Penn State and the corruption of authority

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. — Luke 16:13

There is no question that Jerry Sandusky is an evil man. His punishment was not nearly harsh enough – he should have been executed for his crimes instead of only sent to prison. Yet as angry as I am with Sandusky, I find the evil behavior of Penn State so-called “University” as well as other authorities to be even worse than Sandusky’s behavior.

It is popular among conservatives, even Christian conservatives, to say that government is a “necessary evil.” But Scripture makes it clear that government is not a necessary evil – it is a blessing our Father in Heaven has given to us to protect us from the wicked. Government does not bear the sword in vain, but is an avenger for the blood of innocents. God established earthly authority because it is absolutely necessary. (For more on this, see Romans 13:1-4.)

The problem is when government run by sinful men abandons its primary responsibility. A wicked government will not protect the innocent from the wicked, and will instead oppress the innocent. This is certainly not new, but this is what is at the heart of the rape scandal at Penn State so-called “University.” This was not just a failure of those in positions of authority to protect innocent children from being brutally raped by a sexual predator, but the actions of institutions that are corrupt all the way to the core.

Let’s be honest about what happened at Penn State. This was not the behavior of a lone sexual predator. Spiritually speaking, this was the ritualistic Satanic sexual abuse of children. Penn State allowed Sandusky to rape little boys because they did not want to harm the football program. In other words, Penn State placed the worship of money (mammon) above the worship of Almighty God. To protect their cash cow – their golden calf, if you will – Penn State covered up the sexual abuse and refused to bring Sandusky to justice.

But it went beyond the so-called “university.” One of Sandusky’s victims went to Karen Probst, the principal of Central Mountain High School where he was enrolled. Rather than stepping up as commanded by God to protect those under her care, this thoroughly corrupt government bureaucrat told him and his mom to go home and think about it. It was a complete betrayal of not only the victim, but of every single taxpayer who has ever paid a penny to keep the so-called “school” operating. Probst should be sitting in a prison cell next to Sandusky.

But the corruption does not even end there. The district attorney knew thirteen years before the rape scandal exploded into the public eye that there were serious and credible allegations of abuse against Sandusky. Nothing was done. This means that the very people who bear the primary responsibility for bringing sexual predators to justice and having compassion on the victims completely and utterly failed to protect Sandusky’s victims. There are a number of people in that office who should also be sitting in a prison cell next to Sandusky for being accessories to rape.

Of course, the failure of Penn State so-called “University” is well documented. Joe Paterno and many others in positions of authority knew of the rapes since at least 1998, but did absolutely nothing to bring Sandusky to justice or protect his victims. Again, worship of money trumped the commandments of Almighty God. For Paterno’s family to continue to defend him shows that they are every bit as evil and corrupt as he was.

To be brutally honest, I am surprised that none of Sandusky’s victims or their families have attempted to assassinate the district attorneys, the police, the “university” trustees or the “public school” officials who failed to protect them from being raped. Vigilantism is an evil thing, but when those in authority – especially those in the criminal justice system – refuse to protect the innocent, what do you think is going to happen? This is not to excuse people taking authority that God has delegated to others for themselves in a spirit of rebellion, but when those entrusted by God with authority refuse to punish evil, it breeds chaos and anarchy.

The complete failure of authority at every level should serve as a lesson about the nature and role of government. While government itself is a blessing from our Heavenly Father, the people in government are sinners and prone to corruption. Government must be limited not because it is inherently bad, but because the men running government are sinners and prone to abuse their power. Nothing proves this more than the Penn State rape scandal.

Disgraced ex-Congressman seeks to silence his critics

When ObamaCare passed the Congress and was signed into law, anti-abortion groups said that it was a pro-abortion law and that anyone who voted for it cast a pro-abortion vote. Barack Obama proved them right when he issued a regulation forcing employers to provide contraception – including abortifacient drugs – to their employees. Statists always work incrementally, so it is a safe bet that this mandate will eventually include surgical abortions.

But statists do not like having their records exposed, so they will seek to use the force of government to silence those who criticize them. This is the whole point of “campaign finance reform.” But that’s not the end of the Left’s effort to silence free speech they dislike, as one radical Leftist in Ohio has filed a frivolous lawsuit seeking to silence an anti-abortion group for telling the truth about his vote for ObamaCare.

The lawsuit by disgraced ex-Congressman Steve Driehaus has no merit and it is a failure of the legal system that a lawsuit so obviously frivolous was even allowed to proceed. In a sane and just society, Driehaus would be laughed out of court and his shyster of an attorney would be disbarred. Unfortunately, we do not live in a sane or just society.

But it is worse than a simple frivolous lawsuit – FoxNews.com reports that Driehaus even went to the extreme of threatening Lamar Advertising with criminal prosecution! That’s right. A disgraced ex-member of the United States Congress attempted to pervert the criminal justice system to silence criticisms of his record in the context of a campaign for elective office. This frightening attack on our Constitution must not be allowed to stand.

Driehaus whined pathetically about “loss of livelihood.” This is so laughable that it does not merit a serious refutation, much like Driehaus himself does not deserve any respect. Driehaus does not have a divine right to elective office. If the voters choose to remove him, for whatever reason, that is their right.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in the first paragraph of this post, voting for ObamaCare was a pro-abortion vote. Disgraced ex-Congressman Driehaus does not have a case, because no false statements were made by the Susan B. Anthony List. Driehaus simply does not want to have his record exposed and is trying to use the power of government to silence his critics – an action that proves his values are foreign.

We know that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, so any effort to attack free speech provides aid and comfort to al-Qaeda. What exactly does that make disgraced ex-Congressman Driehaus, according to Article III, Section III of our Constitution? The answer seems pretty clear to me.

Mourdock’s choice of words

Note: I sent a much shorter version of this to the Indianapolis Star.

The outrage over Richard Mourdock’s remarks on abortion is completely overblown and there is a great deal of misinformation (not to mention outright lies) about what he actually said.

Let’s get this clear: Mourdock never said rape is God’s will. He was articulating his conviction that all human life should be protected, regardless of the circumstances of contraception.

Could Mourdock have worded his statement better? Yes. But who among us has not worded something poorly, wishing we could have explained ourselves more articulately? Come on, folks. Mourdock was asked a question and he answered it honestly. Don’t we all complain about politicians always speaking in platitudes and not being honest with the voters?

The Indianapolis Star can sit on its carefully crafted moral high ground looking down on Mourdock for his choice of words, but it’s easy to do that when you have copy editors and the ability to have your story go into print hours or even a full day after it is written.

Mourdock’s position is intellectually and morally consistent. If the unborn child is a human being made in the image of God, why should it be acceptable to kill that child because of his father’s crime? Of course, it isn’t.

Of course, that’s not the spin we’re getting from the Left, who pretend to be shocked at this “new” position. Rachel Maddow said this on October 24 regarding the 2010 mid-term elections:

“(Republicans) ran five different candidates for the United States Senate that year who blew through what was previously even the anti-abortion movement’s rough consensus – that even if you did want to make abortion a criminal offense in America, you would at least not force that government decision on women who got pregnant though rape.”

That has never been the position of the anti-abortion movement, and Maddow knows it. Allowing for the rape exception has traditionally been the position of Republican candidates for elective office, but those people are not and have never been the same as the anti-abortion movement. Maddow must think no informed conservatives listen to her show, so she will never be called on it.

The reality here is that Joe Donnelly and his supporters are harping on a non-issue to distract from the facts. The fact of the matter is that of 1.2 million abortions, only 2% are due to rape. We’re talking about a small number here.

While Donnelly and his supporters whine about how “extreme” Mourdock is, we should examine who the real extremists are. It has been well-documented that Barack Obama voted against a bill to criminalize infanticide. Donnelly supports Obama. Who is extreme here?

Let’s also not forget that the Obama regime has used ObamaCare as a vehicle to issue regulations to force Christian parachurch organizations to distribute birth control, including abortifacient drugs. You can be confident that will extend to paying for surgical abortions as well, should Obama be re-elected.

Donnelly is desperately hoping that Mourdock’s less than optimal choice of words to describe his position on protecting life will distract from his own record and his own positions. I hope Hoosiers are intelligent enough to reject this obvious red herring.

MCCSC School Board must respect taxpayers, Part 2

I originally wrote this post on September 29, 2005. Sue Wanzer is up for re-election again in a three way race. She should not be re-elected, and her lack of respect for taxpayers is a big reason why.

The Monroe County Chronicle unloaded on MCCSC School Board President Sue Wanzer for her inexcusable behavior at last week’s School Board meeting.

The Herald-Times has yet to report on Wanzer’s outburst. Unfortunately, that is not a surprise. Once again, people in Bloomington and Monroe County have to go to an alternative news source for a big story. Fortunately, http://www.ConservaTibbs.com and the Monroe County Chronicle are here to expose what the H-T refuses to print.

And this is a big story. An elected official actually ripped up materials presented to her by citizens! Can you imagine the howling that we would hear from the Left if a Republican on the County Council or county Planning Commission were to show similar disrespect for his/her constituents and the First Amendment? You can be assured that if a conservative ripped up materials presented to him or her by constituents that the story would be plastered across the front page of the Herald-Times.

I said in my letter to Ms. Wanzer that she should resign from the School Board. At the very least, she should step down as president of the School Board, because she has proven herself unworthy of that office.

Elected officials are put into office by the voters to represent us, not to rule us. Our founding fathers set up a constitutional republic to this end. I do not expect elected officials to base every vote on what the constituents think. In fact, I prefer someone who stands by his or her principles (such as Democratic City Councilor Andy Ruff and Republican Congressman John Hostettler) to someone who practices “government by poll”. I respect someone who has the courage to vote his or her convictions even if it might result in fewer votes or even losing an election.

What Wanzer did last week, though, was far beyond simple disagreement with constituents’ objections and standing by her principles. Her actions were an outrageous show of contempt for all people residing within the boundaries of the Monroe County Community School Corporation. She broke the trust placed in her by voters and proved herself unworthy of elected office.

MCCSC School Board must respect taxpayers, Part 1

I originally wrote this letter on September 21, 2005. Sue Wanzer is up for re-election again in a three way race. She should not be re-elected, and her lack of respect for taxpayers is a big reason why.

Ms. Wanzer:

I have confirmed with people who attended the September 20, 2005 MCCSC School Board meeting that during the meeting you tore up objections to the MCCSC budget presented to you by taxpayers.

I find this behavior to be an unacceptable breach of the trust that voters placed in you in the 2000 and 2004 elections. While I do not expect elected officials to always agree with objections made by their constituents, I do expect that elected officials will treat those constituents with respect and will listen to those objections.

Despite being encouraged to attend MCCSC budget sessions by friends, I have not done so. Part of the reason I have not attended is because I believe that you people on the School Board do not take those who disagree with you seriously. The only reason I see to attend these meetings is to speak directly to the voters via the television cameras in hopes that they will make a better decision in the next election.

Your inexcusable behavior, however, goes far beyond this expectation. You won the election, and I expect that you will implement the policies you believe to be in the best interests of MCCSC. What you did Tuesday night was to show contempt for your constituents and their sincerely held beliefs. Your behavior, while legal, is nonetheless a show of extreme disrespect for the First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances.

A breach of public trust of this magnitude necessitates action. I call upon you to resign from the MCCSC School Board. At the minimum, you should step down as president of the board. You have an opportunity to set an example for other elected officials as to how to behave. Whether or not you lead by example is your choice.

Video games are not real, Part 3

They are at it again. Proving once again how completely deranged and unhinged they are, the eco-terrorist sympathizers at PETA have issued a fatwa, declaring a jihad against Nintendo for the Pokemon games. That’s right. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has once again morphed into People for the Ethical Treatment of Pixels, fighting against “cruelty” against fictional animals in service of the demon Gaia. Does this foolishness know no end?

This is not new. PETA whined pathetically in 2009 about the killing of dogs in one of the Call of Duty first-person shooters. PETA whined pathetically again in 2011, this time about Mario’s Tanooki Suit in Super Mario 3D Land. Does PETA not have enough to do advocating for real flesh and blood animals that they need to make utter fools of themselves whining about video games where not one single animal is even inconvenienced, much less harmed?

This is absolutely ridiculous. We still have dog fighting rings in which helpless animals are forced to maim and kill each other for the “entertainment” of depraved perverts in the audience. There are still legitimate concerns about the way animals are treated in so-called “factory farms” and there are still people who abuse their pets. The methods by which animals are killed by the fir industry continue to raise ethical concerns. With all of this going on, PETA/PETP is whining about a Pokemon game? Really?

I cannot believe I have to say this, but Pokemon is not real. Pokemon monsters do not exist, nor do Pokemon trainers. This is complete fiction in every possible sense of the word. Absolutely no animals (or humans for that matter) are harmed in the programming or manufacture of Pokemon games, nor are any animals harmed by people playing the games. In fact, the “animals” in the Pokemon games do not exist in real life – this is not even a video game representation of real animals, like the dogs in Call of Duty.

But see, this has nothing to do with animal rights or animal welfare. If the fools at PETA were legitimately concerned about animal welfare, they would not care about video games. This is about attention whores screaming “LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!” This is about getting media attention and having their foolishness blasted around the Internet. Everyone knows that this jihad is a stupid waste of time and that this fatwa is completely meaningless. But the fools at PETA cannot resist the temptation to get headlines, even if they have to make themselves look like deranged lunatics in the process.

But there is something much more sinister happening here, in addition to these fools being a bunch of attention whores. There is literally a demonic edge to the idiocy spewed by PETA. You see, the fools at PETA worship the Earth. This is old-school paganism, with these people bowing to the demon Gaia. Because demon-worship is so deeply embedded in PETA, no Christian should even consider supporting this organization. This is not to say we should not be a good steward of the Earth that God has given us, which includes opposing cruelty to animals. But we must always do so with the attitude that we worship Almighty God, not the rocks and trees and animals that our Father has created.

The Holy Spirit warns us against the blasphemy of PETA in Romans 1:22-25. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Democrats’ extremism on abortion

Barack Obama, the standard bearer for the Democratic Party, supports and has defended infanticide. Obama opposed legislation that would make it illegal to kill a baby after he or she is born. Obama issued a regulation earlier this year under ObamaCare forcing Christian parachurch organizations to pay for abortifacient drugs, and if Obama is re-elected it is a safe bet that mandate will soon cover surgical abortion as well. Joe Donnelly enthusiastically supports Barack Obama, and Donnelly voted for ObamaCare. In this context, any discussion of Republicans being “extreme” on abortion is absurd on its face.

That won’t stop the Democrats from trying to hide their own truly militant position on abortion by attacking Republicans for being pro-life. Richard Mourdock said on October 23 that he did not believe abortion should be allowed in the case of rape and that all life is a blessing from God. Mourdock was asked a question and answered it honestly, something that we very rarely see in politics these days. Instead of trying to spin his position or trying to play the game of political correctness, Mourdock answered a question from his heart and was genuinely emotional in his response.

Democrats are shrieking hysterically over Mourdock’s answer, but there is nothing wrong with it. Unlike some “moderate” Republicans, Mourdock’s answer is intellectually consistent. If you truly believe that abortion is the willful, intentional termination of innocent human life, why would you allow those lives to be terminated as a punishment for the crimes of their father? Does the unborn child somehow become not human because his or her father committed a terrible crime that many people consider worthy of death?

The reality here is that Democrats are harping on 2% of all abortions, when over 95% of abortions are elective abortions. We have about 1.2 million abortions a year in this country and about 2% of those abortions are due to rape. The reason Democrats want to focus the debate on whether or not there would be exceptions for rape is because they want to hide the fact that they support the vast majority of abortions that are elective.

Furthermore, Democrats are radicals on the issue and were even before Obama. As you recall, President Clinton vetoed a ban on partial-birth abortion. In a partial-birth abortion, the baby is delivered feet first until only the head remains inside the mother’s body. The skull is punctured, the brain ripped out and the skull crushed to deliver a newly-dead baby. With Clinton and Obama as their standard bearers, how can Democrats accuse Mourdock of being “extreme” with a straight face?

Folks, this is ridiculous. Now is not the time for cowardly “Republicans” to be attacking Mourdock, throwing him overboard or demanding that he “apologize” for his remarks defending the right to life for all unborn children. We have got to stop freaking out and having panic attacks every time our enemies throw a temper tantrum about something. Instead of forming a circular firing squad, we should be aggressively attacking Donnelly and Obama for their pro-abortion record. We need to win this seat and we need principled conservatives like Richard Mourdock representing us in the U.S. Senate.

Thoughts on the second presidential debate

Barack Obama was much more aggressive in the October 16 debate, after saying the previous week that he was “too polite” when he got shellacked by Mitt Romney in the first debate. Between his opening and his literal howler of a closing statement, the debate was much closer than last time, though Romney did win on substance. Some of Obama’s whining was very unprofessional and certainly unpresidential.

Obama whined several times about Romney’s proposal to de-fund Planned Parenthood, bringing it up several times without provocation. Obama lied about what PP does, claiming that the nation’s largest abortion provider also does mammograms. That is simply not true, and Obama knows it. But to a more basic question – does Obama really think that federal funding for Planned Parenthood is going to swing votes toward him? It might excite militant feminists, but those people are already on his side.

Romney did an excellent job of taking Obama’s record apart, noting that the official unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office, is 7.8% now and is actually 10.7% when you include people who have dropped out of the workforce. (It is actually higher than that, but the point stands, nonetheless.) There are 3.5 million more women in poverty than when Obama took office and Obama took us from a $10 trillion national debt to a $16 trillion national debt. Picking up on a theme Newt Gingrich had used in the primary, Romney pointed out that when Obama took office, there were 32 million people on food stamps, compared to 47 million now.

Obama defended his record by saying that the middle class has been hit hard over the last 15 to 20 years. That would include the “boom” times when President Clinton was in office, would it not? Is Obama attacking the Clinton economic record? Apparently not, because Obama immediately contradicted himself by praising the Clinton economic record and claiming the nation created 23 million jobs during Clinton’s time in office. Obama also claimed that the Clinton tax increase made the economy better, which makes no sense. I have never seen a coherent argument for why tax cuts harm the economy and tax increases help it.

Obama played the class warfare card against Romney, complaining that Romney had invested in Chinese companies. Romney pointed out that his money is in a blind trust (standard operating procedure for people running for President) and then asked Obama if he had looked at his pension plan. After Obama’s unpresidential, unprofessional and pathetic whining that his pension is not nearly as large as Romney’s pension, Romney pointed out that Obama is also invested overseas. Romney was not distracted by Obama’s baiting and exposed his hypocrisy.

Romney also took Obama to task for his energy policy, bouncing off a question from the audience about whether or not Obama agrees with his energy secretary saying three times that it is not his policy to lower gas prices. Does Obama agree with the cabinet secretary he appointed? Obama did not answer the question, but since Obama appointed him it is safe to say that Obama agrees with him. After all, Obama said in 2008 that he did not have a problem with $4.00 per gallon gasoline, just with how fast it got that high.

Romney pointed out that Obama’s energy policy matched his statement on gas prices, as Obama restricted oil production on federal land. Obama’s bragging about increased oil production amounts to him taking credit for increased production on private land. Not only has Obama cut licenses and permits in half for federal land and waters, Romney said, but Obama actually brought criminal prosecution against the people who have dramatically increased energy production in North Dakota. As Romney said, the proof for Obama’s strategy is the price at the pump, and it has increased dramatically over the last four years.

Romney’s tax policy is simple and reasonable. He would allow a set amount of deductions for the middle class, allowing people to choose how they will use the allowed “pot” of deductions. Even better, he said he would eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for anyone making $200,000 per year or less, encouraging much-needed saving.

Romney was also effective on Libya, pointing out that Obama flew to a fundraiser immediately after the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya, and wondering why the American public was not informed for days that this was a terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous reaction to a silly YouTube video. Was the administration misleading the public or were they incompetent? Obama was furious that Romney suggested he misled the American people, but that is exactly what Obama did – he flagrantly lied for a week about what happened in Libya.

Obama’s apologists have been mocking gun-rights advocates for suggesting Obama would pursue gun control in his second term. Obama did not pursue gun control in his first term, they whine. But after Tuesday night, no one can credibly argue that Obama is not planning on more gun control in his second term. After all, he admitted he was going to push for that! Romney, for his part, nailed Obama on providing assault weapons to terrorist crime syndicates in Mexico, resulting in bloodshed and carnage.

Obama’s closing statement was a real howler. Obama whined that there is this misconception that he believes government creates jobs. “That’s not what I believe,” Obama says. I literally laughed out loud at this statement. If Obama does not believe government creates jobs, what on Earth was the stimulus about? What is hiring more teachers, but hiring more government employees? I cannot believe he actually had the audacity to say that after he has bragged on his stimulus for four years and has been campaigning for another one.

Obama was more prepared for this debate, and fared better than last time. However, no amount of preparation or enthusiasm can change the fact that he is wrong on policy and that his policies have been bad for the country. Romney is right – we simply cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama.

Rally for Religious Liberty in Bloomington

Christian Citizens for Life sponsored a Rally for Religious Liberty on Saturday, opposing Barack Obama’s mandate that all businesses provide contraception to their employees – including abortifacient drugs. There is no exception for Christian-owned businesses or parachurch organizations.

CS Lewis, author of the Narnia books, once said that “They’ll tell you that you can have your religion in private, and then they’ll make sure you’re never alone.”

That’s what we’re facing now. The Supreme Court invented a “right to privacy” in Griswold v. Connecticut, but that is not enough. The so-called “right” to contraception must now include other people being forced to pay for it by the federal government. Christian objections to chemical birth control and abortifacient drugs are irrelevant.

We organized the rally to say “no” to this egregious assault on our liberty and overreach of power by the federal government. We organized the rally to tell Barack Obama that he may not force us to provide something when we object to it on Biblical grounds.

Speeches from the event are below:

It is important for Christians to stand in the city gates and say “NO” when government is in rebellion against God and His law, or when government infringes upon our right to worship our Father in Heaven. One way to do this is to attend a rally like the one we held on Saturday. Another way to do that is to vote, which I encourage all Christians to do.

CCFL is a non-partisan organization, so they cannot say what I am about to say, or endorse it. So this is my opinion and my opinion only. Mitt Romney is not the perfect candidate, but it is critical that we remove Obama from the Oval Office. Romney’s Mormon religion should not prevent us from voting for him to get rid of Obama.