Seat belt laws are abut money, not safety.

The report in the Herald-Times on January 21 demonstrates that the increased effort to cite motorists for seat belt violations is about money, not about safety. The H-T reported an officer said “officers volunteer for the seat-belt duty and are required to make a certain number of stops to comply with the grant.”

So there you have it. The purpose here is to get more overtime pay for police officers and more money in tickets for local government. When the nanny state regulates our behavior “for our own good” it is always about power and money, not about public safety. The fact that there are quotas for tickets proves this is a shadow tax increase.

We have become far too willing to allow government to micromanage our lives. It is incredibly foolish and stupid to not wear a safety belt. Had I not been wearing a safety belt a few years ago, I would have been seriously injured in an accident. But it should not be up to government to regulate private choices that only increase private risk and do not directly cause harm to other persons.

And what business does the federal government have in funding local government’s efforts to squeeze money out of people who foolishly choose not to wear safety belts? Where in the Constitution is the federal government given this authority? Does not the Tenth Amendment reserve powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states or the people?

My pastor often says that when you eliminate God’s moral law, you do not get fewer laws. Instead, you replace God’s moral law with an infinite number of man’s petty laws. It is beyond depraved that someone can be pulled over in front of 421 South College Avenue and fined for increasing risk to himself, but that same person can legally have her child murdered inside the Planned Parenthood building at that address.

Pro-abortion terrorism in Bloomington

Last week, I criticized the immature response of pro-abortion demonstrators who showed up at the Rally for Life, carrying signs such as “free vasectomies for pro-lifers” and trying to shout down our speakers. Had that been the extent of their childish behavior, that would have been fine. But on January 26, pro-abortion radicals, wearing bandannas to hide their faces, committed an act of terrorism in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic.

While abortion opponents were peacefully picketing Planned Parenthood and trying to convince the women going into the clinic not to kill their children, pro-abortion terrorists arrived with water balloons and threw the balloons and chunks of ice melt at the pro-life demonstrators. It is interesting that they targeted a woman and a black man, suggesting racist and misogynistic motives for the attack in addition to a political motive.

And yes, this absolutely is terrorism. The use of violence to achieve a political end is by definition an act of terrorism. The purpose of this criminal act was to intimidate and threaten those who were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights to speak on an issue of public debate. The purpose was to use violence and threats of violence to prevent people from expressing a position the pro-abortion extremists dislike.

Of course, pro-abortion trolls on HeraldTimesOnline immediately defended the terrorists and said they should not have even been arrested. One pro-abortion troll suggested pro-lifers deserve “far worse” and another suggested they should have used condoms instead.

Imagine for a moment that people picketing Planned Parenthood had thrown water balloons and chunks of ice melt at clinic escorts. Imagine for a moment that anti-abortion extremists had thrown water balloons and chunks of ice melt at people attending an abortion rights rally at City Hall.

The Left would be hysterically screeching and shrieking about “anti-abortion terrorists” and there would be calls for government action. The very same pro-abortion trolls (who hide behind fake names like spineless, sniveling pathetic cowards) would be hysterically denouncing the anti-abortion violence and each and every one of them knows it. They are two-faced, fork-tongued hypocrites!

Action needs to be taken to punish these terrorists to the fullest extent of the law. Prosecutor Chris Gaal (a Democrat who voted to fund Planned Parenthood with tax dollars while he was a City Councilor every year from 2000 to 2006) needs to aggressively pursue charges against these terrorists to see they are punished.

But that is not enough. Federal action needs to be taken as well. These people need to be prosecuted by federal prosecutors under terrorism statutes. The Obama Justice Department needs to show that it takes terrorism seriously and will not tolerate the use of violence and intimidation to prevent people from exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Both Obama and Gaal need to make an example of these people by punishing them to the fullest extent of the law.

But that is not enough. Bloomington claims to be a “safe and civil city.” Both the Bloomington City Council and the Monroe County Council need to pass resolutions condemning this act of terrorism in the strongest terms and naming it as terrorism. The resolution should also call for everyone involved in the abortion debate to refrain from violence.

It should be pointed out that the only violence that has taken place outside of Bloomington’s abortion mill (to say nothing of the hundreds murdered inside that damnable building) has been perpetrated by pro-abortion extremists, and this is not the first time that peaceful abortion opponents have been attacked. It is time to draw a very clear line in the sand and send a message that this will not be tolerated.

Much like the Earth Liberation Front terrorists a decade ago, the pro-abortion terrorists who perpetrated the crimes on Thursday have done more damage to their cause than their opponents could have done in a century of activism.. When will Bloomington’s radical fringe Leftists learn that violence in pursuit of political ends (also known as terrorism) is not only wicked, but incredibly destructive to the very cause they advance?

The fake Don Imus "controversy" revisited

Brent Bozell attacks the double standard on the use of the word “ho” and argues this “was about race.”

Actually, while there was a racial element to the manufactured crisis, it was not about race or appropriate language. It was much more sinister than that. It was about criminalizing speech Leftists do not like. Se my previous posts about this fiasco from April 10, 2007, April 15, 2007 and August 16, 2007.

Random thoughts of the day

♣ I would never sign a fidelity pledge as a candidate for any office. I already made my vow to my wife in 2001 before God and His church. Signing a political fidelity pledge cheapens the marriage vow and reduces a covenant with God to a political statement. It’s sickening and these groups should be ashamed of themselves for asking candidates to sign it. Candidates should be ashamed of themselves for signing them instead of rebuking this disrespect for marriage.

♣ This is why “Anonymous” is stupid. They propose to protest SOPA by taking down an opponent of SOPA! Why would you attack your allies? This will only serve to backfire and discredit “Anonymous” as a bunch of spoiled brats who can’t be taken seriously. Shut up, already, you bunch of morons.

♣ So yet another American is being held hostage by the Iranian government. The answer to this problem is obvious. If the American hostage is still alive when Ahmadinejad comes back to New York, we arrest Ahmadinejad and hold him hostage. If the American hostage is executed, we retaliate. When Ahmadinejad comes back to New York to deliver a “speech” to the United Nations, he will be arrested and summarily executed.

♣ Rachel Maddow has taken to describing Indiana’s Right to Work proposal as “stripping union rights.” That’s not the case, as this is not the same as taking away collective bargaining rights from state employees, as has been done elsewhere. Right to Work actually gives employees more choice by making compulsory union membership illegal. Which raises the obvious question: What are unions and Democrats afraid of, regarding allowing employees to choose?

♣ President Obama opened his State of The Union speech by praising soldiers returning from Iraq for making us safer. Obama is famous for saying the war in Iraq was “a dumb war.” Obama said in January 2008 that Al Qaida was stronger that it was in 2001 because Iraq “distracted” us. Obama said in October 2004 that the Iraq war has made the United States less safe from terrorism and that it was a bad strategic blunder. Could Obama be any more of a hypocrite?

Penn State fan whines about being "disrespected"

There was some extra-pathetic whining and crying in a letter to the editor from a Penn State fan today:

Dressed in our Penn State gear, my wife and I were treated very rudely by many different people. I have never seen such blatant disrespect by people of all ages.



I know Penn State’s reputation has taken a big hit recently, but maybe people in Indiana don’t realize that every person who roots for Penn State did not commit a horrible crime.

No, but Penn State “fans” did behave like Muslim terrorists when Joe Paterno was fired. As I said before, I actually have exponentially more respect for the Muslim terrorists than the Penn State “students” though, because (while their religion is false) the Muslim terrorists are at least rioting in defense of their god’s honor, instead of something so meaningless as college football.

Improving black people’s lives is not racist

This is where we are in racial politics in America: Recognizing the problems faced by minorities and proposing the need to fix those problems is a “racist” argument that amounts to “scapegoating” minorities. This is why it is so difficult to address racial issues in America.

Enter Newt Gingrich, who has criticized Barack Obama as a “food stamp President” and argues we need to find a way to have blacks earning paychecks instead of getting government benefits. Gingrich was immediately attacked for being divisive and racist, and his rhetoric was compared to shouting “n****r, n****r, n****r.”

Because I live in Literalville, I am compelled to examine the statistics. TheGrio.com article even admits that 2010 Census data shows that 26 percent of food stamp recipients were black. That is more than double the percentage of blacks in the population. Clearly, this is a problem.

Government benefits, ideally, should be a stop-gap measure to help people though a difficult time and let them get on their feet. (Of course, in a perfect world all poor relief would be handled by churches and private charities.) For far too many people off all races, government benefits have become a way of life instead. This is not compassionate. It is oppressive. People are designed by God to want to provide for themselves, not to be provided for by others.

There are reasons why blacks tend to get some government benefits at a higher rate than whites, and some of those root causes (like out of wedlock births) will need to be addressed in a rational and adult manner. (It should be pointed out that illegitimacy is a problem across all races.) But the important thing here is solutions to improve the lives of as many blacks as possible. How could that possibly be racist?

Two verses from a new father

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. — Ephesians 6:1-3

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. — Colossians 3:20

2012 Rally for Life draws 200, plus immature opposition

About two hundred people attended the 2012 Rally for Life on Sunday, about the same amount as has attended the last several years. It has been ten years since I got active in the annual event to oppose abortion, and this particular year was very encouraging due to the inclement weather and the previous day’s ice storm.

Joseph Bayly (pastor of ClearNote Church in Indianapolis) opened with a quote about a great moral evil:

We must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion… and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!

That was Abraham Lincoln speaking about slavery, but it could easily have been said by someone today about the even greater evil of abortion. Too many churches abandon God’s commandment to defend the innocent from those who would oppress them because they don’t want to get into politics. When Christians speak about the evil of murdering unborn children, we are told that you can’t legislate one religion’s beliefs.

Pastor Bayly saved his exhortation for the crowd, rather than our opponents in the fight over abortion. He spoke of a hypothetical pro-life Republican who practices in vitro fertilization, not understanding that the embryos discarded are made in the image of God. Christians do not speak nearly often enough against the “morning after pill” or stem cell research, and many Christians are willingly ignorant of the fact that the birth control pill can kill a newly created life by preventing implantation. We do not speak because we fear losing ground financially.

We have had counter-protesters before, but this year was different in that the immature pro-abortion activists tried to actively shout down the speakers. In this, they demonstrated their hatred for free speech by seeking to silence those advocating a viewpoint they disagree with. I do not respect these people for this reason and another reason.

If you want to be taken seriously, make a serious argument. By holding a sign that reads “fun ends at conception” or “free vasectomies for pro-lifers” you are proving that you do not take the argument seriously enough to make a coherent case for your position. If you do not behave in a way worthy of respect, then you should not expect to be treated with respect. Furthermore, chanting that abortion opponents “don’t care when women die” is absurd on its face for an event that is more than half female.

Perhaps in the future, we can have a reasonable debate with counter-protesters at the Rally for Life, but when the only purpose is to mock, taunt and ridicule, reasonable and serious discussion is impossible.

See pictures from the 2012 Rally for Life here.