Jack Hopkins social services funding schedule

The city has released the schedule for the 2012 Jack Hopkins social services finding process.The schedule is below:

Application Deadline – Monday, April 9

Agencies Present Applications – Tuesday, May 15, 5:00 P.M. – City Council Chambers

Committee Recommends Allocation Of Funds – Thursday, May 31, 5:00 P.M. – City Council Chambers

City Council Votes On Funding – Wednesday, June 20, 7:30 P.M. – City Council Chambers

Christians in Bloomington have been pleading with the City Council to not include Planned Parenthood with the agencies that get a portion of these limited funds. Every single year, the city council ignores the pleas of Christians and gives more of our tax money to an obscenely wealthy international corporation that throws babies into the flaming mouth of Molech every Thursday just a few blocks south of the county courthouse.

As I pointed out earlier this month, Planned Parenthood of Indiana admitted in their annual report that they enjoyed $15,135,052 in revenue while spending $14,232,019 – a profit of over $900,000. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Planned Parenthood “needs” a grant every single year from the Bloomington City Council?

Following is a list of the grants this evil corporation has gotten from city government:

1999 Medical exam table $5,000
2000 Teen education (Community Development Block Grants) $2,000
2001 Equipment to test for anemia $1,394
2002 Autoclave for the purpose of sterilizing instruments. $1,495
2003 Four computers $3600
2004 6 sets of cervical biopsy equipment $2,923
2005 Security cameras and equipment $1,500
2006 Install cabinetry and purchase files and furniture $2,440
2007 Friend to Friend Patient Pass program $5,000
2008 Colposcopies for women with abnormal Pap test results $2,500
2010 Distribute birth control to women & girls as young as 13 $5,000
2011 HIV test kits $4,200

See previous articles here:

♣  Don’t give tax money to abortionists — May 5, 2002

♣  There is no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize abortionists — June 18, 2002

♣  City Council gives money to Planned Parenthood — June 30, 2002

♣  No corporate welfare for the merchants of death — May 28, 2003

♣  Don’t give tax money to Planned Parenthood — April 30, 2004

♣  Don’t give tax money to Planned Parenthood — May 8, 2004

♣  Sturbaum should recuse himself — May 23, 2004

♣  Planned Parenthood’s grant request represents cynical politics — June 8, 2004

♣  City Council gives $$ to Planned Parenthood — June 19, 2004

♣  No corporate welfare for the merchants of death, part VII — May 10, 2005

♣  City Council gives $1500 to Planned Parenthood — June 16, 2005

♣  No corporate welfare for the merchants of death, Part VIII — June 19, 2006

♣  City Council funds Planned Parenthood — June 22, 2006

♣  Planned Parenthood’s latest request for corporate welfare — May 1, 2007

♣  Planned Parenthood’s request for corporate welfare — June 18, 2007

♣  Time to end the city’s subsidies to Planned Parenthood — May 5, 2008

♣  Billion-dollar corporation gets corporate welfare from Bloomington City Council — June 20, 2008

♣  Monroe County Council funds Planned Parenthood — December 9, 2009

♣  No corporate welfare for the merchants of death — April 26, 2010

♣  Follow-up on corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood — May 5, 2010

♣  Bloomington Democrats subsidize sexual abuse — June 22, 2010

♣  No corporate welfare for the merchants of death — September 27, 2010

♣  Monroe County Council funds felonies with tax dollars — October 20, 2010

♣  No corporate welfare for the merchants of death — May 10, 2011

♣  No corporate welfare for the merchants of death — June 15, 2011

♣  Planned Parenthood gets corporate welfare again — June 17, 2011

Moving toward sanity on alcohol policy

There were two good common-sense laws passed in this session of the general assembly relating to alcohol and the consumption of it. While these are good developments, it is unfortunate that these were not put in place decades ago. Nonetheless, it is good to see some sanity creeping into our alcohol policy that still has influences from Prohibition.

First, people who are walking home or riding in a vehicle will not be subject to arrest provided they are not causing problems. The Republican candidate for Mayor raised this issue in 2003 and drew derision from the Left.

This legislation really should not have been necessary. There is no need to mess with someone who is doing exactly what he is supposed to do by walking home or being driven by a sober friend. We do not want people to be drinking and driving, so law enforcement should not be acting in a manner that discourages responsible behavior. It should not have taken legislative action to curb overzealous law enforcement – that should have been in place years ago as a matter of internal policy.

The second step toward sanity (not to mention compassion) is the Lifeline law recently signed by Governor Daniels. This would exempt underage adults from charges of illegal consumption (and a few other things) if they have called 911 to report another person who has consumed far too much alcohol and is dangerously intoxicated.

Given the unfortunate prevalence of binge drinking, this will probably save some lives. Prior to this law, underage adults had a disincentive to call for medical attention for a dangerously intoxicated person. With that disincentive removed, hopefully more people will seek medical attention sooner. Of course, not getting so plastered drunk that your life is in danger in the first place would be the best policy, but promptly seeking medical attention once that foolish choice has been made is critical.

It would be better if underage adults were not prohibiting from drinking alcohol at all. I know I have said this repeatedly, but it is more than a little silly that an 18-20 year old can fight, kill and die in a war but cannot legally have a beer in his own living room while watching a football game. While I do not expect the drinking age to be lowered to a more common-sense level any time soon, it would be good public policy.

The importance of recognizing sarcasm

Last week in the Herald-Times, there was a sad but uplifting story about a hot air balloon pilot who sacrificed his life to save his passengers when a thunderstorm came out of nowhere.

In the comments, David Coonce posted the following political satire:


This selfless act by the pilot is no different than socialism or communism!! How dare he think of the greater good!! America is about individual freedom, and everybody should get his own. Who cares about others. ME ME ME!!!! What a commie!!!!

I, for one, am just glad my taxes don’t have to pay for any medical care these reds received.

For context, David Coonce is a very liberal Democrat and Obama supporter.

The negative ratings rained down on the comment, with responses such as “Totally unacceptable comment!” and “We shouldn’t drink and post.” My favorite, by far, was the hysterical temper tantrum posted by “Marq” eleven hours later:

This is one of the most VILE comments I’ve ever seen posted on HTO.

You’re a perfect example of what happens when one subordinates their basic humanity to political dogma.

You should feel ashamed of yourself — but I seriously doubt if you have any conception of the word “shame”.

Really? Vile? Someone who subordinates his humanity to political dogma?

Now, one could argue that this kind of political satire is out of place in comments for a story like this one. But even someone who does not know anything about Coonce’s political leanings should be able to spot this obvious, glaring sarcasm.

This is one of the things that is wrong with American politics. People are so emotionally invested in their political agendas that they become enraged by opposing views. They react on a visceral level, with feelings guiding their “arguments” instead of the cool water of logic. We see this all the time on social networking sites and through the blogosphere, where obvious sarcasm becomes inflated and produces people who are OUTRAGED!! OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU!!

Cool down. Have a glass of warm milk and take a nap. Ask yourself if you are interpreting something correctly. You can avoid humiliating yourself if you react with your brain instead of your feelings.

Legal or not, Lugar’s residency issues are politically toxic

When the Marion County Election Board ruled that Senator Richard Lugar was not qualified to vote in his precinct, the Lugar campaign bitterly complained that Lugar is not required to physically live in the state:

If a person has established residency for voting purposes in an Indiana precinct prior to his or her service in Congress, that residence remains the Congressperson’s residence as long as he or she remains on the business of the state or the United States.

I am not going to get into the legal issues, though I think whining about the fact that there was a challenge is silly. People have the legal right to file these complains, and our system exists to ensure that these issues are addressed. Whining that people are exercising their legal rights under Indiana law indicates Lugar is out of touch.

And that is the entire point – that Lugar is out of touch. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Lugar’s legal argument is entirely correct – that it is perfectly legal for Lugar to both vote in his precinct and represent the state of Indiana in the U.S. Senate despite his home being in Virginia for the last 35 years.

The simple fact that Lugar thinks it is OK for someone who is for all intents and purposes a Virginian and has been a Virginian for over three decades to represent the state of Indiana in the U.S. Senate proves that Lugar is out of touch with the average Hoosier. The concept is very simple: Just because something is legal does not make it right.

Interstate 69: Nobody likes a sore loser

On March 9, the Metropolitan Planning Organization voted 7-6 to include Interstate 69 in the long-term plan, which will allow federal money to be spent on building the highway and (for now at least) avoids a confrontation with INDOT that would have cost the city and county tens of millions of dollars in funding for infrastructure.

It’s not over yet. Sore loser county commissioner Mark Stoops is challenging the vote because the adult son of county highway director Bill Williams is employed by a subcontractor of a company working on the highway. (Williams sits on the MPO and voted yes.) Local activist David Keppel whined in a letter to the editor that Williams’ yes vote was “legally and ethically dubious.”

This situation reminds me of the following exchange in one of my favorite movies, Spaceballs:

Dark Helmet: I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.

Lone Starr: What’s that make us?

Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing!

Folks, this is ridiculous. The purpose of conflict of interest laws is to prevent people from voting on things that would directly benefit them, or would benefit a spouse or minor child. That anti-interstate radicals are seeking to trash the personal and professional reputation of an honorable and professional county employee in order to advance a political agenda is representative of everything that is wrong with politics today. Williams cannot simply disagree with anti-interstate radicals on the substance of the issue. No, he must be somehow ethically compromised. This is shameful!

Are we really seeking to have Williams’ vote voided because of where his adult son happens to be employed? If we are really going to trash someone’s personal and professional reputation because of that, there are an infinite number of permutations of conflict of interest we could get into. After all, every single person in the community is going to be directly impacted by the work to upgrade 37 to interstate standards and connect it to the rest of the highway.

There are legitimate arguments against Interstate 69. It is going to be very expensive to build. Some people are going to lose their property to the highway, including their homes. There will be an environmental cost to the highway. We have been debating the construction of the highway for decades, and those objections are as relevant today as they were twenty years ago. The argument about cost might even be more relevant today because of the staggering budget deficit and national debt.

We can and should continue to have that debate, but the debate over I-69 should be based on substantive public policy issues – not on shameful personal attacks against dedicated county employees. Stoops and Keppel should be ashamed of themselves, and both of them should publicly apologize to Williams for their false accusations.

Bristol Palin calls out Barack Obama

Bristol Palin has a great blog post calling out Barack Obama for his hypocrisy in not condemning Bill Maher, who donated $1,000,000.00 to the Super-PAC supporting Obama. Maher, as you know, was much more insulting and demeaning to Bristol and her mother, and has even stooped to viciously attacking a three year old child. (Also see the CNN report on Obama’s two-faced hypocrisy.)

Obama may not be legally allowed to contact the PAC directly but nothing is stopping him from making a public statement that the PAC should return the donation.

Indiana Right to Life PAC endorses Mourdock

This is excellent news!

Posted with permission from IRTL PAC.

Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee endorses Richard Mourdock for United States Senate

March 22, 2012

For Immediate Release

The Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee announced today that it is endorsing Richard Mourdock in Indiana’s Republican primary for the United States Senate. In a media statement issued this morning, IRTL-PAC Chairman Mike Fichter made these comments on the endorsement:

“The Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee is pleased announce its endorsement of Richard Mourdock to represent Indiana as a member of the United States Senate. While there are many reasons we are proud to make this endorsement, it simply comes down to this: we cannot afford to give Richard Lugar the opportunity to help place one more activist judge like Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor onto the United States Supreme Court. Should President Obama gain a second term, and should he have the opportunity to fill one of the Supreme Court seats currently held by a conservative justice, we will lose the Supreme Court for a generation unless we have Republican senators willing to fight this administration’s attempt to use the federal courts as a tool for judicial activism.

Richard Lugar will give the President his rubber stamp approval for any nominee put forward for the Supreme Court, just as he did when he voted to confirm Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Richard Mourdock, on the other hand, understands the dangers of judicial activism and will firmly oppose any Supreme Court nominee who does not hold to a conservative judicial philosophy that is rooted in the United States Constitution.

Unlike Richard Lugar, who has twice voted with a majority of Senate Democrats to use federal dollars to pay for embryonic stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos, Richard Mourdock will fight to see that not one dime of federal funding supports this type of research that is abhorrent to the pro-life community.

And unlike Richard Lugar, who supports federal restrictions known as McCain-Feingold that trample the free speech rights of organizations like Indiana Right to Life when it comes to election-related communications, Richard Mourdock will work to roll back these restrictions, recognizing the freedom for organizations like ours to engage in election-related communications without the threat of overbearing government regulations.

Hoosiers understand that we are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history. The status quo in Washington has given us a legacy of federal judges that are making law up as they go along, federal agencies that are dramatically eroding the freedom of everyday Americans, and federal spending that is digging a financial hole that our great grandchildren will not be able to get out of. And tragically, the status quo is giving us the federal takeover of health care that is attempting to force every American to subsidize the business of abortion.

It’s time for dramatic change in Washington, and it starts with the election of men and women who are willing to do things differently than the way they are currently being done in Washington. Richard Mourdock is such a person for a time such as this.

The Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee is proud to endorse Richard Mourdock for the United States Senate, and we call on every pro-life Hoosier to give him their vote in this primary election.”

Taco Soup recipe

I made this for the first time last week and it’s too good not to share.


  • 1 – 2 lbs hamburger fried
  • 1 onion chopped
  • 1 (16oz.) can chili beans, slightly drained
  • 1 (15oz.) can kidney beans with liquid
  • 1 (15 oz.) can hominy or corn, drained
  • 1 (8 oz.) can tomato sauce
  • 2 Cups water
  • 2 (14.5 oz.) cans peeled and diced tomatoes
  • 1 (4 oz) can canned green chile peppers, chopped or adjust to your taste
  • 1 pack taco seasoning

Put all of it in the crock pot and put on low for 8 hours. This serves 4 to 6 people.

I used chicken instead of hamburger and it worked fine.

Thank God for Hell!

Mohammed Merah is suffering in horrible burning agony in Hell right now. He will continue to suffer in horrible burning agony in Hell for all eternity. This proves that Jesus Christ is a loving and merciful God, because Merah’s victims have Divine Justice.

Thank God for Hell! Praise Jesus for Hell!

I could not be a Christian without the knowledge of Hell.

The obligation to go negative

I’ve written in defense of negative campaigning before, and I’ve floated that editorial on the blog a couple times the last two years. Here is another important point to consider.

Some people do not like to go negative and will refrain from doing so. An incumbent running for re-election may want to focus on his record rather than criticize his opponent, and someone running for an open seat may want to only talk about his qualifications for the position and why he should be chosen for that position. In a primary election where two very similar candidates are seeking an open seat, a lack of negative campaigning would not be unusual.

This is not something I agree with, as voters should hear all of the information about the candidates, both positive and negative, in order to make an informed choice. But there are some candidates who have an obligation to go negative against their opponents, and those candidates are the ones challenging an incumbent. After all, the very fact that the challenger is on the ballot is a statement to voters that the incumbent is unqualified to continue serving in office. If the incumbent was doing a fine job, then why bother challenging him?

Simply put, the voters deserve an explanation as to why they should remove the incumbent from office. What has the incumbent done wrong? Has the incumbent abused his authority? Has the incumbent mismanaged his office? Does the incumbent advance policies that are ineffective, counterproductive or destructive? In a primary election, does the incumbent not represent the majority of the party?

When someone is running for office against an incumbent, the burden of proof is on the challenger as to why the incumbent should be removed from office. If the challenger cannot or will not show voters why the incumbent should be removed, why would anyone vote for that challenger? Why not simply keep the incumbent in office?

If a challenger does not articulate why the incumbent should be removed, then the message sent to voters is not that we need to go in a new direction, but that the challenger is seeking office for his own personal ambition. Candidates who are seeking to remove an incumbent from office purely for personal ambition instead of the desire to make a substantive change (especially in a primary) do not deserve to be elected.