Nothing But Questions

The media has been on top of the story of a neighborhood watchman killing a 17-year old boy.  The coverage has been mindful throughout of the fact that the boy, Trayvon Martin, was black, and the watchman, George Zimmerman, is Hispanic.  Sides have already been taken, with God knows how many believing Zimmermann is guilty, and some of them calling for his arrest (or worse).  Others (God knows how many) believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

The problem here is none of us knows just what happened.

What is known is that Zimmerman followed Martin the night of the shooting, called 911, was either confronted by or confronted Martin, and at some point shot him.  It's also known this occurred in February, and the police didn't pursue charges against Zimmerman at the time.  Now comes the speculation

Zimmerman claims Martin confronted him, then physically assaulted him, prompting Zimmerman to defend himself with his gun.  Those who believed Zimmerman is guilty contend he pursued Martin and was not provoked into shooting him.  Many of those who believe Zimmerman is guilty believe he committed the crime out of racial prejudice (a small minority believe he acted out of unfounded suspicions).  This is roughly (I believe) the gist of it, but a bigger problem has grown from this story: The using of Trayvon Martin to further the agenda of a mob.

The most vocal of this mob have been those who've called for Zimmerman's head, not merely called for an investigation or even for his conviction in court, but are calling for his head.  The New Black Panthers put out a bounty on Zimmerman, Spike Lee (the idiot) and others tweeted and retweeted Zimmerman's address, Roseanne Barr tweeted the address of Zimmerman's parents (just think, she could be President of the United States; scary, isn't it?), and there even continues to be a Twitter account with the name KillZimmerman (complete with crosshairs over the picture of Zimmerman for their profile picture).

The ever reliable mob-baiters like Al Sharpton have begun the usual cheap preaching of the racism supposedly reeking in this case, and the media continues to swallow it up and spew it out in their slanted coverage.  Politicians and pundits are using the case for their own political agendas, which include not only the decrying of racism they contend is prevalent (although it doesn't appear to be), but also demonizing Florida's Stand Your Ground law (as an appropriately named idiot, Ed Schultz, did when he put blame former Governor Jeb Bush).  Despite all of this, a few voices of sanity have spoken, calling out the mob-baiters and the media for their exploitation of Trayvon Martin and fueling the fires of hate against George Zimmerman.

More information continues to come out, and it still leaves me with questions.  What we need to do is keep an open mind and call for an investigation.  If George Zimmerman is in fact guilty, then he needs to be punished in a court of law, and if he did act in self-defense, he should be promptly acquitted and left alone.  Unfortunately, with what has been happening as a result of this mob calling for Zimmerman's head, even if he's acquitted, he may never be left alone, and that could be the greater crime here.

Standing Up For Religious Freedom

All across America, in nearly 150 cities, people stood up for religious freedom.  The rain had been coming down and threatened to ensure a low turnout, but in the end, hundreds of people gathered in Fort Wayne to stand up for religious freedom.

Hosted by Allen County Right To Life, those of us who attended gathered at the front lawn of the Allen County Courthouse in downtown Fort Wayne to protest the continuing efforts of the Obama administration in trying to force religious institutions to pay for contraceptives (including abortifacients), regardless of whether it goes against their religious beliefs or not.

The hour-long rally consisted of a number of speakers, including a few politicians (all local) and readings of written statements by Senator Dan Coats, Richard Mourdock and Bishop Kevin Rhoades (the head of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese).  Some of the speakers there stood out with their words, notably Allen County Councilman Kevin Howell, a pair of deaconesses from Concordia Theological Seminary, and Sean McBride, the communications director for the FW-SB Diocese (and who also read Bishop Rhoades' statement).  One of the key points raised during the rally was the blatant violation of the separation of church and state at work here, yet the most vocal advocates of separation of church and state have been silent on the matter.

A large number of the attendees were Catholics, but there were also a considerable number of Lutherans (including my own pastor, for which I thank God) in attendance, as well as other Christians.  One notable attendee was State Representative Bob Morris, who was metaphorically tarred and feathered for sticking to his guns when he refused to sign on to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the national Girl Scouts organization.  I had the chance after the rally to thank him for standing by his beliefs, and when I mentioned I had known of the connection to Planned Parenthood for some time, he responded, “You should've said something.”  How right he is.  I'm thankful for that reminder of the need to speak up.  Keep fighting the good fight, Representative Morris.

Rain came down prior to and at the beginning of the rally (most of the time it consisted of drizzle), so there was the possibility of low attendance.  One local media outlet reported dozens were there (it looked like hundreds), but Kevin Leininger, a columnist for the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, cited the estimate from the rally organizers at 350 (more than half of them women).  In the end, rain didn't stop any of us from coming.

The debate continues, with the other side claiming it's a matter of women's health, but all of us who went to the nearly 150 cities across America this past Friday are not giving up, as we clearly showed by standing (part of the time in the rain) for religious freedom.  We know this is a fight for all religious institutions, not just the Catholic Church, to be able to stay true to their beliefs, and to say no to any government that demands the violations of those very beliefs held so dear.  We gathered in Fort Wayne to say to the Obama administration and to everybody who insists on this mandate, Enough is enough, and we will continue to convey that message however long it will take and no matter what.  To paraphrase Martin Luther: Here we stand, we can do no other.  God help us.

When There's Nothing Left

It wasn't too long ago when it was reported my senior U.S. Senator, Dick Lugar, is in the electoral fight of his life.  It wasn't too long ago when the issue of his Indiana residency came up, and it seemed like the matter was resolved when the state electoral commission ruled his name was on the ballot legitimately.  Then came the news that the local election board in Marion County (the city of Indianapolis) has ruled the Senator and his wife are not eligible to vote in what used to be their home precinct.  And what has the Lugar gang done in response?  They condemn the Mourdock campaign, among others, for what they consider dirty politics.

The Lugar gang has tried to overcome the stigma of “Obama's favorite Republican” by presenting him as a conservative Senator, but a look at his record, however, shows a different type of Senator, a Senator who supports gun control, amnesty for illegal immigrants, increases in government spending (including raising the debt limit repeatedly), earmarks, increasing the size and scope of government, international treaties aimed at taking away our rights as Americans, Presidential appointees like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, David Hamilton and so on.

When the residency issue was brought up, the Lugar gang tried to dismiss it as an old issue, then they tried to whitewash it as a matter of service, and when the issue didn't die, they resorted to negative attacks against everybody who has brought up the issue.  And not only has the Lugar gang targeted them for what they decry as dirty politics, they've also followed the Senator's lead in trying to demonize Tea Partiers as extremists, they've tried to demean the endorsements of groups like FreedomWorks, the NRA, Gun Owners of America and Club For Growth as meddling by D.C.-based lobbying groups, and they've tried to smear Richard Mourdock as a negligent State Treasurer.  Why all the misleads, distortions and attacks?  Because they have nothing left.

Senator Lugar's supporters have tried and failed to present their candidate as a conservative Hoosier instead of Barack Obama's favorite Republican (one supporter even claiming Lugar is a Reagan conservative, as absurd as that sounds), so quite unsurprisingly, they've resorted to any and all negative attacks against Richard Mourdock and those who've backed him.  In the end, their negative efforts have shown their desperation and more damage has been done to their credibility as a result.

As for the residency issue, it has shown how far out of touch Senator Lugar is with Indiana.  No matter how hard the Lugar gang tries to portray him as a Senator For Indiana, the fact the Lugars sold their Indianapolis home 35 years ago and have not established a residence here in Indiana since casts great doubt on that image.  What this episode, as well as this entire campaign, has shown is that it's time to retire Dick Lugar and it's time to elect a real Senator for Indiana, Richard Mourdock.

Lugar's Vision Needs Glasses

Senator Lugar's campaign is setting the record straight (they say) about his record on ObamaCare (they say) with a new ad presenting his Vision (they say):



There are three things I noticed about the ad:

1) They cite Richard Mourdock claiming he's the only candidate who'd support a lawsuit to strike down ObamaCare, then go on to say the Senator voted against ObamaCare 32 times in the Senate and fought ObamaCare in the courts.  Here's one interesting thing, though: When an amicus brief was filed by Senate Republicans in 2010 in support of the lawsuits against ObamaCare, Senator Lugar was not among the Republicans who signed on.  It was not until early January of this year, in fact, that he signed onto a second brief.  In addition, if you notice Mourdock's claim highlighted in the ad, it was apparently in response to a questionnaire presented by a Tea Party group in Hamilton County (just north of Indianapolis), and in the upper left-hand corner, you see the year 2011.  In other words, Mourdock's response came before the Senator decided to sign onto the second amicus brief.

2) The Lugar camp claims the Senator was the guy who asked our Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, to look into the constitutionality of ObamaCare which resulted in Indiana joining the multi-state lawsuit currently before the Supreme Court (which the campaign describes as the Lugar/Zoeller ObamaCare repeal), and at one site, the date is said to be in January of 2010.  I find that interesting because if Senator Lugar has been such an ardent opponent of ObamaCare, why didn't he sign onto the first amicus brief filed by his Republican colleagues in the Senate ten months later?  The fact he only signed onto the second brief two months ago looks very convenient.

3) The overall attempt by the Lugar camp to present the Senator as an ardent opponent of ObamaCare brings to mind something that happened in 2009.  During a health care rally held in Washington that November, I and a number of fellow Hoosiers had the opportunity to speak, not with Senator Lugar of course, but with a staffer of his to talk about ObamaCare, and the response was the Senator was opposed to the overhauling of the health care system.  What caught my attention was the reasoning behind his opposition; it was conveyed to us the Senator didn't believe it was the right time to address the health care system while the economy was not in good condition.  It's led me to wonder whether Senator Lugar would've supported ObamaCare had the economy been in good condition at the time.

Instead of presenting Dick Lugar as such a fearless opponent of ObamaCare, what the ad does is show what the Senator has been doing for over a year now: covering his bases with conservative Hoosiers.  Whether it's dropping his support for the DREAM Act, supporting the FairTax, joining in the filibuster of an Obama appointment, railing about Obama's handling of the Keystone XL pipeline and so on, Dick Lugar is a politician at heart willing to do and say just about anything to get another six years in the Senate.

Now Isn't That Interesting, Chapter 43

Late last week, it was uncovered that players in the NFL were being paid to deliberately injure other players during games, according to the NFL itself.

The Los Angeles Times had a story on this Friday (carried by KTLA here), and the gist of it is there existed within the New Orleans Saints organization a bounty program where players were awarded extra money if they injured opposing players on the field during a game:

A lengthy investigation by the league's security department determined that between 22 and 27 defensive players, as well as at least one assistant coach, participated in the program from 2009-11, in violation of NFL rules.

The players regularly contributed cash to a pool and received improper payments of two kinds from the pool based on their play in the previous week's game. Not only were payments made for interceptions and fumble recoveries, but also for "cart-offs" and "knockouts" of offensive players.

I find it particularly interesting because during the NFC Championship in early 2011 between the Saints and the Minnesota Vikings, I noticed the Vikings, including then-QB Brett Favre, received rough treatment at the hands of the Saints’ defensive team.  I didn't like it then, and with the revelation about the Saints by the NFL, it now makes complete sense.

What the punishment will be for this activity, I don't know (although it could be severe), and I hope it will be severe.  In the end, I think it's best to remember a quote given by a former NFL player when he spoke to Erin Burnett last night.

RIP Andrew Breitbart

It doesn't seem like it should have happened.  It still seems like someone is trying to get me with a sick joke and I'm just waiting for that guy to stop pulling my leg.  Unfortunately, the sudden passing of Andrew Breitbart this morning is no sick joke.  I'm still in shock over the news.

The devastation is being felt through the right-wing of the blogosphere (Michelle Malkin, Atlas Shrugs, etc.), on Facebook, on Twitter and elsewhere.  Unsurprisingly, the hate towards Andrew has shown itself already, as shown at The Washington Examiner.  I can't say I'm surprised by that; to the Left, Andrew was one of the biggest, most fearless and indomitable enemies they've ever encountered.

I only saw him speak a few times, and it was always refreshing to hear him speak.  He never minced words when he spoke, he called a spade a spade when dealing with the state of the nation, with what we needed to do, and most especially in describing our enemies.  Through the Big websites he created (Hollywood, Government, Journalism & Peace), there was more reporting done on the Left, their allies, and their nefarious activities than anywhere else in the whole of the media.

Andrew was a good man, and his impact on politics, culture, journalism, on America and on all of us is being felt and will be felt for a long, long time.  My heart and my prayers go out to his family.  Rest in peace, sir, and thank you for all you did.  And for all of us, may we, as one woman said it best, “Honor his legacy.  Fight like hell.”

Ohhhhh Brother No. 39: Just A Little Too Expensive Sex

In the last couple of days, I noticed a small handful of tweets about a Georgetown girl and sex (here's a couple of them).  It didn't take long before I was wondering the usual things, like who was this Georgetown girl and what was this sex in question being discussed about (you know, the usual harmless questions), and soon, I'm looking at this post at Hot Air, where a Georgetown student and activist testified before Congress on the need for women to have insurance cover the cost of contraceptives.

According to this student/activist, female students at Georgetown are having to spend a lot of money out of their own pockets on birth control, and the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate would go a long way to alleviating the cost of getting the birth control so these female students can continue to have sex as often as they want and not worry about getting pregnant or contracting a disease.  Would you like to say it or shall I?  No matter, so here goes: Ohhhhh brother!

So far as I know, there's no rule at Georgetown University that requires female students to have sex on a particular basis, so there's actually another way they can save the over $3,000 said to be spent over a three-year period: Cut down on the sex.  Sounds simple, doesn't it?  If they're having sex three times a week, they can cut it down to two times a week, or once a week, or (lightbulb!) they could just stop having sex altogether!  Now that's $3,000 which'll stay in their pockets, and they really wouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant or contracting an unsightly disease.  Sounds like a win-win to me, don't you think?

Do I expect people like this student/activist to pay attention to my suggestions?  Nope.  Unfortunately, people like her are more concerned about being able to continue engaging in sexual activity without any strings attached and with as few hindrances as possible, like having to pay for their own birth control; in other words, they don't want to accept personal responsibility for their actions.  It's time she and others like her started growing up.