Marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant.

Rachel Marsden preemptively defends Rick Perry in case the fishing expedition to find a sexual liaison finds something of substance. Her editorial is completely wicked and depraved. Those of us old enough to remember the Clinton sex scandals of 1992 and 1998 remember conservatives arguing that Clinton was unqualified to be President because he broke his sacred marriage vows. This column does not belong on conservative TownHall.

Now, we do have to keep in mind that there are false accusations, such as the smears against Nikki Haley in 2010. We should be immediately suspicious of allegations against Perry because of the fact that Leftists are openly looking for people to claim they had sex with him.

Let’s examine her arguments a little deeper. Marsden says that we and our spouses change over time and sometimes those changes cannot be reconciled. Who is to say that a change in personality is different from a change in appearance? After all, everyone gets older. Is a husband justified in playing the whore because his wife puts on a few pounds or develops some wrinkles? What about men who gain a pot belly and lose their hair – going gray in what they have left?

Marriage is a picture of Christ’s relationship with the Church. Will Jesus Christ abandon His church? Would it be OK for the church to abandon worship of the God who died for our sins to worship the demons Moloch and Gaia? Jesus preached an intense sermon in Matthew 19 against divorce. Marriage is not a contract subject to termination on a whim. Scripture lays out very specific clauses for escaping the marriage covenant, and those are very limited. If a man’s wife cannot trust that he will not leave her for younger flesh, then how can we as voters trust that politician?

There is a reason that idolatry is so closely tied to adultery throughout Scripture. Suggesting that adultery is OK is terribly wicked. Saying that a married politician who cheats on his wife before leaving her for another is comparable to someone test driving a new car before selling their old one is damnable. Again, if a man’s wife cannot trust him, how can the voters? How do we know his word on tax reform or entitlement reform can be trusted when he casually breaks a covenant made before God?

Yes, people fail. People sin. King David, a man after God’s own heart, committed adultery and then murdered his close friend to cover it up. The fact that someone fell into sin would not keep me from voting for him, provided he is truly repentant for his wicked actions – as King David obviously was in his Psalms of confession. Churches are filled with broken sinners who need to grace of Jesus Christ. The reason to go to the cross is not because you are good, but because you are evil and you have no hope apart from the unmerited grace and mercy of our Lord.

But forgiveness and mercy do not make wickedness and depravity OK. Failing and repenting is fine. Casually brushing aside wickedness and betrayal as something that is OK because “we are all human” is not anywhere close to fine.

Facebook tightens privacy settings

Facebook has made a change to tagging photos, wall posts and notes: Users can now pre-approve tags, so they don’t show up without the consent of the person being tagged.

There are definitely advantages to this. First, I have seen people lose control of their account to spammers. Those spammers then post pornographic pictures and tag the hacked person’s friends as a means of distributing their pornography. Usually, those pictures have absolutely nothing to do with the person being tagged. They are simply a way to distribute filth. I had to de-friend a couple people who lost control of their account because of inappropriate tags.

The only problem I see is the tagging feature in wall posts and notes contribute to some free-flowing discussion on Facebook that would be impeded by forcing the tags to be pre-approved. Hopefully Facebook will allow users the option of permitting tags without pre-approval. That way, each user can decide on a case-by-case basis whether they want to control all of the tags that link to their profiles.

What I found interesting is the lede for the story: “drunken revelers rejoice.” Now, those embarrassing pictures taken at a party will not be connected to your account unless you approve them. I have a better idea though. Don’t allow those pictures to be taken in the first place and don’t put yourself in such an inebriated state that you could have photos taken of you without your consent or knowledge.

Here’s the reality that people need to recognize. Not one single thing on Facebook is truly private. You should never post anything on your wall or in your photo albums that you would be horrified to see on the front page of the newspaper or on the 6:00 news. True, you can limit who sees your stuff to your friends, or even specific groups within your friends list. But once something is on a website, it is in the public domain. You have completely lost control of it.

Social networking has made our lives much more open to the public than they were even ten years ago. What is posted on social networking sites can affect your marriage, your family, your political ambitions and even your present or future employment. Think carefully about what you want to share and what would be better left offline.

Poverty in America vs. income inequality

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. — Exodus 20:17

We’re hearing a lot about poverty, especially in an economy that is admittedly terrible. But what is poverty? Is poverty defined in absolute terms (such as the ability to have enough food) or is poverty relative to income statistics? If it is the latter, then poverty means nothing. In America, our poor are rich compared to the rest of the world. (For more, see Heritage Foundation studies from 2007 and 2011, along with columns by Walter Williams and John Goodman.)

First, let me say that real poverty exists. There are people who are legitimately poor in measurable terms. So please don’t accuse me of denying the reality of poverty. I don’t.

But it is absolutely critical that we have firm standards by which to judge poverty, rather than worrying about one of the Left’s boogeymen, “income inequality.” A quick Internet search reveals a mountain of commentary about “income inequality.” (See here, here and here for examples.)

But the reality is that poverty and income inequality are not the same.

As an example, let’s say Bubba makes $250,000 a year. Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning will make an average of $18 million a year over the next few seasons. That’s certainly income inequality. But does anyone feel sorry for Bubba? I don’t.

I’m frankly disturbed by the rhetoric about “income inequality” as if that’s something bad in and of itself. I do not make a Peyton Manning income and never will, but I am more than satisfied with what I have. I don’t begrudge Manning his mega-millions. After all, the Colts are willing to pay him that salary and no one forced them to do so.

But to many on the Left, the fact that there is a large income gap between rich and “poor” is a huge problem that threatens our economic system and even our liberty.


There are many people who are so obsessed with the fact that someone else has more that they are unable look at what they actually have and enjoy the blessings that they have been given in this life. Someone may have a nice computer, cable television with 100 channels, high-speed Internet access, a nice home with central air conditioning, and plenty of food in the pantry, refrigerator and freezer. Yet he or she is still unable to enjoy it because he or she cannot afford the bigger and better things someone else has.

This whining about income inequality should be rejected. Class warfare rhetoric leads to bad economic policy. Instead of doing what is actually economically beneficial, opportunistic politicians promise to “soak the rich” – as if punishing someone for having more actually helps anyone. All that does is ferment social unrest that actually does threaten liberty.

As Christians, we should recognize that using “income inequality” to stir discontent is a direct violation of the 10th Commandment. Furthermore, we are commanded to be thankful throughout Scripture. How can we be thankful when we are constantly unhappy that someone else has more than we do? It is shameful – and sinful.

Pat Buchanan: Why are we baiting the Russian Bear?

A very good editorial:

What is wrong with Senate Resolution 175?

Just this. Neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia has been under Georgian control for 20 years. When Georgia seceded from Russia, these ethnic enclaves rebelled and seceded from Georgia.

Abkhazians and Ossetians both view the Tblisi regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, though a favorite of Washington, with contempt, and both have lately declared formal independence.

Who are we to demand that they return to the rule of Tblisi?


O’Donnell’s walkout suggests she is "not ready for prime time"

If you are a former candidate for federal elective office taking stands on public issues, then you need to be willing to answer questions about those issues when asked by reporters. Walking out on an interview is not the proper way to handle it and illustrates a lack of maturity.

That’s exactly what Christine O’Donnell did last week when she walked out on an interview after repeatedly refusing to answer questions about homosexual marriage.

I’ve supported O’Donnell in the past and have blogged in support of her. (See here, here, here and here.) I still think she was a better candidate than the establishment Republican she defeated in the 2010 primary and certainly better than the Democrat who defeated her last November.

However, she knows she’s been a controversial figure and she can expect questions she may not want to answer. One of the things I find most annoying about politicians is when they refuse to give a straight answer to a question, and O’Donnell behaved like a typical politician. If she doesn’t want to answer those questions she should not consent to interviews. I don’t think she should disappear from politics or the arena of ideas, as Brent Bozell does, but she does need to handle herself better and avoid any further episodes like this one.

The H-T has it wrong on canceling elections

The Herald-Times published another shameful editorial yesterday, attacking county clerk Linda Robbins and calling on her to “uphold the law” by leaving names off the ballot. The problem with this argument is that people had been posting all day before the editorial was posted to HeraldTimesOnline on Tuesday evening making good points about whether the law actually prohibits including the names of unopposed candidates on a general election ballot.

First, the way the “newspaper” dealt with Robbins was inexcusable. When Robbins told the H-T she did not know how much the election would cost, the “newspaper” got snarky, editorializing that her answer “shows either a lack of candor or a lack of knowledge she really should have.” Robbins responded in the comments:

I was interviewed about this subject while driving in my car. I would rather shoot an “I’ll get back to you” than guess, and the article was written prior to my ability to get back to the office.

This is simply not acceptable. Is this what “journalism” has sunk to in a city that hosts the Ernie Pyle School of Journalism? This was a pure “gotcha” moment, nothing more. The Herald-Times needs to apologize to Ms. Robbins for calling her dishonest in print, and H-T editor Bob Zaltsberg should apologize to Ms. Robbins face-to-face.

With the way the H-T is treating Robbins, you would think she is a Republican rather than a Democrat.

As was pointed out in the comments, the word may has a different meaning than the words shall and must. But the real kicker is the legislative summary (see here and here) which very clearly states that removing municipal candidates from the ballot is optional. The summary reads that the bill “provides that uncontested municipal offices are not required to appear on the ballot in a municipal or general election.”

Obviously, “not required” is very different from “not allowed” for any reasonable person.

Of course, the Herald-Times had access to that language because it was already posted in the comments for an earlier story. Any freshman journalism student at Indiana University – or a high school student, for that matter – could have very easily found the legislation and read the legislative summary. Clearly, the Herald-Times has an agenda, though I cannot imagine why a newspaper would want people to take office without even getting one single vote.

The H-T whines that holding an election in Ellettsville with no contested races “will be an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayers’ money.” Elections are not a waste of tax money, unless you are an authoritarian who believes people should not have any voice in who represents them. Apparently, that describes the Herald-Times editorial board.

There is also the issue of the the right to vote as protected by the state constitution:

Section 1. All elections shall be free and equal.

Section 2.

    (a) A citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and who has been a resident of a precinct thirty (30) days immediately preceding an election may vote in that precinct at the election.

    (b) A citizen may not be disenfranchised under subsection (a), if the citizen is entitled to vote in a precinct under subsection (c) or federal law.

    (c) The General Assembly may provide that a citizen who ceases to be a resident of a precinct before an election may vote in a precinct where the citizen previously resided if, on the date of the election, the citizen’s name appears on the registration rolls for the precinct.


The state constitution trumps state law, so any law that allows (much less forces) counties to cancel an election is null and void. County clerks are not permitted to disenfranchise voters. Canceling elections is disenfranchisement.

Game, set, match, H-T. You lose again.

Previously: All candidates should always be on the ballot

All candidates should always be on the ballot

The Indiana Legislature has decided to make a large number of elected officials illegitimate with an astonishingly stupid law removing the names of unopposed candidates from the ballot.

The good news is that Monroe County Clerk Linda Robbins has decided the county has some wiggle room and is permitted to place unopposed candidates on the ballot. This is a good thing. If this was not an option, it would drastically reduce the confidence of voters in their elected officials. In the upcoming Bloomington city election, Mayor Mark Kruzan, City Clerk Regina Moore and 5 of 6 Democrats running for district seats on the City Council would be “elected” to their positions without getting even one single vote.

But while counties have this option, that is not nearly good enough. What were the legislators in Indianapolis thinking?

I understand that not printing the names of unopposed candidates would save money in areas that use paper ballots, and at a time when many counties are struggling financially saving money is a laudable goal. But is having a mayor, city clerk or city councilor be “elected” to public office without even one single vote really a good idea? Do you think this helps or hurts the relationship between government and citizens?

Much like the Tea Party faction of the GOP, I am a philosophical libertarian. I believe government should be as limited as possible, and that government should spend as little as possible. But I am not an anarchist. Government must exist to provide a basic structure for society, provide basic ground rules for the market, and defend those who cannot defend themselves from predators and criminals.

Paying for elections and making sure that all of the candidates for elective office are on the ballot – whether they have an opponent or not – is a basic function of government that we need to find a way to finance. Even permitting (much less requiring) local government to remove the names of people from the ballot and have them automatically “elected” with absolutely no input from the citizens is a recipe for disaster. This removes the most important transparency we have in government – the right to know who we are electing.

The legislature needs to immediately come back into session and repeal this foolish and anti-democratic law.