdom, And he shows everyone that he is a fool. (Ecclesiastes 10:3)...in other words, even a clock is correct twice a day

Masson wrote: "One of my points was that I think people should take personal responsibility for the moral positions they adopt. It’s not enough to say that you’re against marriage equality because the Bible tells you homosexuality is a sin. I think that’s a cop out; an effort to shove responsibility for your moral positions onto the authors of the Bible instead of standing up, explaining your reasons, and owning them...It’s us, only us."

Response- There is some truth to what he writes. I know a few Christians that discipline their children saying things like "God doesn't like that", "God is going to get you", or "God is disappointed with you" and I cringe when I hear these things. As a father of four, I have always made it known to my children that my family government is based on biblical precepts but it is me that is responsible for it. Likewise, God has given us perfect principles of civil government, but it is us, the citizens, that govern. So I can agree with this principle, but only to point. Notice what Masson concludes with: "it's us, only us." Do you see that? He wants his readers to start their reasoning with his worldview; a worldview that espouses that we evolved over millions of years; that there is no God but only us. I don't accept his presuppositions and therefore reject his worldview.

We can assert our belief, explain it, defend it, AND acknowledge where the belief comes from (the original thinker, God). As an example, my children do things because I tell them to. If questioned, they don't develop logical defenses for why they do what I have told them to do; Dad said so is good enough. Now once they get older, if I am untruthful or illogical they will question me and eventually reject what I transmit to them. But when the truths are reasonably established there is no need to ever buckle under controlling pressures to accept a different presupposition. God said so is good enough. That Masson doesn't accept that presupposition, has no bearing on its authority and influence.

"If both the child and the mother’s lives are on the line, then maybe you have to choose."

Response- Slicing and dicing the fragile body of the unborn child does nothing to save the mother. There is no decision to make. A good doctor will attempt to save both the mother and the child simultaneously. He doesn't put the mother's health concerns on hold long enough to bully the child with unrelenting deadly force. If a baby must come premature, that is alright. The baby will be cared for as long as he/she lives. There is no mother-child dilemma, it is a fabricated scenario used by people who don't want to own their evil.

Indiana Barrister- Okay, that’s fine. You can stop now.)...(Okay, you made your point. Move on.)...(Okay, that was necessary, but I see you point. Close up shop right there.)...(This can’t end well.)...(We are so screwed!!!)

Response- This was the funniest of all the responses. There is no doubt that Abdul is a pro-abortion advocate with exceptions. I exposed the fallacy of his witty offense "if you don't want one, don't get one" a few weeks ago with the counter example "if you don't want to own a negro, don't own one." But his analysis is a good one this time. When Mourdock appealed to a complicated theological concept as justification, he opened the door to major criticism. In other words, he was screwed. There is nothing wrong with identifying one's faith and how you will apply it to public policy. But clear, simple articulation is required and Mourdock didn't meet the anchor this time around.

Eye on Indianapolis- How can the Indiana GOP sleep at night?

Response- Very easy, those of us good guys within the Republican party refuse to out do rape by suggesting that killing unborn children make it all better. We won't stand for adults bullying the defenseless with unrelenting deadly force.

PM

Obama - Surrounded by Christian Influence.

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:00:00 +0000

A reader emailed us with this video and I thought it was worth posting.

Can America Be SAVED?

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:31:00 +0000

The Mormon

Obama and Romney completed their last official debate last night and I couldn’t be more thankful. I grow weary of hearing the same “canned” talking points from Romney and the delusional arrogant lies Obama keeps muttering. Despite my cynicism I’m sure I could find some positive attributes about Romney, such as: He appears to be a man of faith and conviction even though I may disagree with some major tenants of his Mormon religion, He seems to have a better understanding of our economic situation and how to use government to help improve it, He has actually challenged Obama during the debates which is something the media neglected in the past 4 years, He seems to have a genuine love for God and our Nation, and He says the “right things”. Will these “positives” translate into a President that I can fully support? More importantly will Romney be a President that can help halt the current back-slide of our nation into the abyss of debt, immorality and decreased global influence for good, or is it too late?

The Moron

I will agree that our economy is a very important issue but it’s not the only issue. Frankly, Obama stinks on all the issues, just as a Marxist should in a capitalistic Judeo-Christian nation. The fact that anyone is surprised by our current economic conditions and post-Constitutional direction is laughable. We have had over 100 years of bigger and bigger government, with a decrease in Christian principles and values. And to make matters worse, in the last election nearly 70 million foolish people voted for a man they knew nothing about; other than he was for “hope and change.” Obama spoke in platitudes, eloquently recited speeches from a teleprompter, created excitement and feelings of belonging to an important cause, and he was BLACK. I’ve never cast a vote based on my emotions and/or the color of someone’s skin, but I have tried to inform myself about the actual person I might vote for; such as their personal history of education and family, their stated and unstated beliefs in faith, the Constitution, economics, foreign policy and various social issues. I have zero use for a voter that acts on emotion and neglects reason, logic and Biblical truth.

There are a couple things I know for certain: 1) Obama is a horrible President for any number of reasons, and another 4 years of his ego-centric Marxism could push our nation over the edge…or maybe we “went over” years ago. 2) Romney is the only other viable option thanks to a horribly misguided Republican Party, and I don’t fully trust him based on his political history of “flip-flops”. So what is a conscientious American voter to do? Do you vote for the moron or the Mormon?

Here are your options: If you think our nation isn’t “too far gone” and can be saved from the abyss, then you have no other choice but to vote for Romney and hope for the best outcome. (And I’m not just talking about economic outcomes)….or….If you firmly believe we have passed the point of no return, then your vote for Romney is no better than a vote for Obama. Voting for Romney would only prolong the inevitable; our nation will collapse on its own weight of debt, immorality and foolish behavior.

Quite honestly, I don’t think my hesitation in voting for Romney is because I question his “conservatism”, I think my hesitation comes from a belief that our nation may be too far gone for it to matter. How’s that for positive talk!?

Black Abortion Video

noreply@blogger.com (Jedna Vira) — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:00:00 +0000

\

thePoliPit.com has posted many articles on the evil of abortion and we've highlighted the ignorant beliefs of many politicians and Pro-choice advocates. Fortunately there are a few organizations that "get it" and are doing all they can to fight for life. The Radiance Foundation is one such organization that appears to be doing all it can to save lives. Here is an excerpt of Co-founder, Ryan Scott Bomberger's biography: "Ryan has a rather unique perspective of the innate nature of Purpose. His biological mother was raped yet courageously chose to continue the pregnancy, giving him Life. He was adopted as a baby and grew up in a loving, multi-racial Christian family of 15. With siblings of varying ethnicities, he grew up with a great appreciation for diversity. Ten of the thirteen children were adopted in this remarkable family. His life defies the myth of the “unwanted” child as he was adopted, loved and has flourished."

Does Byron Alston “Save The Youth,” or should we “Save The Youth” from Byron Alston?

noreply@blogger.com (thePoliPit) — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:00:00 +0000

In case you missed it Byron Alston, AKA Indiana DOC Inmate # 894878, made headlines a few weeks ago when IMPD Interim Chief Rick Hite wrote a character reference letter at his most recent probation hearing. As head of “Save The Youth Ministries,” Interim Chief Hite touted Mr. Alston’s unique skillset and criminal history as giving him the street cred necessary to put youth at risk, oops, deal with at-risk youth. Byron was sentenced to house arrest and probation for pleading guilty to a litany of charges, including locking one potential employee/victim into a room and refusing her exit, forcibly attempting to unbuckle her pants while she repeatedly said no, and exposing/touching himself when she managed to push him away from her. Surely a macabre series of events, but what’s so disturbing is that this animal used his position of authority to solicit sex and sexual favors from those who trusted in him. Byron’s position was created by our tax dollars to “help” at-risk children. Instead he exploited that trust to intimidate and sexually assault prospective employees (similar to when high school teachers seduce students of age, except that’s normally consensual and teachers get fired for that.) It seems only logical to conclude this isn’t the first time. So we’re to believe Alston can’t even practice self-control in prison but he can run a youth shelter for 10 years without keeping his hands off anybody? Yes, you read that right, Byron picked up ONE OF HIS SEXUAL BATTERY CONVICTIONS WHILE AN INMATE IN PLAINFIELD. I won’t go into detail; I believe readers can connect the dots on that one. But wait, it gets even more depressing.

Despite being sentenced to a year of house arrest, he continued to attend community gatherings, political functions, and go pretty much wherever he wanted. During his probation hearing it came to light that despite his “paint the town” mentality he had failed to make any of his probation appointments. Sources say he even flaunted this lawlessness by showing up at various community meetings attended by law enforcement officials, ALL while on house arrest. I wonder how the victim(s) feel?

To summarize, we have somebody with multiple major felony convictions, ranging from sexual battery (IN PRISON) to criminal confinement to several armed robberies, who has presented himself as a reformed gang member but yet can’t stop sexually assaulting. He demonstrated a wanton disregard for the criminal justice system by failing to jump over even the lowest hurdles set out for him by probation. Interim Chief Hite responds by issuing an official correspondence on department letterhead saying that this two-time robber/two-time sexual batterer does a lot of good work in the community, if you just overlook the sexually violent criminal charges committed while he was working in the community. I wonder how the victim(s) feel? Any thinking person would obviously conclude the Interim Chief owes the victims, the court, and his police officers an apology for the shameful way in which he represented the police department. Or does he?

Last week, Byron was a guest on Afternoons with Amos, a daily radio show hosted by shock jock Amos Brown. Amos summed up the most recent animalistic, barbaric acts of this monster as “pleading guilty to some… stuff.” He says that by pleading guilty Byron has already paid his debt to society and that the uproar is just about politics. Pardon me, but I didn’t realize sexual assault was a political issue. Furthermore, how on earth has Byron paid his debt to society? I highly doubt he’s contacted the myriad of people he has preyed upon over the years to express remorse. For Pete’s sake the guy can’t even stay in his house when he’s told to by the court. Heck, he can’t even refrain from forcing himself on other inmates! How can our city accept that Inmate # 894878 is reformed despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary? Amos went on to denigrate the alleged victims, asking how they could still be scared of Byron when “they’re thousands of miles away. They didn’t even show up to the hearing.” He didn’t even challenge a few of his callers who called the victims liars and suggested they could have been ‘lily white,’ as if that makes a difference. Now, in Amos’ defense, he also doesn’t challenge callers who make bigoted comments towards Jews, interracial marriage, etc. However, as an occasional listener I can tell you that this is a new low in talk radio. Certainly Amos doesn’t have what anybody would consider a large talk audience, but where’s the outrage? Has our society declined to the point where moral plurality and fear of judgment has led to misogyny and the further exploitation of victims of sexual abuse?

By: MacReady