Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:13 AM
The North American Free Trade Agreement is a controversial policy. Supporters of NAFTA argue (among other things) that increased trade benefits American consumers though more competition and that free trade helps less wealthy countries improve their standard of living. Opponents of NAFTA argue (among other things) that NAFTA has encouraged the manufacturing sector to seek cheaper labor in Mexico, and has harmed American workers. I am a supporter of NAFTA and have been since Congress debated and passed it in 1993, but the point of this post is not to explore the public policy benefits of NAFTA, but to consider who gets credit for it.
Since it was passed, NAFTA has been linked to former President Clinton. This has drawn harsh criticism from some on the Left, including one person who recently stated in the comments section on HeraldTimesOnline.com that calling it "Clinton's NAFTA" will never be accurate by any stretch of the imagination..
It is true that NAFTA was initiated by a Republican President, and that more Republicans than Democrats supported the agreement when Congress voted on it. Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against NAFTA by a margin of 156 to 102, while Republicans supported NAFTA by a margin of 132 to 43. Clinton would have been dealt a significant legislative defeat in his first year in office had the Republicans in Congress not supported his position on NAFTA.
Nonetheless, it is an irrefutable, undeniable and universally accepted historical fact that President Clinton openly supported NAFTA, lobbied for NAFTA, and signed NAFTA into law. Quite simply, the statement that NAFTA was a Clinton policy is absolute truth. If someone wants to make the argument that NAFTA was a Republican policy, that would be a reasonable and historically accurate argument, one I obviously and very clearly agree with. After all, Clinton was opposed to the majority of his party. Nonetheless, NAFTA was also a Clinton policy, and the two facts are not mutually exclusive.
So why is it that NAFTA gets tied to Clinton more than Republicans in Congress. Some have argued that Republicans are attempting to "blame" Clinton for NAFTA for political reasons while ignoring the role Republicans played in getting it passed. In some cases, that is true. An honest historical account of NAFTA should include the fact that it would never have passed without the support of Republicans. However, is the fact that NAFTA is usually tied only to Clinton an example of dishonestly leaving out some of the facts? While that is true in some cases, that is not true in all cases.
One of the realities of American politics is that the blame/credit for policies implemented at the national level usually land on the President. Obviously, the President is the most visible and memorable figure in discussions of public policy at the national level. One person leads the executive branch while there are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate, so it is natural for the President to be most prominently remembered as the primary advocate of public policy during his term.
While it is reasonable to characterize NAFTA as a Republican policy, it is highly dishonest to minimize the role that President Clinton played in supporting NAFTA. When it was stated as a fact that Clinton openly supported NAFTA, a poster on HeraldTimesOnline.com responses by saying (t)his is what we, in the reality based community, characterize as an "opinion."
Of course, that is not an opinion. It is a fact, and this individual knows it. That Clinton openly supported NAFTA is a fact documented by mountains of historical evidence. Claiming that a "fact" is actually an "opinion" is historical revisionism. In other words, it is a lie, and that means anyone who characterizes a fact as an "opinion" is a liar.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:58 AM
A couple months ago, I moved Multi-Level Political Debate from the Invision forum where it has resided since 2005 to a phpBB forum. That move was not successful, and I have closed the phpBB forum and re-opened the old one. The forum address, as before, is MultiLevel.forumer.com.
This past weekend, I was trying to figure out how to enable "guest" posting on MLPD, so that people who do not have an account on the forum could post comments. This was to allow the forum to be an "open" comment section for this blog, especially since there is a "comment on this post" link at the bottom of each post on the main page. I had enabled guest posting in the past, but spambots posting inappropriate links caused me to disable the feature. Recently, I decided to try again.
Although I was sure I had enabled everything that needed to be enabled, guest posting just was not working. After testing the guest posting feature on the (now closed) phpBB forum, I discovered that guest posting does not work there either. The Invision forum gives guests a message that "guest posting is currently disabled" while phpBB does not tell you that until after you try to submit the post.
It turns out that Forumer.com (where MLPD is hosted) has disabled guest posting on all forums across the Forumer.com network. The explanation was that administrators on some forums were allowing guest posting and not controlling it, so spambots were causing problems. It is unfortunate that is the case, but I can see why Forumer would take that step.
I am going to try to figure out a way to allow a "open" comments for those who want to respond to something on the blog but do not want to register an account on MLPD. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen on MLPD. (Because of the way this site is set up, comments on the posts themselves is not a possibility.) If anyone has any suggestions regarding how to allow a more open off-site comment section, email tibbs1973@yahoo.com and let me know.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:58 AM
On Saturday, a number of people went to the county courthouse square to protest the Israeli "aggression" against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip. Israel has been harshly condemned for the military operation against Hamas, provoked by rocket fire into Israeli villages by terrorists affiliated with Hamas. Hand-made signs accused Israel of state terrorism and war crimes.
No one wants to see civilians killed in a military operation, and Israel is morally obligated to do what it can to avoid harming noncombatants. The problem with the protest is that it is focused on the Israeli retaliation against Hamas terrorists, while ignoring the fact that Hamas terrorists have been intentionally targeting Israeli civilians and firing rockets into Israeli villages.
There is no moral equivalence between terrorism that targets noncombatants (including women and children) and a military operation to defeat, eliminate or deter those terrorists from attacking civilians. Israel is by no means perfect, but to focus on their retaliation while not acknowledging the terrorism that provoked Israel's response is both myopic and morally deficient.
Israel has a right to defend itself, and it should not be expected to sit back and allow Hamas terrorists to target civilians for murder with no military retaliation. Critics of Israel's response would have more credibility if they recognized that the Hamas terrorists are responsible for provoking this flare-up in conflict and strongly condemning the terrorists who target innocent civilians with cowardly rocket fire.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 10:36 AM
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is proposing limiting the ability of city and county government employees to serve as elected officials, citing a conflict of interest when those employees control the salaries for their own positions. While the governor's aggressive agenda for change has been impressive and he does have a point here, I do not agree with this specific proposal.
The two examples that pop to the front of my mind of local government employees who served as elected officials recently are Mike Diekhoff, the current chief of police who served as a police officer while on the Bloomington City Council, and Warren Henegar, a part-time employee of the county Health Department who was elected to the Monroe County Council in 2004. While I did not often agree with either man on public policy, I do not believe that being an employee of local government hampered their effectiveness in their respective positions.
Governor Daniels is right that there is a conflict of interest when people vote on their own salaries, and I would support legislation to require local government employees to abstain from voting on matters that directly affect their jobs. (Diekhoff has voluntarily abstained from voting on salaries for the Police Department in the past.) Any such legislation will have to be carefully written and spell out very clearly what city and county employees may vote on and what votes they must abstain from to avoid any confusion. Some of these (like salary ordinances) are obvious, but other votes may not be as obvious.
I do not think that the statement in the Indianapolis Star that the state legislature "is rife with conflicts of interest" because several legislators are school district employees is a fair one. Voting on funding from the state does not directly affect teacher salaries because those are determined by local school boards. The criticism by Greenfield Mayor Brad DeReamer that police officers should be sharing knowledge whether or not they serve on the city council misses the point that a city councilor is going to have much more access to persuade and inform other city councilors than he would if he were not elected.
Obviously, there can be serious ethical concerns, such as when a Hammond City Councilor introduced an amendment "that gave him and four other foremen $5,000-a-year raise." Some reform is clearly needed here to prevent egregious abuses of the public trust. What the legislature should not do, however, is move too far with these reforms. Common-sense reforms can and should be made without completely banning local government employees from bringing their expertise to the table as an elected official.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:14 AM
I am a conservative Republican voter. I affiliate with the Republican Party because, while I share many of the Libertarian Party's beliefs, I recognize that the GOP is the most effective option for public policy to move in the direction of limited government. However, I hold no loyalty to the Republican Party itself and I hold no official position with the GOP. My principles are my motivation for being politically active, not support for any political party.
There will be times when certain Republicans will not support conservative principles. We've seen this in city and county government with former City Councilor David Sabbagh's sponsorship of the "gender identity" ordinance in 2005 and County Commissioner Joyce Poling's support of an expanded ban on smoking on "public places" in 2005. I was very critical of John McCain in last fall's Presidential campaign and I openly supported Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. When I believe it is necessary to criticize Republicans, party loyalty will not prevent me from doing so.
However, I will support good Republican candidates, as I did with Congressional candidate Mike Sodrel and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. If the Republican candidate is not acceptable, I will not hesitate to support the Libertarian Party's alternative, as I did last fall and in the race for state representative in District 60 in 2002. As I said above, I hold no loyalty to the Republican Party and will criticize Republican candidates or elected officials who deserve criticism.
This stance has made a few Republicans very unhappy with me over the years. I hear calls for "party unity" and I am urged to avoid criticizing Republicans. My New Year's resolution for 2009 is to automatically reject all of these complaints. Arguments for party loyalty or party "unity" will carry absolutely no credibility with me.
Many in the Republican Party talk about having a "big tent" party. The fact of the matter is that it is simply not possible to have a "big tent" without arguments and disagreements within the party. If we are going to have people in the GOP who strongly disagree on core issues, those disagreements will often be public. Asking people to silence their voices in the name of blind partisanship does no good to voters seeking a party that shares their values.
There is another reason why I reject arguments for "party unity", and that is the malcontents in the local GOP. While any political party will have malcontents, they have significantly ramped up their vile and despicable behavior over the last three years. I have seen malcontents hide behind fake names and spread malicious personal gossip about me, threaten me on several occasions, and bitterly attack certain Republican candidates on a deeply personal level. I have seen malcontents run to the Internet and tattle about the party chairman and certain Republican activists.
In the 2007 city elections, I played the good soldier. I not only refrained from criticizing the GOP candidate for Mayor, I actually endorsed David Sabbagh despite serious ideological differences with him. (In fairness to Sabbagh, I did believe he would be a significant improvement over the incumbent, Mark Kruzan.) Despite the fact that I embraced the "party unity" the malcontents claim to want, the malcontents continued to spread malicious personal gossip, bitterly attack me personally, and threaten me on several occasions.
Well, I am done trying to be "unified" with a bunch of malcontents who have nothing else in their empty lives but to spew hateful filth against anyone not in their clique. I recognize that the malcontents are just as much the enemy of the Republican Party as the Democrats are, and should be treated accordingly. It is simply not possible to be allies with people who are filled with hatred, any more than a rabbit can expect to get along with a Beagle. A Beagle isn't interested in getting along with a rabbit; a Beagle is interested in eating the rabbit.
One specific anonymous malcontent has said on several occasions that I should be "removed" from the Republican Party. How exactly does she expect to do that? Legally, there is no way to prevent me from voting in the Republican primaries, which publicly identifies me as a Republican.
But the malcontents are ultimately not interested in removing me from the party. They are interested in silencing me, by persuasion or by threats. The biggest and most consistent complaint by malcontents is my letters to the editor and (to a lesser extent) my Internet postings. This demonstrates why the malcontents are not "moderates" as they claim. Determination to silence views you disagree with is not a "moderate" position - it is the act of a bitter malcontent.
The malcontents can read this last paragraph very closely. I am not going anywhere. I am not going to be silent. I will continue to comment on political issues at the local, state and national level. I will continue to write letters to the editor and update this political blog. What you malcontents need to do is grow up and recognize that you will not get everything you want and that in a free society there will be opinions expressed that you do not agree with. If you do not like that, you are free to move to Communist China, Cuba, North Korea or Iran.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:15 AM
When you walk into Woodburn Hall on the IU campus, you may notice a mural near the front of the room. On this mural, you see a large image of white nurse caring for a black baby. Farther down on the mural, you will see a journalist, which is historically significant because it was journalists who exposed the corruption that led to the downfall of the Ku Klux Klan, which once ruled Indiana politics. The artist who painted the mural, Thomas Hart Benton, is known as an opponent of the KKK.
But this is not quite the image you have been told about, is it? If you were to believe the ranting of shameless race-baiting demogouges, you would think the Woodburn mural is a celebration of a white supremacist hate group. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A December 16 letter to the editor in the Herald-Times suggests "the painting so prominently displaying the KKK could be taken out of Woodburn. The artist could have put KKK members in handcuffs, but instead, chose them marching in full regalia." This incredibly dishonest misrepresentation of the mural is nothing short of reprehensible. The Woodburn mural (again, painted by an opponent of the Klan) is a representation of Indiana history, and like it or not the KKK is a prominent part of Indiana history.
We should never seek to sweep history under the rug because it is ugly or repulsive. Remembering the worst parts of our history (and the Klan's influence over Indiana certainly qualifies) serves as a reminder not to repeat the sins of the past. This is one of the reasons that Holocaust "revisionists" (deniers) are held in such low regard. The murder of several million Jews (and others) by Nazi Germany is a tragedy that we must never forget, and the phrase "never again" is often used when remembering it.
The December 16 letter argues that "reminders of lynching are not something students of color want hitting them in the face during class." I am sure an image of the KKK is uncomfortable to look at, but there is plenty of information available to put the mural into context. Students offended by the mural can easily educate themselves about the mural and its place in Indiana history. Those who are not able to sit in a lecture hall with the mural and unwilling to educate themselves about it may want to consider if they are mature enough to pursue higher education at this time and drop out until they grow up.
Indiana University has posted a history of the mural on the university's Web site. When Colonel Richard Lieber of the Indiana Department of Conservation (who had to approve the mural) resisted including an image the KKK, Benton got Democrats in the Legislature involved. Democratic "legislators apparently demonstrated such an enthusiasm for revealing the sins of their political opponents that Lieber caved in and agreed to permit Benton to include the Klan in the mural," according to the IUB web site.
The repeated calls to remove the Benton mural from Woodburn Hall represent a dangerous attack on freedom of speech and academic freedom. No institution of higher learning should ever practice censorship to soothe hurt feelings, especially when those feelings are not in line with established historical fact, ignore the context of the mural and ignore the positive images on the mural.
And, as I said at the beginning of this column, we should not cast aside images of racial harmony and the memory of those who fought the KKK in favor of uninformed hurt "feelings" or worse, shameless race-baiting demagoguery.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:27 AM
Tomorrow, we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. While many church services focus on the glorious birth of Christ with heavenly host singing, it is also important to recognize how much of a sacrifice it was for Jesus to come to earth to be our Redeemer. We often think of the crucifixion as Christ's main sacrifice, but his entire life was a sacrifice for us.
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. -- Isaiah 53:2-3
Many paintings of Jesus depict Him as a glorious, good looking man. But the prophesy of Him in Isaiah indicates that He was just the opposite. Born in a manger rather than a palace, Jesus humbled Himself to be with the lowly rather than the rich and powerful. Born as a baby, Jesus humbled Himself by being completely dependent on his mother and father for everything aspect of His life: food, shelter and clothing. Think that the Creator of the universe was completely helpless.
Most importantly, why did He do this? Jesus came to earth, endured the humiliation of helplessness, endured the humiliation of being of low social status, and endured the suffering of the cross for our sins. All of us have sinned against God, and no one has the ability to repay that debt and make ourselves right with Him. So God Himself comes to earth and suffers, and is eventually executed for the sins we committed against Him. What a merciful and loving God our Father is, to sacrifice Himself to free us from the bondage of sin and death.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:19 AM
As a general rule, I do not like it when government passes a law that restricts what private citizens can do. We already have too much government in our lives and the direction we should be moving is less government, not more. However, the primary function of civil authority is to make it illegal for one person to harm another. This includes reckless behavior that unnecessarily puts other people at risk of harm, such as drunk driving.
On December 19, the Monroe County Commissioners approved a ban on text messaging while driving. (See articles here and here.) Composing a text message distracts the driver of a vehicle and significantly increases the risk of an accident. Since you have to look at the phone to type, it is worse than talking on a cell phone while driving. While it should be common sense to avoid sending a text message until you are safely at rest, too many people are sorely lacking in common sense.
This isn't to say the law doesn't have problems. First, if the Commissioners are serious about deterring text messaging while driving, a $25 fine is too low. Given the increased risk of an accident presented by texting, the fine should be $100 (or more) with second and third offenses increasing the penalty. A $25 fine is not going to provide much of a deterrent, but if someone knows he will have to pay four (or ten) times that amount, he will be much less likely to violate the ordinance, even with the knowledge that enforcement will not be a high priority.
There has been a lot of chatter about how the text message ordinance is unenforceable. I do not think that is a terribly impressive argument. If a law needs to be implemented, difficulty of enforcement should not necessarily be the primary obstacle to passing it. I am more concerned when government passes a law for the sole purpose of "educating" people. Commissioner Iris Kiesling told the Herald-Times "our main message is to get people to realize this isn't a good thing to do." Kiesling also voted for a bike helmet ordinance while on the Bloomington City Council in 1996. The ordinance was passed with specific instructions from the City Council that it not be enforced.
One benefit of the law is to change behavior through education. However, I believe it reduces respect for the rule of law to pass a law that you know will not be enforced. I doubt that many people who text while driving will be convinced simply because the County Commissioners made a statement. If the Commissioners are serious about the text messaging ordinance and serious about the issue overall, they should treat it with the seriousness it deserves by giving the ordinance some teeth.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:00 AM
I have gotten a few e-mails from a socially conservative issue advocacy group on a topic I see every year at this time. The so-called "War on Christmas" continues as Home Depot and Costco allegedly avoid any mention of Christmas on their web sites or in their stores. The emails (which often have factual errors) urge readers to contact both stores and make sure they recognize Christmas.
I am so sick of this bickering every holiday season. There are a lot of childish people on both sides of the "War on Christmas" who need to have a glass of warm milk and take a nap.
Who cares if a company does not mention Christmas in advertisements or on their web site? How does that harm anyone? How does that infringe on anyone's right to celebrate Christmas as they see fit? How and why would this interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the Christmas season? Complaining about retail chains that are "anti-Christmas" makes the complainers look like a bunch of busybody religious fanatics. Shop or don't shop as you see fit, but keep your mouth shut about it and stop embarrassing yourself.
Yes, some people actively oppose Christmas, but the actions of a few bitter people do not constitute a "war on Christmas" any more than the lack of the word "Christmas" on a retail chain's web site. The demands to include a "flying spaghetti monster" display with a manger scene or a sign generally criticizing religion as fantasy are childish actions that do not require full mobilization of an issue advocacy group's email list. I do not care of there are no manger scenes on government property. I would rather avoid unnecessarily offending people.
People, it is Christmas time. Stop looking for battles to fight and focus on what should be the happiest time of the year. Enjoy your friends and family. Easily offended crybabies need to recognize that they live in a culture that, while certainly not Christian, is heavily influenced by Christianity. The Christmas "warriors" on the other side need to approach the issue with love, mercy and grace and understand that there will always be people who are offended by the name of the Lord. Those people need prayer and the Gospel, not an obscene gesture.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 10:33 AM
Regarding the criticism of Lila Rose of Live Action Films in a December 18 letter to the editor by Mara Margolis, it is a bit of a stretch to say that Rose "is not concerned" about the sex abuse scandal at Planned Parenthood. Yes, it is true that Rose is an anti-abortion activist. That is not exactly a secret, so the claim that her investigations of Planned Parenthood are a "PR cover up" for her anti-abortion agenda is just plain silly.
Ms. Rose (like me and many others) is opposed to Planned Parenthood because they are America's #1 abortion provider. But opposition to PP's abortion "services" does not indicate that we do not oppose PP's other bad behavior. The fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood staff believed that a 13 year old girl was pregnant by a 31 year old man and attempted to cover it up.
Margolis complains that "parental consent laws have severely restricted choice" regarding abortion. It has never made sense to me why teenage girls (especially young teens) should have access to abortion without parental consent. This has been said so many times it has become a cliche, but when a 14 year old girl cannot get her ears pierced in some states without parental consent, why should she be able to get a major elective medical procedure like abortion without parental consent? And what about the right of parents to rear their children as they see fit? (Within reason, of course.)
Michael Newton makes the laughable claim in the comments section that the LAF sting is like mailing illegal material to someone without their knowledge or consent and then alerting law enforcement. That is just plain stupid. The Planned Parenthood "nurse" was not trapped into covering up sexual abuse. Once given the information, she made the decision to do that based on the knowledge she had.
Newton then criticizes my consistency on protecting life, saying "it only counts when they're "unborn" and something less than biologically viable." Why? Because I wrote earlier this week that "it would be a mistake to send American combat troops" into Sudan to deal with the genocide in Darfur.
Newton dishonestly fails to include my entire statement, where I very clearly stated that "more aggressive diplomatic intervention and humanitarian aid is appropriate" to deal with the crisis. I also said that "(t)he military should not be used unless there is a vital national security interest at stake, and even then military force should be a last resort." Newton's attempt to spin my comment as a statement that we should do nothing is simply a lie.
By the way, Michael, I have never claimed to be a Libertarian, meaning a member of the Libertarian Party. What I have said is that I am a philosophical libertarian. There are quite a few philosophical libertarians who consider themselves to be Republicans.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:15 AM
In a "Feminist Wire Daily Newsbrief" for December 11, Ms. Magazine quoted my statement in the Wall Street Journal and called me an "anti-choice" activist. (I was quoted in the WSJ last week.) I cannot help but be amused at the irony of being called "anti-choice" on the issue of taxpayer funds for abortion providers.
It is abortion rights supporters, after all, who are forcing abortion opponents to contribute financially to an organization we find morally repulsive through our tax dollars. Abortion rights supporters have convinced the government - local, state and federal - to use tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood. As the WSJ points out, "Planned Parenthood receives about $335 million a year" in corporate welfare from taxpayers.
When it comes to tax funding for Planned Parenthood, it is clear who is "pro-choice" and who is not. Opponents of corporate welfare for America's largest abortion provider believe that taxpayers should have a choice on whether or not to contribute financially to the organization. Supporters of government funding for PP take away that choice.
This is why the term "anti-choice" is a flawed description of those who believe abortion should be illegal. Witch the exception of anarchists, everyone is "anti-choice" on something, whether it be illegal drugs, the drinking age, smoking bans or planning and zoning regulations on the use of private property. There is pretty much universal agreement to be "anti-choice" on murder, rape, theft, arson and kidnapping.
I am pro-life, though some would prefer to use the term "anti-abortion" to describe me. That is fine, because I am anti-abortion. But some who describe themselves as "pro-choice" would not be in favor of letting legal adults between 18 and 20 years old choose consume alcohol, as I am. Some who describe themselves as "pro-choice" would not be in favor of allowing business owners to allow smoking on private property, and others who describe themselves as "pro-choice" would support much more strict restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms than I would.
While I have used the term "pro-choice" in the past to describe those who believe abortion should be legal, I believe "abortion rights advocate" (or "abortion rights supporter") is a much more accurate term that is confined to the issue under discussion. I have also used "pro-abortion", obviously, but if one is looking to write a fair and balanced article "abortion rights advocate" would be the preferred term.
Of course, I do not expect Ms. Magazine to be fair and balanced, because they, like National Review and this blog, have an editorial stance that influences their writing. Ms. is honest about that bias, which I respect. That does not make labeling me as "anti-choice" on tax subsidies for abortion providers any less inaccurate or misleading.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:57 AM
♣ A letter to the editor in Thursday's IDS takes issue with the description of Live Action Films as a "human rights" organization because LAF has "solely dedicated themselves to anti-abortion causes." There is no more pressing human rights issue than abortion, as babies are dismembered for profit at the rate of 1.2 million annually.
♣ The IDS staff editorial on Friday was unecessarily offensive, comparing a song and prayer before the opening of the Indiana House of Representatives to drunken and lewd behavuior by legislators in Australia. That the IDS had to reach back to 2005 for the story about the Indiana legislature demonstrates that this was little more than a cheap shot at people of faith. The IDS should apologize for this reckless and offensive attack.
♣ While the genocide in Sudan is truly apalling, it would be a mistake to send American combat troops there, even on a humanitarian mission. The American military, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be overextended by a mission to Darfur. The military should not be used unless there is a vital national security interest at stake, and even then military force should be a last resort. While more aggressive diplomatic intervention and humanitarian aid is appropriate, we should heed the lessons of Somalia and avoid sending troops into what will inevitably be a quagmire.
♣ Chalk up another example of excess in the "War on Drugs" with a report by the CIA that pilots in the Peruvian air force, seeking to stop drug trafficking, fired "without being properly identified, without being given the required warnings to land, and without being given time to respond to such warnings as were given to land." This program, aided by the CIA, resulted in the death of an American missionary and her daughter in 2001. Whatever one thinks about decriminalization, abuses of power by government are a far greater threat to our liberty than the drug trade and it is disturbing that the CIA was involved in this disaster.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:09 AM
Bloomington Herald-Times, December 15, 2008
To the editor:
For 10 years, Peggy Welch has consistently advocated for the preservation of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. When California's Supreme Court ruled that California's "defense of marriage" law passed by a majority of voters several years earlier was "unconstitutional", it demonstrated the need for the issue to be settled constitutional law.
California voters approved an amendment to the state's constitution to protect marriage last month. It is significant that 70% of blacks in California rejected claims that same-sex marriage is the same as interracial marriage, and voted for the amendment. 70% of blacks in Florida also voted for a marriage protection amendment.
In 2006, Pat Bauer promised to allow a vote in the Indiana House on a marriage protection amendment so that Hoosiers have a chance to approve it. (H-T, October 29, 2006.) Bauer broke his promise in 2007, but the election results in California (a much more liberal state) should serve as a mandate for him to allow a vote in the next legislative session.
I applaud Peggy Welch's efforts to protect marriage, but she needs to realize that as long as she continues to caucus with the Democrats, she nullifies her own vote.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:01 AM
A number of Leftists are complaining about the sting operation conducted by Lila Rose of Live Action Films at the Bloomington Planned Parenthood. The words "lie", "fraud", "liar" and "deceit" are popping up all over comment sections and forum threads.
First, we have to keep the sting in perspective. What is worse, the LAF "deception" or covering up the sexual abuse of a 13 year old, girl? This Planned Parenthood employee acted as an accessory to child abuse. For a Planned Parenthood employee to send a 13 year old girl out of state to get an abortion and to cover up sexual abuse by a 31 year old man is sick and depraved.
Some have complained that I called the incident a "sex abuse scandal." I called it a "sex abuse scandal" because that is exactly what this is. That Rose is actually 20 years old and that there was no sexual intercourse or pregnancy is irrelevant - the video shows that the "nurse" clearly believes Rose is 13 years old and instructs her to claim the father is closer to her age instead of 31. As I said two days ago, It is difficult to believe that an incident like this takes place out of thin air. It is unlikely that this was an isolated incident.
I applaud Lila Rose for her courage in going undercover and exposing Planned Parenthood's evil practices. In fact, Rose is doing what the police should be doing. As Mike Adams said in his December 8 column, law enforcement should "run stings on local offices of nationwide networks when there is credible evidence that they are engaging in complicity with statutory rape."
She has done this before, but her courage has not come without a price. Planned Parenthood in California threatened Rose with civil action for recording the conversation with Planned Parenthood staff. This is just sick. Planned Parenthood gets caught serving as an accessory to sexual abuse and they actually threaten to punish the young woman who exposed their behavior. An honorable organization would not retaliate when these deeds are exposed. An honorable organization would seek to reform itself so this does not happen again.
But we all know Planned Parenthood is not honorable. After all, Planned Parenthood kills babies by dismemberment for profit.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:10 AM
I agree with David Horowitz that the conservatives sounding the alarm about Barack Obama's birth certificate are embarrassing the conservative movement and would be well advised to drop it. Horowitz is right, but for the wrong reasons.
First, the idea that Obama is not an American citizen is a conspiracy theory that is not credible. Is it realistic to believe, in today's society, that Obama is truly not an American citizen? Are we to believe that his former employers have not discovered the issue when he filled out an I-9 form? Are we to believe that Obama's other interactions with government, such as something as simple as getting a driver's license, did not raise a flag regarding his citizenship?
Realistically, with the amount of documentation required to function in today's society, it is highly unlikely that Obama is hiding something regarding his birth certificate. This is especially true for a high-profile elected official and candidate like Obama. It is actually a testament to Obama that he allowed the criticism and conspiracy theories to continue to spread without releasing the document and embarrassing the critics.
My problem with Horowitz's argument is he casts aside the rule of law in the name of democracy. We are not a democracy, nor are we a representative republic. We are a constitutional republic. The highest authority in our system of government is the Constitution, not elected officials or the voters. If Barack Obama is not qualified to be President under the Constitution, then he should not be President, regardless of the political ramifications.
Horowitz repeatedly complains about disenfranchising the 66.8 million people who voted for Obama. But what about the 58.3 million who voted for McCain? Would they not be disenfranchised if the winning candidate is not even legally qualified for the office? An appeal to popularity in a discussion of constitutional law is inherently dangerous.
We simply cannot throw aside the Constitution because it is politically inconvenient. If we decide that the Constitution is a "living document" (which is exactly what Horowitz advocates when he writes about the "organic nature of human societies") then we have no Constitution at all. Elevating the "will of the people" over the rule of law is anything but conservative.
