Indiana GenJ Network

2008-04-15T13:50:00.002-05:00

2008-04-15T13:45:00.002-05:00

2008-04-15T07:53:00.006-05:00

The Legacy of "We the People"

2008-03-12T14:21:00.001-05:00

Last November, Fox News reported on a recent poll taken at New York State University. The headline read: “NYU students would sell their right to vote for free tuition.” According to this survey, 66% of those polled said they would trade their right to vote in the next presidential election for one year’s tuition. 20% percent of them said they’d make the swap for a new iPod touch. To finish out the results, the poll found that half of the students would give up their vote forever in exchange for a million dollars.

What has happened in America? How have we gone from fighting and dying as nation to ensure these precious rights of freedom and liberty, to believing it’s more beneficial just to sell our vote for an iPod and forget the trouble? John Dickinson, a noteworthy Founding Father of this great nation and signer of the US Constitution, provided profound insight into the very problem we now face over 200 years later. He warned: “Let us take care of our rights and we therein take care of our prosperity. Slavery is ever preceded by sleep.”

Our culture reflects the fact that many in the United States today have grown apathetic toward the foundation of this country and as a result, we are becoming enslaved through our sleep. We have neglected our duty to know the philosophy, the vision, the intent, the passion, and the principles behind our cornerstone document. Ultimately we have neglected to know “We the People” of our US Constitution.

It is only through again coming to know and embrace our Constitution as “We the People,” the Founders of this country intended, that we can awake from our slumber and be worthy of the responsibility entrusted to us. It is our duty to know these Founders and the way that they so uniquely constructed our Constitution, which provides our generation the ability to preserve the intent of our founding and the principles that led us into greatness.

The framers of our Constitution vividly recognized the imperative of its citizens being educated and informed as to the intent and principles that fashioned this country. Founding Father Daniel Webster knew that our country’s greatest enemy was not some foreign army, but rather an ignorance and apathy to our own Constitutional foundation. He said that: “I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe…our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.”

Our second president, John Adams, also noted an important responsibility of the people to their Constitution when he said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Think with me for a moment: we just had two of the most prominent founders of this country prove that if we the people became apathetic to our government and the moral principles of natural law that sustained it, our Constitution would become essentially worthless and ineffective in American society.

How then did the founders intend to allow its citizens to be informed and educated in the continuing matters of our Constitution and government? An often overlooked segment of our Constitution, yet priceless in its importance, is Article 1 Section 5 Paragraph 3, as it establishes a strong response to that very question when it notes: “Each House [of Congress] shall keep a journal of its proceeding, and from time to time publish the same.” You see, our founders knew that the preservation of original Constitutional thought was so vital to the strength of the United States that they considered this provision necessary enough to insert into the very document itself! Government could not sustain good government alone – it needed the ability to be reviewed by the prudence of an educated people.

Another well-know founder, Thomas Jefferson, very eloquently explained that: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

How apt and timeless this advice is for the predicament America finds itself in today. Is it possible that we have in fact forgotten these warnings of those that shaped the greatness of our nation and left these principles for an easier, more commonplace path? William S. Lind of the Marie Corps Gazette points out the simple truth: “In the United States of America, our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture is collapsing. It is not collapsing because it failed. On the contrary it has given us the freest and most prosperous society in human history. Rather, it is collapsing because we are abandoning it. Starting in the mid 1960’s, we have thrown away the values, morals, and standards that define traditional Western culture…” Yes, our own apathy is causing us to neglect even these basic standards of Constitutional truths.

The lack of dedication to our nation’s Constitutional principles can also be clearly witnessed in the realm of the judicial system today. Former Attorney General Meese reveals the true state of our country’s courts when he stated that “Under the old system the question was how to read the Constitution; under the new approach the question is whether to read the Constitution.”
Chief Justice Warren asserted in Trop v. Dulles in 1958 that rather than holding to history or Constitutional precedent, the court must now instead: “draw it’s meaning from the evolving standard…of a maturing society.” It is interesting to note that in Warren’s 16 year tenure, the Court put an end to long-standing cases and practices, all the while acknowledging it was doing so completely without precedent.

In 1975, in the case of Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, the Supreme Court struck down a ruling that would restrict adult movies shown at a public drive-in theater that faced a church across the street where young children were frequent. The decision was based not on the intent of Constitutional law, but the Court’s reasoning that it could not “be justified as an exercise of the city…for the protection of children.” This flew in face of the 1815 Supreme Court decision of Commonwealth v. Sharpless that followed Constitutional intent much closer. It read: “The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid…the corruption of the public mind, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited for view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences….No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people.”

Is this where the “evolving standards” of Justice Warren have left us? It seems clear that we have forgotten those words of John Adams, George Washington, and other Founders that warned against trading our Constitutional morality for the whim and precedent of popular culture.

So where do we go from here? We must recognize first and foremost that our Constitution is still one of the greatest documents ever written, superior to any other in the world today. It is not our Constitution that has failed us, but rather we have failed our Constitution. We must respond by being a people responsible with the greatness and freedom that has been entrusted to us through this document. President of Hillsdale College, Dr. Larry Arnn, powerfully and succinctly observed that “The question of what is to be done is a simple answer: it is not enough anymore to rehearse by rote the Constitution or to celebrate it in vacuous observances. Both our statesmen and our citizens must return first to it study, with depth and intensity, and then to its sustenance, with eloquence and resolve. Nothing else will do.” To some, the efforts to again become responsible to our duty of knowing and understanding our Constitution may seem trivial or unnecessary. I am convinced however, that our culture cannot afford to loose the precedent of that which is the very essence and cornerstone of our country. If we through apathy allow the greatness of our Constitution as well as the men and principles that protected it, to slip into extinction; our foundation will most assuredly crumble and all else will be lost.

Have we really become so ignorant that we would be disposed to forever give up our Constitutional right to vote for a million dollars? If everyone was willing to trade in liberty for wealth, would we not only end up as poor beggars trapped under the rule of a dictatorship; slaves as such? What price tag do we place on our Constitutional responsibility and freedom? Let us purpose to awaken from our slumber and passionately resolve to carry on the legacy of “We the People” by being a people that casts off apathy through education and as such are responsible to the original intent of our Constitutional greatness.

Let's really take the time to honor them...

2007-11-10T18:59:00.000-06:00

We often pick them out of a crowd in their old military uniforms. We spot some of them in wheelchairs shopping at the store. We watch them pass by in a parade, some even without arms or legs. We see them larger than life as portrayed on the movie screen. We know many of their stories – but do we know them as people? As we pass them by, we get a check in our conscience: shouldn’t we stop and say thank you? Shouldn’t we find out who they really are? But most of the time, we just keep walking.

Something great has been lost in America today. Its absence has allowed seeds of ignorance, apathy, and ungratefulness to be sown in the minds of so many of my generation. What we’ve lost and forgotten is honor: Honor and respect for our country and those that made it what it is today – our veterans. As I interact with my peers every day, I see a generation that spends more time planning their barbeque on Veteran’s Day than they do honoring the 25 million men and women it celebrates. Honoring our vets requires more than fancy bumper sticker or clever slogan. It requires knowledge and effort. I must do everything within my area of influence to bring back to my generation and others in America steps of action to restore this honor and preserve their legacy.

It is vital to understand that in order to honor our veterans, we must be a generation that knows our veterans. If I do not have a relationship with these men and women as real people, with real lives, real faces, real feelings, real hardships, and real courage, then I cannot even begin to correctly honor their sacrifices.

I recently watched a film on the very powerful account of the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II. There was a line in the opening scene of the movie by the doctor involved in the relentless combat on the island. He stated “[everyone] thinks he knows what war is; but that’s because he’s never been in one.” That holds a lot of truth. I may like to claim on my own that I know how to best honor our vets or can understand what they have been through and the plight they now face, but I can’t. I will never be able to figure it all out or fully comprehend it. Only as I take the time to sit down and speak with our vets, meet with them, spend time with them, and listen to them, only then can I can begin to experience the issues they face. The outgrowth of hearing those needs allows me ability to work along side our veterans to fight for their interests and thank them for who they are.

Our veterans are the one group of people in America that have for years given literally everything they have to protect our rights and freedom, and I want to be able to do all that I can to help protect their needs in return. One organization that has assisted thousands of disabled vets that I like to share with others is the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes. Through a letter my family received from this organization, I was touched forever as I personally learned about what these men and women face on a daily basis. Thanks to efforts of CSAH, my family now contributes to this cause – something I hope to continue for the rest of my life.

As I’ve worked to help meet veteran’s needs, I’ve found that our veterans aren’t asking anything extravagant at all. In fact, I was recently talking to a local vet named Tom. As we were talking, I asked Tom what he thought was the greatest way for America to honor men like him. His response surprised me. He said: “America can honor our vets by honoring our country and our flag.” He said what hurts him most is when people give him a hard time for flying his full size 3x4 US Flag on the back his Harley. He said that Americans have really lost their respect for the symbols of our nation’s greatness. This encouraged me to fight harder to get legislation passed, such as the Flag Protection Amendment, that makes it illegal to desecrate our flag in any way.

Once I know vets, I can also take other practical steps to thank them through voting to keep the leaders in office that also acknowledge their needs; thank them by continuing to strengthen local VA hospitals that provide medical care; we can thank them even by working with local government to facilitate the finding of job opportunities for vets needing work as they return home.

Finally, I believe that as one spends time with veterans, they will soon realize the treasure of their legacy. Our country cannot afford to lose the importance of passing on the vision and heritage of veterans. For therein lies the cure to our disease of apathy, ignorance, and ungratefulness. As I work to build a strong relationship with the vets all around me, I am then equipped to help fight for their needs, and to articulate to my generation the reality that the plight our veterans is more than just a fascinating story, more than just a reason to sit down to a barbeque on Veterans Day. It is only through knowing our vets in real ways that we know how to demonstrate to them real honor.

A letter to Fort Wayne: AFA, Matt Kelty, and the Voters

2007-10-25T09:48:00.000-05:00

I'm sure many of you have heard of the adventures we've been having in our mayoral race up here in Fort Wayne. Mr. Kelty, the Republican candidate for mayor, has been blessed with the endorsement of the AFA of Indiana PAC because of his solid stance on family values. In order to get the word out to the voters, AFA recently ran a radio spot on the local Christian radio station revealing Mr. Kelty's record on family issues and well as his opponent's record. The Kelty campaign had nothing to do with the production of this ad; they didn't even know it was running until Mr. Kelty himself started receiving criticism, saying that the ad was negative and intolerant. Below is the wording of the ad:

"Christians have an important decision to make when voting for the next mayor of Fort Wayne. There’s some things as people of faith we need to consider. As a City Councilman, Tom Henry repeatedly authored legislation promoting the gay rights agenda. Several homosexual groups are supporting Henry including the Human Rights Campaign, an advocate for same-sex marriage. Councilman Henry also refused to stand with pastors, churches and families concerned about the dangers of strip clubs and adult book stores.

Republican Matt Kelty supports family values. The American Family Association’s political action committee and the Indiana Family Action have endorsed Matt Kelty for mayor. Matt Kelty is consistently pro-life and has been endorsed by the Allen County Right to Life. As a father of four Matt Kelty knows the dangers our kids face in today’s sex-crazed world. You can trust Matt Kelty to defend our values and culture. On Nov. 6 vote your values; vote Matt Kelty for mayor. Paid for by the American Family Association PAC."

After reviewing this and watching it grow increasingly more controversial in the news, I felt compelled to draft a brief letter to all those concerned regarding the ad. Here is a copy of the letter:

The latest "Kelty controversy" regarding the American Family Association's (AFA) ad that's being run on the local Christian radio stations has my head spinning. Because of this ad, Matt is being personally accused of negative campaigning, "Henry bashing", and being heartlessly intolerant.

As a young person, two things confuse me here: First, how can someone blame Kelty for these ads when this was written, paid for, and run by AFA? If Matt and his campaign had no knowledge of or contribution to this spot, why take it out on Mr. Kelty? Go complain to AFA if you feel it was a poor ad.

Secondly, could someone please enlighten me as to the actual specific words in this ad that make it so negative? I asked this same question a few days back on a local blog and still not a single person has responded directly to my comment. There is nothing but facts stated in this ad regarding Tom Henry.

Let the ad run, let the facts speak for themselves, and let the voter decide.

Announcing: State Pro-Life Conference and First Annual GenJ Network Lunch

2007-10-25T09:29:00.000-05:00

Indiana GenJ members and conservative young Hoosiers,

An excellent initiative was proposed by one of our state Network members: the idea of an Indiana GenJ lunch that would be held with the purpose of idea sharing, club reports, campaign projects, thoughts on expanding clubs and membership throughout Indiana, and simply to catch up with one another. I think our time together would be both enjoyable and profitable.

So after thinking about it a bit longer, we have decided to give the idea a go and see what happens.

In order to make your trip more worth-while, we planned the lunch on the same day as the State Pro-Life Conference in Indianapolis. I know that a least a few of us plan on driving down in the morning, attending the morning events, take a long break for the Network lunch, and then attending the rest of the conference in the afternoon. There are some excellent speakers and topics on the agenda and registration is only $25 for the day for students. If you do choose to attend the conference with us as well as the lunch, make sure you register for the event here. From what I understand, if you register online before October 15th, you receive a $10 discount! For the schedule, topics, speakers, location, and more, visit the official 2007 State Pro-Life Conference page. For those of us attending, we would meet at the conference in the morning and for those just coming out for lunch, we will meet you at the restaurant. That said, here are the actual lunch details:

WHAT: First Annual Indiana Generation Joshua Network Lunch

WHERE: TGI Fridays (501 W Washington St , 0.6 miles from the conference location)

WHEN: Saturday, November 17th at 12:00PM.

BRING: Money for lunch ($10-$15), your thoughts and ideas!

RSVP: Please just let me know if you are planning on attending by November 1. We have tried to plan the lunch far enough ahead of time so that you can mark it on the calendar now and most scheduling conflicts will be avoided.

I do understand that this may be quite a distance for many of you to travel. I feel you pain – it's over a two hour trip for me! However, I think you will really find this get together valuable for taking your work with GenJ and/or politics to a new level. I really urge you to consider taking the time out of one day to meet with like-minded active young people that share a passion for keeping America great by keeping her good. It will be well worth your time. Also, if you have any friends that may want to come along, please feel free to bring them.

If you have any question, comments, or thoughts please let me know. I look forward to hearing form you soon!

Keep fighting the good fight!

"Frightening Lessons on Parenting From the New Hampshire Debate"

2007-10-06T09:53:00.000-05:00

The following is an article from Kevin McCullough* entitled "Frightening Lessons on Parenting From the New Hampshire Debate." This is a shocking picture of liberal thought and the degredation of society. This story has also been reoported by several other media outlets and deserves all the attention it can get. Please take the time to read it.

The leading liberals in America gave frighteningly clear evidence this past week that not only do they lack the wisdom to run the nation but that—by their own words—they do not even understand the priorities of good parenting. The position of “parent” is God granted, yet today’s “tolerant” parents shirk their responsibilities to instill into their children the basic wisdom of life. In doing so they demonstrate that they are contributing to one of our nation’s greatest deficits—the discernment and critical thinking skills of the next generation.

In the New Hampshire Democratic debate this past week, the veil was pulled back not only on the Democratic Party’s great lie about their desire to bring the troops home in the global war on terror (none would even commit to doing it before the end of their first term) but, perhaps more importantly, on their twisted views on family, sex and parental responsibility.

Tim Russert asked the three front-runners for the Democratic nomination about their comfort level in teaching second-graders a story about two homosexual boys consummating their lust for each other. They all agreed they would support the teaching of such behavior, though they attempted to hem, haw and confuse the issue, mumbling about parents’ involvement.

John Edwards: “Yes absolutely...” (He would support the teaching of the story to second graders). “I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they’re faced with every single day of their lives.”

Hillary Clinton: “Obviously, it is better to try to … help your children understand the many differences that are in the world.… And that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country.”

Barack Obama: “The fact is, my nine-year-old and my six-year-old I think are already aware that there are same-sex couples... One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different. …. One of the things I think the next president has to do is stop fanning people’s fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people’s fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided.”

Obama, in fact, confirmed that his wife had already taken the opportunity to sit their six- and nine-year-old daughters down to discuss same-sex behavior and why, because of it, some believe society should redefine the (God-sanctioned) institution of marriage.

But it was John Edwards that best summarized what liberals actually believe: “I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information ... even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God.”

Edwards gave voice to words that liberals have thought and practiced for years.
Liberals, by the strictest understanding of the word, believe in a lack of restraint, defying of limits and excess—whether it’s taxes, education, or sexual practice. Beyond that, truth, in any absolute sense, can never be known.

But with these ideas liberals have excused themselves of performing a parent’s God-given task. It is a parent’s job to teach a child how to think, the framework of what to believe and to equip them to critique their own actions and the actions of others for even some very basic reasons like self preservation.

Conservative parents teach disciplined behavior so that in their children’s private world they do not bring harm to themselves, and in public they do not bring harassment, discomfort or harm to others. The benefit of learning to be quiet at certain times and places helps a child to enjoy the exuberance of playtime later. Teaching a child not to touch everything they see, gives them self-control and prevents them from breaking things they should not have grabbed in the first place. Saying “no” when they reach for a hot pan on the stove may seem rather harsh and even angry, but in the end it saves them from immense pain!

John Edwards, representing the liberal mentality, could not be more mistaken.

True, nobody made him “God” (and we all breathe easier for that). But God did make him and place him as representative to his children: to teach, to instruct, to guide and to help grow his children into fully functional and thoughtful adults who will then be able to do the same for their children in the generations to come.

[*Kevin McCullough is the host of “The MuscleHead Revolution” radio program, heard daily in New York City on WMCA 570 at 2pm ET. He’s the author of “MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking” and regular blogger at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. Contact Kevin at kmc@wmca.com]

Truth and the Church: The Latest News

2007-09-19T10:25:00.001-05:00

The truth on Truth is out: only 13% of young people age 16-36 believe in absolutes and only 22% of adults 37-55. A recent study by the Barna Group (www.barna.org) also suggests that only 9% of Christian teens are certain that absolute moral truths exist. The Christian adults? 44%.

The portion of these numbers that surprise me most are not how many average Americans aren’t so certain that truth exists, but rather how many professing Christians are so certain that it does not. Reflecting on these numbers truly made me stop and think deeper into truth in the church. At first I thought maybe it was my own fault; maybe I should not have assumed that most in the church today would hold to some standard or belief in absolute truth. Maybe I shouldn’t be shocked to realize that there are more non-religious young people that believe in truth than Christian young people. In the end however, I could only draw one conclusion: the subject of truth in the church is vitally important, and the results we are witnessing today represent a serious problem.

Standing for truth is a battle. It is something that is at times hard to hold to and something we have to fight for. It’s work. I believe the Christian life is the same way. Day to day, Christians have to choose whether they are going to fight to uphold the truths of God and His Word, or whether they are going to just settle with compromise that leads to error and put truth on hold for a while. Save the fight for later. Apparently, many leaders and their church are opting for later.

Brian McLaren, a pastor a leader in the Emergent Church, concedes that there is truth out there to find – but that it is near impossible to be clear as to what it is. Thus, this is what he recommends regarding specific doctrinal issues he faces in the church:

“Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making doctrinal pronouncements…when decisions need to be made they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.”

This kind of leaves me wondering what one is supposed to do if they need answers.

Speaker, author, and pastor, Rob Bell asks a rhetorical question in his book Velvet Elvis: “It is possible to make the Bible say whatever we want, isn’t it?” Bell believes that we can in a way manipulate the truths of the Bible to mean whatever best justifies our lifestyle, and that is exactly what is so attractive to the masses today. It is much easier to simply reject truth than to have to deal with it and that is why we see so many Christians in the church walking away from it. They do not see the importance of holding to truth so they see no problem in leaving it for a more comfortable routine.

CH Spurgeon (the “boy preacher”) wrote, “Truth could not be truth in this world if it was not a warring thing, and we should at once suspect that it was not true if error were friends with it. The spotless purity of truth must always be at war with the darkness and heresy of lies.” Truths are always at work in all areas of life and aren’t something we can just set aside from time to time whenever we please. It dictates how we live our lives. However, with the outright rejection of absolute truths in many churches today, we are on the verge of facing an immense battle for the most foundational grounds of Christianity.

I have several church-going friends who have often told me that while they believe that God exists, the Bible is full of error, can’t be trusted, and that man invented morality simply as a means of achieving efficiency in society. My response back is very simple: “Why then do you still believe in a God?” They obviously have no need for God or even the church for that matter if there is no such thing as right and wrong. They wouldn’t need a savior neither would they need an authority to hold them accountable for the way they choose to live their lives. If there is no such thing as truth, what would even separate the religious person from the agnostic or the outright atheist?

As soon as we reject an absolute moral truth, the church is reduced to a Sunday smorgasbord where we can just take what we want and leave what we don’t. No one has to feel condemned at the way they choose to live their lives because it all becomes just a series of preferential choices. Truth is the very foundation of the Christian church. It is the cornerstone on which all doctrines and beliefs rest. If we treat the concept of truth as simply a “preference choice,” we have not only nullified the very purpose of the church and slapped God in the face, but we have lost the cultural battle that the church has so long engaged in against a society void of that understanding.

Jesus said, “…and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” If Christ Himself said that there is truth and that it is knowable, Christians especially should recognize truth as a vital reality. Jesus clear teaches that freedom is dependent on truth. Truth provides us with the freedom not to do what we whatever we wish, but the power to do what we ought to do. The ideology that truth simply does not matter is a devastative philosophy with far reaching consequences – both for Christians and those we are trying to communicate to. The members of the church must come to understand that if we are so easily willing to yield truth and thus give away our foundation, we will crumble at the feet of those who want to destroy us. The secular humanist and postmodernist will win at the end of the day and those in the church will have lost all power in their endeavor to share their message with the rest of the world – whatever that may be now that truth has moved out.

A Brief Tribute: Thanks, Brian.

2007-09-01T16:21:00.000-05:00

I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank Brian Sikma for his dedicated work as founder and director of the Indiana GenJ Network. As most all of you know, the creation of this profitable networking tool came about entirely as a result of the vision and hard work of Brian.

From building up a base, to finding solid contributors to work with, to staying on top of the issues through outstanding writing, to the creation of new aspects of this site such as the Vision Team and Legislative Assistant campaigns, Brian has been at the forefront of it all. I am so grateful for not only his ideas, but also his endurance and perseverance to see them through until the end.

Brian, I know that a “thank you” is a small reward for your diligent work, but the least I can do is let you know how much I appreciate what you have accomplished here. You are an incredibly blessed and talented individual. I only hope that I can continue to build upon that which you have already laid the foundation for. May God bless you in your future endeavors.

I greatly look forward to working with all of you over the next year as we continue to express a young conservative voice across the state in a powerful and effective manner.

Hold Fast,

Kyle Forti

Planned Parenthood Thanks Rep. Hill

2007-08-06T14:29:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

Writing in a recent op-ed piece that was sent to newspapers across Indiana, Jen Jorczak, director of advocacy for Planned Parenthood Indiana, blasted Rep. Mike Pence (R-(IN) for his amendment (which ultimately failed) to H.R. 3043. The Pence amendment sought to redirect the $300 million that you send to Planned Parenthood every year through the Federal Title X program. It is important to note that the Pence amendment did not eliminate the Title X funding, it simply barred the nation's largest abortion provider from receiving this funding.

Although the amendment was defeated, Indiana's pro-life congressmen voted for it. All of them except Baron Hill that is. You see, Baron Hill (D-IN) has made quite a mountain out of his mole-hill stand for pro-life issues. When it came time to vote on whether or not you would continue to send Planned Parenthood $300 million-around 1/3rd of their annual budget-Hill quietly voted to continue to subsidize the slaughter of unborn children.

Although I don't think aborting little children is very polite, Planned Parenthood must have a polite bone somewhere in their body because the same article that blasted Rep. Pence also took the time to thank those Hoosier congressmen that voted in support of Planned Parenthood. According to Ms. Jorczak: "On behalf of our organization and patients, I would like to thank the members of Congress who had the courage and foresight to stand up in opposition to this mean-spirited amendment, especially Indiana's own...Baron Hill."

You can read the full article here.

It would take quite awhile to thoroughly refute the numerous false arguments put forward by Ms. Jorczak in her article. However, since I'm a conservative and-to quote Mike Pence-I'm not angry about it, let me extend my wholehearted congratulations to Rep. Hill for earning the support of the largest abortion mill operator in the country.

Folks, if Baron Hill can't be honest on an issue so basic as whether or not we're going to respect each and every life among us, how can we continue to trust he and his party with the safety and security of this great nation? Baron Hill has effectively debated with himself to the point that one is hard pressed to find him consistent on anything except for inconsistency. His voting record is perhaps the most consistent thing about him: He votes 91% of the time with Nancy Pelosi.

As we look into the future at the issues facing America, and at the choices we must face both now and in the 2008 election, let us move forward as a people who are known by what we are for, not what we are against. We are for protecting life, we are for consistency in our elected officials, and we are for American values that are distinct from San Francisco values.

Hate Speech Legislation Is Not Sound Policy: An Open Letter to Congress

2007-07-18T08:29:00.000-05:00

“Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values.” There was a day in the not too distant past when a person wouldn’t think twice after reading that statement. And why should they? It’s a simple sentence that conveys something we’ve known for thousands upon thousands of years – that marriage is the innate institution of the family.

Recently, these very words were circulated in an email through the Oakland, CA government’s open email system and employee bulletin board. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has now labeled this innocent sentence as possible hate speech and a violation of the First Amendment protections! I am writing today not to ask you to ban gay marriage, or even continue to uphold the natural definition of marriage, but to simply allow for the sentence I started with to be spoken today.

Have we come so far in the United States that we have completely lost the ability to discern the difference between “hate speech” and “free speech”? In regard to this matter, I would specifically like to mention the “hate crimes” legislation at a federal level – H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 and ask you to do everything in your power to oppose them.

I want to make it clear that I do not advocate true hate speech in any way. Those that scream threats of assassinating our leaders or President, those that want men and women with different views locked up, those that encourage violence against others, etc. should be punished as is already provided for by the laws on our books. What I do have a problem with is our federal government having the power to prosecute what may be considered to some as politically incorrect speech. While violent crimes cannot be tolerated, the free flow of opinions and facts must be upheld and encouraged in a free society. That is why I am strongly against the passage of either H.R. 1592 or S. 1105.

After all, why has there been a sudden hard push for national “hate speech” legislation? Have we ever needed such laws in the past? What has so abruptly changed in America that we now need to censor opinions and beliefs? Could it be possible that the advocates behind the introduction of these laws are pushing an agenda to shut down their opponents? I would have to believe so. As evidenced by the beginning of this letter and everything else I have read, “Hate speech” policy seems to deal less with the true threats of violence and more with the pushing of a liberal agenda.

I can express the most profane and perverse thoughts and ideas in a movie or piece of music, yet if a person has a difference of opinion on a political or social matter on talk radio or other news programs, it is immediately branded as hurtful and unfair. If the ultimate goal of these “hate speech” bills is fairness, then I suppose we should just give up the fight now and ban free speech altogether. No matter what is said, what one speaks will always be considered unfair to someone.

In order to fully advocate the preservation of foundational principles of a free society, I would again encourage you to vote against H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 and uphold a free and great America.

Kyle Forti

Independence

2007-07-04T09:50:00.000-05:00

"I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction..." --John Adams writing to his wife, Abigail, on the Declaration of Independence

Today marks 231 years of glorious Independence for this great country. As we gather in groups across this land with family and friends, let us pause for a moment to consider the magnitude of the work done on that hot summer day in Philadelphia.

In 1776 a group of men, leaders in their own colonies, met in Philadelphia for what was to be the 3rd Continental Congress. This extra-legal body possessed no actual grant of power from the King or Parliament. It's legality came from the instructions of the several colonial legislatures. Since 1774 this body had met to debate what the best course of action would be to restore the rights that were theirs as free born Englishmen. Independence was something that had been discussed in secret; but until now public discussion had been reserved for firebrands.

After much debate and after several petitions to the throne, it became evident that honorable reconciliation was impossible. The King and his ministers had made it clear: If the American Colonies were to come back to the fold, it would be as servants and not equals. Faced with this alternative and the mounting list of violations on the part of the King towards his loyal subjects, Richard Henry Lee rose in June of 1776 to call for Independence.

After nearly a month of discussion and delay, Independence was declared; a new nation formed.

The decision to separate from Great Britain was by no means unanimous in minds of the public. True, certain energetic factions such as the Sons of Liberty eagerly supported the Declaration, but nearly 1/3 of all colonists remained Tory loyalists. Another third of the population pragmatically waited on the fence, undecided about who to support in such a lopsided confrontation. Only about a third of all colonists supported the initial idea of Independence.

The odds were terribly against the Americans in 1776. George Washington had the Declaration read to his 10,000 soldiers who were then guarding New York. It was a rag tag band of 10,000 versus a well trained British fighting force of 42,000. Ten thousand men, armed in the cause of Freedom, fighting for an end greater than themselves and securing the blessings of Providence are not a group to be underestimated.

For 231 years now, our country has stood resolute and firm in a stalwart defense of freedom. We have overcome all obstacles and now, God helping us, we will stand strong against our current external threat of Islamofascist jihad and our internal threats of social liberalism and economic collectivism.

On this Independence Day, let us commit ourselves to victory and our cause to God, firm in our reliance upon His unfailing care and protection.

There's A new Organization in Washington

2007-06-26T14:43:00.000-05:00

Dedicated to securing justice, preserving religious freedom, supporting morality, protecting the family and respecting life, Advance USA is a rapidly growing organization. AdvanceUSA seeks to inform and motivate citizens to take action on issues important to them. Through their website, blog and growing e-mail network, they hope to become a leading grassroots lobbying and issue advocacy group.

I would encourage you to check out their website and blog today! www.AdvanceUSA.org

Girl Scouts and American Values, Do They Mix?

2007-06-25T18:24:00.000-05:00

First of all let me say that there are many good people in the Girl Scouts, however, as an organization the Girl Scouts have becoming increasingly and disturbingly secular and post-modern in their philosophy. As all of this has been happening a new organization has been formed. American Heritage Girls seeks to replicate many of the positive aspects of the Girl Scouts but with a Judeo-Christian basis instead of a relativist point of view.

As just one example of the differences between American Heritage Girls and Girl Scouts, Girls Scouts of the United States of America has a working relationship with Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the world and during the year 2006 performed over a quarter million abortions without recommending one time that a mother choose an adoption for their child. Conversely, American Heritage Girls is enthusiastically pro-life with an emphasis on the sanctity of each human life.

Check out American Heritage Girls here.

"Indiana Governor Shuns Marriage Protection: Welcomes Gay Pride Festival and Parade Instead"

2007-06-22T19:27:00.000-05:00

IN GenJers and fellow Hoosiers,

Some rather disheartening news has come up from Indy earlier this week...

From the recent IN AFA (American Family Association) Action Alert:

"In a very disheartening move, Governor Mitch Daniels has shunned the importance of protecting traditional marriage and embraced an Indianapolis “gay pride” parade all in the course of a week.

For three years Governor Mitch Daniels has been virtually silent about the Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment (SJR 7), which stalled in an Indiana House Committee this year on a tie vote. The amendment protecting Indiana’s laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, can return in 08 and still go before Hoosier voters next fall for their approval or rejection. However, the Governor told reporters on Friday that the marriage amendment would not be part of his re-election campaign. "I do believe there are other things more important to our future, at least other things that a governor and the people around him can try to work on," he said. "And, secondly, I'm always trying to bring this state together, and we don't have, I don't believe, the luxury of division."

Yet, six days earlier the Governor was not concerned about divisiveness when his letter to Indy Pride welcoming homosexuals attending a festival and parade was published in the gay pride program. The annual Indianapolis gay pride event featured such apparently non-divisive items as drag queens on stage, men in leather bondage outfits kissing on the street, and a parade Grand Marshall who was honored for his authoring of a stage play and film called “Southern Baptist Sissies.” Yet, somehow standing for the importance of both husbands and wives, mothers and fathers to the family unit is not important, and just too divisive!"

Now, more than ever, is it so vitally important for true conservatives across the state to remain united on foundational principles like marriage. Encourage Governor Daniels and his administration to remember to do the same. If we allow compromise, we only grow weaker - not stronger.

A View from the Ground.

2007-06-15T09:41:00.000-05:00

First off, if you haven't read yesterday's post on the Massachusetts marriage vote, read that before reading this.

A friend of this blog was in Boston yesterday and has provided us with some snapshots of what the scene outside the statehouse was like. Friends, as we look at these pictures I hope that we are galvanized to action to do everything we can to defend traditional marriage and reach out to the homosexual community with the glorious, life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ.

Anti-Marriage Supporters:

Pro-Marriage Advocates:

The Massachusetts Statehouse:

Unity or Disunity?

2007-06-14T20:01:00.000-05:00

This Flag Day, which Flag do You Support?

By: Brian Sikma

On this Flag Day we celebrate the greatness of our national symbol of freedom, our Flag. But today in the state of Massachusetts, a birthplace of freedom, the legislature voted against allowing the people to vote on a marriage amendment. The question before the legislature was whether or not the people of Massachusetts have a right to voice their opinion on the sanctity and centrality of marriage. Right now the Bay State is required by judicial decree to recognize same-sex couples for marriage. If at least 50 state legislators had approved of the marriage amendment, the measure would have come before the people in the fall of 2008.

Today's vote was preceded by protests on both sides of the issue as pro-marriage supporters demonstrated in support of marriage, and anti-marriage gay-equality supporters demonstrated in favor of the destruction marriage. The one side favors unity and understands the foundations of our national heritage. The other side favors disunity cloaked in the guise of equality. They favor a future in which a mom and a dad are irrelevant. They favor a future with no moral boundaries, a future of moral anarchy and chaos, a future divorced from the principles of freedom and responsibility.

Tony Perkins, a former Marine and President of the Family Research Council, summed up the situation on this Flag Day well:

"More than 200 years ago, the Second Continental Congress resolved that one flag would represent America to the world. It ordered that "the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation." Today, on the very date reserved to honor the flag's proud and glorious history, what was seen waving throughout Boston wasn't Old Glory, but a handful of rainbow flags, symbols not of unity but of division. The colors crowned a contentious battle for marriage, which, this afternoon, suffered a vicious blow at the hands of the Massachusetts legislature. Spurning their own constituents, state lawmakers voted 45 to 151 to take the decision of protecting marriage out of voters' hands. In the end, all three branches of government conspired to frustrate the desire of the voters, ignoring over 170,000 residents who signed petitions, wrongly believing that the principle of representative government would prevail. News outlets like the Boston Globe hinted that Gov. Deval Patrick (D) was buying off votes with political favors as late as yesterday. National politicians also weighed in, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Chairman of the DNC Howard Dean, fearing the issue would become a rallying cry for the 2008 elections. Their actions today may prove to be the very motivator they feared. After Massachusetts, pro-family forces across the nation will be even more motivated to pursue a federal amendment protecting marriage. Despite the shameless games and political maneuvers, we must not give up on the fight. The flag that has led us into every contest for America will lead us now, reminding us of the founding ideals, like marriage and family, that so many have died to protect."

Hostettler to speak on Property Rights.

2007-06-14T08:01:00.000-05:00

For those of you in the Southwestern part of Indiana, Rep. John Hostettler will be speaking at a Restoring Our Heritage event this evening (June 14th) in Newburgh, Indiana. The topic of Rep. Hostettler's talk will be James Madison's thoughts on property rights and how they apply to our debates of today.

The event will be held in the Diamond Room of the Newburgh Central Library off Bell Road (411 Lakeshore Drive) at 6:30pm (CDST). Click here for a map.

As many of you know, Rep. Hostettler lost his bid for re-election last year to Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D). Mr. Hostettler signed the Contract With America and was first elected to Congress as a member of the famous class of '94. The class of '94 was supposed to revolutionize Washington, and in some things it succeeded. However, as the years went by some members succumbed to the Washington air and started conducting business as usual. Not John Hostettler. He stuck by his principles and continued to work hard for a higher cause than reelection.

Rep. Hostettler's congressional office served the traditional role of such offices, but was also a training ground for conservative leaders. Today, throughout the State of Indiana you will find former Hostettler staffers serving their state and country in both the public and private sector. I would strongly suggest that if you live within driving distance of tonight's meeting that you attend, it will be a worthy investment of your time.

Health Care for All?

2007-06-11T19:49:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

Senator Barak Hussein Obama has now announced his health care plan for insuring 45 million uninsured Americans. The goal of the plan is to provide more affordable coverage to those who may be in serious need health insurance. While adults are not required to participate in the plan, every uninsured child in America would be required to take part in the program.

Basically, the plan would create a new government program (a hallmark solution from Democrats), increase the amount of regulations on current insurance providers, require businesses to offer coverage to employees or pay a set percentage of revenue into a federal program for covering the uninsured, and create a federally controlled market place ("controlled market place", isn't that an oxymoron?) that would allow the different health care coverage providers to compete with each other for customers. The main theme of the plan is controlling the cost of health care. There are several ways to control costs in a health insurance program; you can limit the amount of money that hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies can charge for their services, or you can have government pick up the tab on expensive treatments. The Obama plan does both.

Of course, if government is going to pay for some of the more expensive facets of the plan, then the place were the government gets its money from is going to have to cough up some extra revenue. Since government cannot make money like a profit-making enterprise, it gets its money from you, the taxpayer. Mr. Obama argues that his plan can be paid for by allowing tax cuts for those making over $250,000 or more a year to expire. The estimated $50 to $65 billion cost of the plan will be paid for by these tax increases.

The problem with this logic is that it assumes that income earners in the $250,000 a year and or higher bracket will continue to earn money at the same rate that they did under the tax cuts. If we start penalizing people for making a certain amount of money, doesn't it follow that those individuals will seek to minimize their taxes by possibly making less money? If you're going to see you hard earned work taken away by the government, you have less of an incentive to work as hard. The end result will be people earning less money and thereby contributing less in revenue. If the health coverage program is to continue to operate after this decline in revenues, the government will have to either go in debt some more, or raise tax rates on all income brackets.

A selling point of the Obama health plan is Mr. Obama's assertion that the plan will save the average family $2,500 a year. This sounds like a good deal until you realize that Mr. Obama and his party voted for a budget resolution that will raise taxes on the American people by $900 billion dollars over the next 5 years. Most people, including politicians, can't comprehend such a high number. In terms that we can understand, the Heritage Foundation estimated that this tax increase will average out to $2,641 per family per year.

In sum, Mr. Obama has proposed a plan to save America's families $2,500 a year, but yet he and his party have supported a tax increase that will raise taxes by $2,641 a year. Assuming the Obama plan works as advertised, you get to lose approximately $141 a year. This cost does not cover the related costs of going with a national health care plan. American health care and American families do not need more government intervention in their economic affairs.

Luecke's Housing Plan -- Will it Work?

2007-06-09T12:22:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

South Bend Mayor Steve Luecke (D) has announced a plan to revitalize blighted neighborhoods. The plan initially calls for city departments to conduct a review the city's vacant structures and target 400 of them for demolition. Those structures that are beyond repair or have no potential for upgrade and modification will be selected for demolition. Additionally, 45 homes spread out in neighborhoods across the city will be purchased and then resold for $1.00. Buyers of these homes must commit to investing $75,000 in them and then either live in them-or sell them to home buyers who will pledge to live in them-for at least 5 years.

Although the plan is meritorious in its goals, the question is whether or not it will work. There is no question that abandoned structures are hazards to the community, but city hall needs to be asking "Why are these houses vacant in the first place?" The 45 structures targeted for redevelopment were not abandoned for no reason at all. There are underlying factors that could be playing a role here and, if not addressed, they will lead to the failure of this new plan.

Houses and buildings are abandoned for a number of reasons. If the city does not properly provide needed government services like police security and public works upgrades and maintenance, then homeowners will be likely to look for new neighborhoods once they determine that they need to move. Similarly, home buyers will be dissuaded from purchasing homes in areas where the city has fallen behind it is commitment to necessary services. This ultimately leads to a compounding problem where neighborhoods being vacated as the quality of life diminishes are subjected to an increased exodus as those who initially stayed in the area begin to leave too. The end result is the economic draining of a neighborhood and a subsequent infection of crime where law and order once was.

Indirect factors stemming from government action may also play a role in creating blighted areas. If community government leaders raise taxes or initiate increased government regulation of personal choice decisions, then individuals inside the city will seek to move to less restrictive municipalities and individuals new to the area will be discouraged from settling down in downtown neighborhoods. This over-reach by government has serious consequences as economic activity in downtown areas slow down and creates depressed areas.

If the abandonment of these 445 structures has nothing to do with city hall policies and instead stems from the fact that newer technology has mandated that it is cheaper to abandon and rebuild rather than maintain, then Mayor Luecke may be making a very unwise decision. If tearing down the houses and rebuilding new ones is a cheaper alternative, then we need to make sure that we do not pursue a plan that is politically exciting but financially foolish.

Mayor Luecke has had been at the helm for 11 years, why hasn't his administration started working on a plan to increase the number of jobs? We don't need election year promises, we need common sense solutions. If the end result of this program is to move people into the 10.11% of the structures involved in the project, but never replace the other 80.89% of vacated properties, we will be conducting an expensive experiment. South Bend residents need to consider whether or not they want to spend $3.5 million on a solution that will treat the symptoms but not the disease.

Former Hoosier Congressman to Join Thompson Campaign.

2007-06-04T20:25:00.001-05:00

According to Politico.com, former Hoosier Congressman David MacIntosh is going to be joining the yet-to-be-officially-announced Fred Thompson for President campaign. MacIntosh served in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations before becoming a congressman. MacIntosh's last campaign was his unsuccessful 2000 gubernatorial bid against incumbent Gov. Frank O'Bannon (D).

MacIntosh had a record of being a conservative in Congress and the fact that Thompson is going to sign him on (for at least a little while) could signify that social issues will play a role with the conservative senator from Tennessee's bid for the White House. Many core GOP activists are disappointed with the current field of front-running candidates and seem to be looking for someone to fill the void.

You can read more about Sen. Thompson's developing candidacy here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4309.html

To you who defended freedom: Thank You.

2007-05-27T16:06:00.000-05:00

To you who defended freedom: Thank you. You were like the legions of Rome in your loyalty. You were like the warriors of Sparta in your discipline. You were like the columns of Hannibal in your resourcefulness. You fought, you bled, you sweated, you gave, and you won.

You defended the boundaries of Freedom's Frontier and you loved your country more than you loved yourself. Unlike other soldiers, your motivation came not from service to a master, not from a bloodthirsty desire to conquer, but from a deep and overwhelming love of liberty. You killed, you destroyed, you committed acts violence-not out of hate, but out of love. You gave your todays, for our tomorrows.

The flag of America can only fly as high as the sacrifices of those who defend it. Today, the Stars and Stripes proudly snaps in the breeze against the background of a blue sky because of the sacrifices of so many.

On this Memorial Day, 2007, we salute each and every defender of freedom, past and present.

Immigration without Assimilation is Disintegration.

2007-05-25T11:22:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

We all know about the problem of illegal immigrants in this country. For the past several years there has been an almost constant and contentious debate raging over what to do about the porous borders and the 12 million illegal immigrants that are in our country. In addition to the generally peaceable people coming to work in this country, thugs and potential terrorists have been making their illegal way across our border and into our country.

Some propose that the solution to our alien woes lies in securing the border and preventing the further immigration of peoples into our country. Others have proposed an amnesty plan with a guest worker component. As usual, there is merit in parts of each plan. The real solution to our problem lies in strengthening and securing our borders and developing a new set of regulations and laws to stream line the immigration process and allow for needed guest workers. Above all, however, we must insure that new immigrants assimilate into our country once they are here.

Throughout our nation's history we have allowed people who share our values and beliefs to immigrate to our country. We have offered them a chance to make a better life for themselves and their decedents. In return, we asked that they set aside their nationality and become Americans. This does not mean that we denied groups their heritage. Across this great country we can find people who are 100% American while at the same time proud of their specific cultural existence. As Americans we are bound together by a common belief system while at the same time cognizant of the fact that we posses special traits that have been passed to us by our forefathers. However, those traits are never, and should never, be allowed to interfere with our most basic values and beliefs as a nation.

As we review the current immigration problem, we see a disturbing trend emerging. Illegal-and some legal-immigrant groups enter this country and instead of assimilating into our country they hold on to their own specific values and beliefs. Sometimes these values, beliefs, and cultural practices are fundamentally at odds with what America is all about.

In the case of the Mexican here illegally, he speaks limited English and gets along only with the help of a sub-culture of fellow Hispanics. Since he is here only to make money, he sees no reason as to why he should surrender his national identity and turn his green, white and red flag in for a red, white and blue one. He does not bother to learn English or familiarize himself with our laws because he views himself as just a temporary benefactor of economic riches. He does realize, however, that in order to be the ultimate benefactor of America, he should use each and every government service offered to him. From social programs to educational policies he quickly learns that there is more than one way to get ahead by coming into this country through a hole instead of a gate.

In the case of the Middle-Eastern immigrant here legally, he may learn the language but he will not bother to learn the values and principles of freedom and liberty. He may be quite content to go to the local Saudi-funded mosque and hear fiery sermons denouncing the Great Satan (the U.S.) or the Little Satan (Israel). He of course enjoys the economic benefits of our country, but he has not renounced his old views of society and government and exchanged them for our American views. Surrounded as he is by fellow extremists in his cloistered community he is free to openly discuss his hatred of America. He finds nothing objectionable in his fellow mosque-goers' praise of Osama Bin Laden or the computer files that point to a plot against innocent victims in his host country.

Are these mindsets on the part of immigrants something we should be concerned about? Yes, they are; and any immigration reform policy must include specific citizenship and immigration requirements that will remedy these problems.

The existence of pockets of citizens-or potential citizens-who's key views are opposite to those of the our country is something that we must be careful to avoid. Individuals who separate themselves from the rest of their fellow citizens and adhere to their own values system are ripe for a political and social insurgency. If anyone doubts the prospect of this they can look to the nation of France with its unassimilated Islamic immigrant population.

As a nation we cannot afford to become Balkanized in our views and values. While debate and disagreement should not be stifled, we should not be so open minded as to accept any and all poison. We must require immigrants to assimilate themselves into our culture and into our country. Our nation is not just an economic warehouse for the people of the world. While it is true that our nation does afford an unparalleled opportunity for people to succeed economically, we must understand that this economic power is not some magical formula but instead is the result of our respect for an absolute standard of right and wrong and a belief in the rule of law and not the rule of man.

By allowing illegals to continue to reside in our country, by passing immigration reform that does not require new immigrants-even guest workers-to learn English and come into our country legally, and by not addressing the problem of communities were anti-American sentiment is considered normal, we will be destroying our nation with our own hands.

A fundamental part of any immigration into this country is an understanding of the principles of freedom, the rule of law, and the existence of moral absolutes. These three areas form the bedrock strength of our country's social, political, and economic might. We must work to make sure that immigrants understand the importance of these values and are aware of the fact that they must divest themselves of any contrary views. A government founded on freedom and governed by the people can't sustain itself if the people have varying views on what freedom really means.

This assimilation requirement is not an unfair proposition. We offer them the best of our country and we give them a chance to make something of themselves, in return we ask that they become one of us in shared ideals. If they do not think the exchange is worth it, they are free to stay out of our country. If they feel that they cannot in good conscience embrace freedom and all that it means, then no one says that they must become one of us.

With many things in life, if you want a good result you have to pay a price. If you want to succeed in a relationship you have to unselfishly give of your time and effort to build that relationship. If you want to be successful in business then you have to make wise economic choices, choosing to invest for future return instead of immediate gain. If immigrants want to come to this country it's completely logical that we mandate that they assimilate themselves with us. This is something that generations of immigrants have done and it something that must be done today if our country is to continue to be a beacon of hope welcoming freedom lovers to its shores.

Just as immigration without assimilation leads to the disintegration of a nation, so immigration with assimilation can lead to a wonderful and rewarding experience. Policy makers and citizens should understand that it is not the color of a person's skin that counts, but the color of his or her principles. One of the wonderful things about America is that an American can be of any skin color or nationality, as long as his or her heart is red, white and blue.

U.S. Senate to Debate Hate Crimes Bill.

2007-05-13T16:19:00.000-05:00

Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) have once again joined forces to co-sponsor and pass federal hate crimes legislation. S. 1105 would make "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" protected classes in federal law. Kennedy and Smith attempted to pass similar legislation in 2004. Although then-Senate Majority Leader Bill First (R-TN) was able to outmaneuver liberal parliamentary games, the bill passed the Senate. It met its ultimate demise, however, in the House where Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) promised to pull out all the stops in killing the bill.

Aside from the question of if there is federal jurisdiction for this legislation, the question arises as to whether or not this bill's passage would be a violation the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment mandate for equal protection of all citizens. By determining that a particular class of citizens are entitled to greater protections than citizens who are not members of the protected class, it would appear that Congress is mandating unequal protection for victims of crime.

In the case of S. 1105, homosexuals, cross dressers, and other individuals engaging in similar, non-moral lifestyles would be offered greater protections because crimes committed against them would be considered "hate crimes" and would therefore carry extra heavy penalties. Similar crimes against citizens not engaged in deviant behavior would be less serious offenses. In a court of law then, the equal protection rights of homosexuals would be greater and the equal protection rights of heterosexuals would be less.

This attempt to create two distinct justice systems, one for homosexuals and one for heterosexuals, would lead to a complete undoing of the proper understanding of the equal protection of law. The creation of two criminal categories would lead to a legal anarchy. The 14th Amendment does not allow the federal government to create or enforce two different types of justice systems. It does not allow one form of equal protection for one class, and another form of equal protection for another class. If it did, it would be a fundamental violation of the principle that all men and women are created equal and that they are endowed-in other words entitled to-certain unalienable rights.

To assume that the equal protection clause protects a particular class of citizens from the state's attempt to discriminate against them on the basis of behavior is to turn the clause into a monster that has the power to wipe away all semblance of a moral order and justice in our country. True equal protection would be the consideration of the crime committed and not the underlying motives for the crime. True equal protection would be the even and fair handed application of justice to each and every case, regardless of the victims social, mental, racial or sexual status. By assuming that a crime committed against a homosexual is a hate crime, S. 1105 imposes a special protection on the legal procedure simply because the victim is a part of a 3% minority.

To not only assume that we can know the motives of a crime but to then reconstruct the system of justice to protect some more than others is a simple violation of the Constitution of the United States. For Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Smith to put forward this legislation, and then work so hard for its passage, indicates that they either do not fully understand the idea of equal protection, or that they simply prefer to disregard with reckless abandon the Constitution of the United States. As United States Senators these men need to seriously reconsider their support of S. 1105 in light of the oath that they have taken to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Partial justice is no justice at all. For the law to protect one group more than another is to destroy the idea that an absolute standard of right and wrong exists and that the justice system must act in accordance to that principle.

Note: For the sake of absolute clarity in this discussion, the 14th Amendment textually relates only to the states, however, various court decisions and precedents now apply Equal Protection Doctrine to federal issues.

Why the High Gas Prices?

2007-05-10T10:23:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

Today, our nation faces higher gas prices that leave consumers fuming over the cost of a fill-up. While some have been quick to blame the oil companies for the rising prices, a closer look at what is taking place will help us understand the situation. Taking shots at "windfall profits" makes for rousing reading, but it doesn't give us a real picture of what is going on.

While today's prices are high, according to the Energy Information Agency gasoline prices in 1924, when adjusted for inflation, were $3.10 per gallon. While inflation has caused the price of goods to rise, the real price of gasoline fell until the energy crunch of the 1970s; then in 1980-1982 adjusted prices rose to $3.20 per gallon. Since that time gas prices dropped until just a few years ago.

Prices rise when demand outpaces supply. If the market demands more gasoline than oil companies can produce, prices are going to rise until the demand and supply levels balance each other out.

This simple cause and effect situation is sometimes tampered with as artificial limits are placed on one side of the equation. These artificial limits usually come in the form of government regulations. The federal government and some state governments, impose environmental regulations on both refineries and the gasoline that those plants produce. The result of this tampering is a gas price that is higher than the normal effect of the supply and demand ratio.

If any entity is making a "windfall" off of higher gas prices it is the state and federal governments. In 2005 government consumed $71 billion in taxes from gasoline sales. That figure is double what government took in taxes from the oil industry in 2003.

A new refinery has not been built inside the United States for nearly 30 years. While fuel companies have been able to expand their existing refinery capacity, heavy handed environmental regulations have prevented the construction of badly needed new plants. This inability to build new refineries strangles the ability of companies to quickly refine enough gasoline to meet an expanding market need.

While America continues to import most of its oil, massive oil reserves in Alaska and parts of the American west, as well as off shore reserves, go untapped. With an increased demand don't you think it would be wise for companies to be able to access this domestic oil? Welcome to Potomac Logic. Regulations handed down from Washington bureaucrats continue to prevent the effective use of domestic oil supplies. While legislation passed in 2006 cracked open the door of access to some oil reserves, a Washington imposed dam still stops the flow of more domestic oil.

According to the AAA, part of the reason for the recent gas price spike comes from the inability of refineries to quickly switch over from federally mandated winter fuel blends to the federally mandated summer blends. The EPA has mandated 12 types of gasoline blends for different parts of the country. Additional state regulations bring the total number of separate fuel blends to 30. Each blend must be kept separate from each other. This means that companies are forced to maintain separate production, transportation, and storage facilities, all at a higher cost to the consumer.

After looking at the facts, we can see that we do not have to be in our current energy situation. The solution to our problem is not more government regulation or increased bureaucratic oversight. The solution is to get the federal government out of the way and let the market run itself.

We need to increase our oil supply by allowing environmentally responsible drilling to take place. By drilling for our own oil we will lessen the number of geo-political situations that have the potential to adversely affect our energy prices. We need to loosen the environmental regulations that strangle gasoline producers' ability to build new refineries. New technology now allows cleaner oil refining to take place and we need to update our regulations to reflect this change.

Big Oil is not wholly to blame for the high gas prices, Big Government bears much of the burden. If politicians wish to enact meaningful energy policy that will reduce prices they would be wise to start breaching the regulatory dam that keeps domestic oil from flowing into the marketplace. They need to cut through the red tape that has the energy market in a strangle hold. Now is the time to look beyond self serving special interests and towards common sense solutions that will allow the market to correct itself.

Speedy wins in Indianapolis!

2007-05-08T18:01:00.000-05:00

With approximately 80% of District 24 precincts reporting, the unofficial winner of the Republican primary is Mike Speedy. Once all the votes are tallied we'll have an official victory. Currently Speedy has garnered 75% of the vote.

On behalf of Mike Speedy a big thank you belongs the Dowbnia and Hovee families for their hard work and dedicated effort on behalf of Speedy for Council. These two outstanding individuals worked hard to make sure that Mike Speedy is the Republican candidate in November.

Thank you to the voters of District 24 who reaffirmed their support for Mike.

-Brian Sikma, Webmaster, Mike Speedy for City County Council

Thank you, Rep. Donnelly.

2007-05-08T15:27:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

Those words are not words that you will hear me utter frequently. Readers of this blog know that I've hammered Rep. Donnelly hard for saying one thing to a constituent and then voting another way. I believe that if an elected official is wrong, he or she should be called on it. If elected officials break a promise, they have betrayed the trust of those they represent.

However, fairness should be the rule in all of our debate so I'm going to be a man enough to thank Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) for voting against H.R. 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Rep. Donnelly exhibited greater courage on this issue than 12 House Republicans who joined a Democratic majority in passing this inappropriate legislation.

Having fought hard against hate crimes laws here in Indiana, I appreciate Rep. Donnelly's thorough understanding of the real implications of hate crimes legislation.

Vote Manigault!

2007-05-07T14:18:00.000-05:00

Does a political leader need backbone? Well of course we all think the answer is yes, but do we vote for leaders who will stand by what they believe? South Bend's Juan Manigault (far left in picture) is a leader who will take the City of South Bend into an economic comeback that the region so desperately needs. Mr. Manigault is currently seeking the GOP nomination to run for Mayor of South Bend against the Democratic nominee in November.

Back in the first half of 2006 I was involved in an effort to defeat a proposed South Bend ordinance that would have granted homosexuals greater protections under the law. The bill under consideration by the Council would have removed the rights of citizens to associate with whoever they wanted to associate with regardless of that individual's sexual orientation. Several members of the Council and the mayor joined together to completely overlook and disregard the facts of the situation. They argued that any form of discrimination was a bad idea and proposed that the government support and protect a lifestyle that harms both the individuals involved in it and the surrounding community.

The people of South Bend do not need a mayor that hides his lack of initiative by supporting politically correct ideas that will stifle the community. South Bend citizens need a mayor who will strongly and energetically execute his duties in a manner that will benefit businesses and citizens who call South Bend their home.

South Bend residents, on May 8th, take a moment of your time and invest in your city's future by voting for Juan Manigualt for mayor.

-Brian Sikma

2007-05-06T07:19:00.000-05:00

Matt Kelty: Architect, father, Ft. Wayne resident, and mayoral candidate. Of all the candidates currently seeking their party's nomination, Matt Kelty deserves your vote. Matt is the only candidate who truly understands both the fiscal and moral responsibilities of local government.

Not that long ago Ft. Wayne was known as "the city of churches". This was a fitting moniker to a city that embodied what everyone thought of when they thought about a mid-sized Mid-Western city. Ft. Wayne was the kind of place where you wouldn't mind settling down. You didn't have to worry about crime because the town was, by and large, pretty religious. It was a family values city.

While there is no room for the government to force a church on anybody, there is a point at which government has a compelling interest in promoting general, universal values of morality that are the bedrock of society. President George Washington noted that "religion and morality" are the indispensable supports of a free society. Unfortunately, Ft. Wayne seems to have thrown family values out the window. The strip club has replaced the church and now a more fitting motto would be "city of strip clubs".

The rise in the number of businesses that deal in smut, filth, and immorality has occurred without so much as an outcry on the part of public officials. For far too long the residents of Ft. Wayne have been left without a responsible city government that seeks to enforce current law and enact new ordinances as needed.

Some argue that this transformation has no serious consequences. These individuals are wrong. So called "adult oriented" businesses have the effect of generally reducing the levels of acceptable behavior. It is in these businesses, where lust is exalted, that the seeds of violent crimes are sown. When we fail to recognize the harmful effects of these kinds of establishments we leave our children vulnerable to exploitation and harm.

Matt Kelty is the only candidate who has pledged to forcefully pursue and crack down on businesses that leave our communities torn, and our families vulnerable.

On economic development, Matt Kelty knows first-hand the extent of the status quo malaise that currently plagues city hall. As a business owner, and as one who works with many businesses, Kelty knows that Ft. Wayne cannot have true economic development if local government fails to recognize the fact that it must learn to assist, and not run businesses. This means that government should focus on properly and efficiently delivering legitimate services like sanitation, police protection, and infrastructure development while leaving businesses free to operate without burdensome regulations or bureaucratic mayhem.

Some have said that Kelty's lack of holding prior office is a detriment to his ability to serve the people of Ft. Wayne. I would join with Matt Kelty in pointing out that he has had experience in government through his work for Senators Lugar and Coats. In the end, leadership is not about experience, it's about competence and vision. Holding office means nothing if you do not hold to your principles.

A true leader, a leader fit to hold political office, will not focus on his resume, he will focus on charting a principled course that will leave those he serves with a better and brighter future, a more hopeful tomorrow.

Matt Kelty: the candidate with a vision, the architect of a new Ft. Wayne.

On May 8th, vote for Matt Kelty to be the Republican candidate for Mayor of Ft. Wayne.

-Brian Sikma
Note: This article does not necessarily contain the views of Matt Kelty or the Kelty for Mayor Campaign. The opinions and observations are solely the author's.

Mike Speedy Campaign Launches Website!

2007-05-04T10:54:00.000-05:00

The Mike Speedy for City County Council campaign has launched a new website. Mike Speedy is running for re-election in District 24 and has a proven track record of service to the community. You can vist his site here.

To Republican voters in Indianapolis' District 24: Don't forget to vote for Mike Speedy on May 8th!

In Whatever We Trust

2007-04-30T14:35:00.000-05:00

The currently pending suit regarding the “In God We Trust” license plates has a few attention-catching flaws. As a paralegal student with a special interest in constitutional law, I found the suit to be a serious mistake.

The first reason comes from the popular misunderstanding of the 1^st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead of reading, “there shall be a wall of separation between church and state,” or “no law that even so much as allows religious liberties can be made”, the Amendment actually reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The entire claim brought to court is based upon the assumption that the State of Indiana (or any other government agency) can not be religion-friendly in any way. This, however, is false. If you were to go back to the discussion surrounding the formation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you would find that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and that all of them, Christian or not, were not concerned with the state or federal governments being religion-friendly, but rather that the governments would enforce a specific denomination (i.e. Baptist, Anglican, Catholic, etc.).

Beyond the historical misunderstanding of the intent of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion clause, the claim also misses the fundamental difference between the “In God We Trust” plates and special recognition plates. Those plates that are so-called “special group recognition license plates” (see House Bill No. 1562) charge a fee that goes towards the group that they are supporting. On the other hand, the “In God We Trust” plates do not monetarily support any specific group. This is fundamental because, in essence, by offering the special recognition plates that support an individual group, the state government is specifically supporting those groups. The state is not supporting any group by allowing the “In God We Trust” license plates. Beyond this, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles has a special recognition plate application, which allows any non-profit group to apply for their own special recognition plate. Thus, if you don’t want to drive around with “In God We Trust” or “Indiana” on your license plate, choose any of the other special recognition plates and support your group of choice in doing so, or go through the process of applying for your own special recognition plate. In this way, you can proclaim “In Whatever I Trust” on your vehicle, if you so choose.

My third main point is in reference to the monetary complaint. The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles has pointed out how the “In God We Trust” plates will in time save the BMV money because of their popularity. This is another significant difference from the typical special recognition plate. Other plates are not nearly so popular, as you can see by just driving down the road and observing the number of different license plates around you. As for the three-dollar difference in plates, I, for one, would be willing to pay the extra three dollars to have an “In God We Trust” plate. After all, if it is on our currency, why can’t it be on our vehicles too?

Sent as a Letter to the Editor to several newspapers in Indiana by Abigail Snyder.

New Gambling Legislation

2007-04-30T13:44:00.001-05:00

American Family Association Action Alert:

April 30, 2007

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

Say "no" to more gambling in Indiana

Urge Governor Daniels to veto House Bill 1835

Legislation passed last night in the final moments of the legislature means more crime, more bankruptcies and more addictions in Indiana. The last thing Indiana needs is even more gambling.

Please urge Governor Mitch Daniels to veto House Bill 1835, which turns horse tracks in Anderson and Shelbyville into land-based casinos introducing thousands of slot machines at each location.

Here’s Why Governor Daniels Should Veto House Bill 1835:

More Gambling Means More Crime Problems for Indiana - “There is no question, in sites where gambling is introduced, there is more crime.” (Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran)
The Last Thing Anderson Needs is More Economic Problems - The most recent study of all the casino counties in the nation confirmed personal bankruptcy rates are 100% higher in counties with casinos than in counties without casinos. (NCALG Gross, Ernie and Morse, Edward. “The Impact of Casio Gambling on Bankruptcy Rates: A County Level Analysis.” p.1)
Gambling Hurts Individual Hoosiers and Their Families - “Addiction rates double within 50 miles of a casino.” (National Gambling Impact Study Commission, “Final Report” Sec. 4, p..5.) Slots and other gambling machines push susceptible players to the pathological level in an average of 1.08 years, vs. 3.58 years with more “conventional” forms of table and racetrack gambling. (NCALG - Breen, Robert B. and Zimmerman, Mark; “Rapid Onset of Pathological Gambling in Machine Gamblers” p.2)

Sen. Reid, If we have lost the War, Who won the War?

2007-04-28T10:55:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

Lt. Col. Oliver North should know a thing or two about wars where politicians stabbed the troops in the back. As a Marine officer North fought for our country in Vietnam. He knows what it's like to not be able to fight back with full fury because some our country's leaders on the peaceful banks of the Potomac care more about national and international public opinion and political correctness than about courageous soldiers on the banks of the muddy Mekong.

While we can debate the merits and demerits of continuing the war in Iraq, those who wish to arbitrarily withdraw from Iraq need to take a look at what a pre-stabilization, post-U.S. liberation Iraq would look like. Leaders like Sen. Reid (D-NV), Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Donnelly (D-IN) need to carefully consider what they are really asking for when they push for a troop withdrawal by August of 2008.

Instead of trying to explain what the situation on the ground would probably look like, I highly recommend that you check out Lt. Col. North's analysis here.

This is a war we either win or lose; either our values of freedom and human liberty will triumph, or the evil ideology of men who believe that the highest calling is not found in protecting life, but in killing it will gain the victory. It's time for some of our nation's leaders, and specifically the leaders of the Democratic Party, to decide who's side their on.

Radio ad on SJR 7.

2007-04-21T16:35:00.000-05:00

Family Research Council Action, the PAC arm of the most recognized and highly respected national pro-family group has produced and aired a radio ad urging citizens to contact Rep. Austin and ask her why she voted to allow unelected judges to decide the fate of marriage in Indiana. In the ad Austin is criticized for bowing to party pressures and not standing up for her constituents.

I heartily support this accurate, fair, and hard hitting ad. Please take a moment to listen to it here: http://downloads.frcaction.org/21-APR-07__EF07D04_00090F98-873A-162A-A4DD1014AC140000.mp3.

-Brian Sikma

Rep. Austin supports SJR 7?

2007-04-20T16:00:00.000-05:00

Rep. Terri Austin was one of the 5 members of the House Rules Committee to vote against SJR 7, the marriage amendment. After the vote Rep. Austin (D-Anderson) said that she had faced a tough decision but had "no regrets" about her vote. We're beginning to wonder if she is having second thoughts about that "no regrets" statement.

You see, in October of 2006 Rep. Austin was the target of attacks claiming she was against protecting marriage in the form of a constitutional amendment. In an attempt to shed some light on the matter Rep. Austin wrote a letter refuting 3 claims being made about her record. While we have not dug far enough to determine whether or not she correctly portrayed her record on the last two issues, we do know that she properly stated that she had voted for SJR 7 and was a strong believer in traditional marriage.

According to her letter: "I do not support gay marriage." Click here for the roll call vote that backs up her rhetoric. The letter continues: "I support the sanctity of marriage and voted for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman."

Rep. Austin was proud of her vote for marriage, why then did she vote against that exact same amendment a few weeks ago? The amendment that Rep. Austin so heartily supported last year is the same amendment that she had "no regrets" about voting against.

Why did Rep. Austin vote against SJR 7? What piece of evidence convinced her to vote against the exact same wording that she had previously supported? There was no new evidence introduced in any of the hearings. The arguments made against the amendment were completely refuted and have been consistently shown to be false. There were no facts cited against the amendment, all that was put forward were hypothetical scenarios based upon amendments with wording different than the one Indiana Lawmakers are considering.

Below you can see Rep. Austin's letter proclaiming her support for SJR 7 and traditional marriage.

SJR 7 a "fool's errand"?

2007-04-15T16:59:00.000-05:00

When the House Rules Committee deadlocked 5-5 on whether or not to send SJR 7, the Marriage Amendment, to the full House for consideration important promises were broken and political fault lines revealed.

According to a press release issued by Speaker Pat Bauer on October 26th, 2006 "If elected Speaker of the Indiana House after the November 7th election I will allow committee meetings, floor debate and a final vote in that chamber" on the Marriage Amendment. Other representatives made promises on this issue too. Speaking to her constituents, Rep. Terri Austin (D) declared in radio ads that she had supported SJR 7 in the past and would do so again.

Speaker Pat Bauer dishonestly failed to keep his promise to allow a final vote in the House chamber on SJR7. In fact, he was ready to put the matter behind him and expressed no sorrow at his failure to keep his solemn pledge. The ease with which the Speaker broke his promise to voters is troubling.

Rep. Terri Austin, as a member of the Rules Committee, voted against SJR 7. Rep. Austin said that she had "no regrets" about her vote and even cried and said that her vote was a tough decision. It would seem that simply keeping your promises would be easier than fabricating false worries about nonexistent theoretically bad consequences of SJR 7. Rep. Austin should have looked at the facts and not partisan political hype in casting her vote.

When Pat Bauer and Rep. Terri Austin broke their promises to voters they made it clear that their word is worthless and that they do not care enough about the sanctity of marriage in Indiana to sufficiently protect it. Their actions lead one to believe that as legislators they do not want to assume their Constitutionally delegated role to make the laws of the state of Indiana and would prefer to abdicate that role to the courts.

Writing just after the amendment was defeated Brian Howey of the Howey Political Report referred to the amendment as a "fool's errand." Howey went so far as to say that supporters of the amendment who had divorces in their past were hypocritical in their support of the amendment.

Divorce is a serious problem that threatens far too many marriages. The weakening of a critical institution from one threat, however, is not a valid excuse or reason to allow another threat to further destroy that institution. We don't need to give up on marriage simply because it is under fire, instead, we need to protect it and encourage it all the more.

Our failure to live up to our principles does not mean that our principles are a failure.

The fact that some of SJR 7's supporters have had marital difficulties in the past is an excellent case for why our system of government was established on the rule of law and not the rule of man. All law must stem from one of two sources, either the lawgivers themselves, or some higher law that supersedes the earthly lawgiver. If the lawgiver is to be the initiator of a law he must approach the situation from a superior moral standpoint. He must speak as one who has followed this rule completely without failing. Since all men are fallible we cannot legislate our own morals, instead we must adhere to a higher law. This law stems from the Lawmaker of the universe and was referred to by our founders as the "laws of nature and of nature's God."

The only valid law is one that derives its power from an ultimate standard of right and wrong. When a law enforces this ultimate standard then it is valid, if it opposes this standard it is wrong.
Senate Joint Resolution 7 does not seek to legislate the views of some particular interest group or group of legislators. Instead it seeks to protect in our highest law what is already acknowledged by history, reason, tradition, and statute: marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

St. Joe Co. GOP Runs Donnelly Article.

2007-04-09T06:36:00.000-05:00

The St. Joseph County GOP posted the original article on the Donnelly issue on their website this past week. Check it out here.

We're hoping that as this story gets out more people will be encouraged to hold Donnelly accountable. We can't afford to have leaders that refuse to make the correct decision, even when that decision may be an "imperfect choice". Our troops in harm's way deserve support and not our discouragement. After speaking with members of the Armed Forces I am convinced that there is no way to "support the troops but disagree with the mission." The mission and the warriors are one.

Donnelly: "imperfect choice".

2007-04-06T18:32:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

According to the South Bend Tribune Rep. Joe Donnelly is trying to explain his vote to arbitrarily withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. According to the Trib:

"U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly took time out from a grocery store meet-and-greet session Monday to defend his vote on a bill that mixed funding for U.S. troops in Iraq with setting a date for their withdrawal.

"Donnelly, D-2nd, has been the subject of criticism for sending letters to constituents in which he expressed opposition to an immediate or arbitrary withdrawal of troops, then voting in support of a House bill that calls for withdrawal of all troops by August 2008."

View the article here.

Donnelly's excuse is that he faced an "imperfect choice" in deciding whether or not he should vote for H.R. 1591. Funding for the war is undoubtedly a necessity, but this bill was not about funding the war, it was about masking a troop withdrawal in an appropriations bill so bloated with pork that it makes Democratic promises to reform Washington look like hypocrisy.

If Donnelly and other Democratic legislators had joined forces with Republicans in defeating the bill and then putting forward an appropriations bill that contained no pork and no un-Constitutional violation of separation of powers, there would have been no "imperfect choice" to make. Some times being principled means opposing your party. Look at Rep. Mike Pence or Sen. Tom Coburn as examples of individuals who take principled stands against the big spenders in their party.

Let's make Indiana No. 28 in '08!

2007-03-30T16:11:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

Two weeks ago South Carolina celebrated the formal ratification of a marriage protection amendment to its state constitution. This means that South Carolina is the 27th state in the union to have protected marriage in a state constitution. The time has come for Indiana to do the same!

Breaking news has it that House Rules Committee Chair Rep. Scott Pelath has scheduled a vote on SJR 7, the marriage amendment, for Tuesday, April 3rd. Pelath and his committee must approve of the amendment before it moves to the House floor for final debate and vote. If the amendment passes as is, the voters of Indiana will be able to ratify it in 2008.

On Monday, March 27th, nearly 2,000 people packed the state house in Indianapolis for pro-marriage rally. The message they sent was loud and clear: "Rep. Pelath and Speaker Bauer need to work for the passage of the amendment with no changes!"

Today I call upon the members of the House Rules Committee, and Speaker of the House Pat Bauer, to move to pass SJR 7 as it is without any changes or amendments. Please take a moment and contact Speaker Bauer and the members of the House Rules Committee and respectfully urge them to do what is in the best interest of this state and pass SJR 7.

Here is the contact info for Rules Committee Members and here is Speaker Bauer's.

Click here to take a look at an outstanding ad that ran in the South Bend Tribune, Bauer's hometown paper.

Working together to pass SJR 7, we can make Indiana No. 28 in '08!

Mike Speedy Throws Hat in Ring

2007-03-28T21:21:00.001-05:00

Mike Speedy has announced he is seeking another term on the Indianapolis City County Council. Speedy was elected in 2003 to represent District 24. The district encompasses the eastern third of Perry Township. "Serving the citizens of Perry Township over the past four years has been a wonderful and rewarding experience," noted Speedy. "Whether it’s making sure a pot hole is filled, ensuring that the streets are cleared after a snowfall, or working hand in hand with Southsiders to solve neighborhood problems, it has been an honor and privilege to serve the families of Perry Township."

Speedy also highlighted some of his accomplishments during his first term on the Council. "I have worked tirelessly to promote economic development and job growth strategies that benefit not only Perry Township, but all of Marion County." Speedy also added that he has pushed for more fiscally conservative policies while on the council. "As a small business owner and a father, I understand the notion of living within my means. Government must act in the same manner. We have a responsibility to provide the citizens the services that they need at the least possible cost."

Councillor Mike Speedy also outlined his vision for the future. He noted, "I plan on focusing on providing comprehensive solutions to better the neighborhoods of Perry Township." Speedy’s first step in doing this is to make public safety priority one. "City leaders must understand that we have to ensure that there are enough public safety officers on the streets. We must aggressively combat crime in the neighborhoods through increased staffing, promoting community policing initiatives, and by working hand in hand with community groups to combat rising crime throughout Marion County.

Speedy plans on running a positive, issue oriented campaign that focuses on his accomplishments as a member of the City County Council and his vision for the future of Perry Township.

AFA of Indiana PAC chairman, Micah Clark: "Indianapolis voters seeking an effective, experienced leader could not have a better candidate in this election than in this race for City-County Council. Mike Speedy is a proven leader on the Council in whom families can place their trust to champion their values. Mike Speedy 's conservative Hoosier values should resonate with large numbers of voters in Indianapolis.”

Cardwell Announces.

2007-03-27T21:10:00.000-05:00

Following a great deal of thought and prayerful reflection, respected local businessman Jeffery (Jeff) L. Cardwell today announced his intention to seek the GOP nomination for the City-County Council, District 23.

“After considerable prayer and conversations with my family and close friends, I have decided to seek this office and serve the public’s interest and help make Indianapolis – and Perry Township – a better place to live, work and raise a family,” said Cardwell.

A successful entrepreneur, Cardwell is already earning support for his bid, drawing accolades from the man he seeks to succeed, as well as from U.S. Rep. Mike Pence.

Says Pence, "I am honored to endorse Jeff Cardwell for City-Council District 23. Jeff Cardwell is a man of integrity whose commitment to the life of this community is an inspiration to all who know him. The people of City Council District 23 would be very fortunate to have Jeff Cardwell represent their families and their values in the government of the city of Indianapolis."

A graduate of Ben Davis High School and Indiana Wesleyan University, Cardwell grew up in Indianapolis and is, today, a skilled Realtor and business owner, as well as a passionate volunteer in continued relief efforts around the world. Currently, he serves as president and CEO of Cardwell Do-it Best Home Center, located along Madison Avenue on the city’s south side.

Politically, Cardwell is an active precinct committeeman, and has served as a delegate to the Indiana State Republican Convention and as an alternate to the national GOP convention. More information is available online at http://www.jeffcardwell.com/.

Rep. Joe Donnelly Violates Pledge.

2007-03-24T10:38:00.001-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

Freshman Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN2CD) voted Friday for the The Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007, also known as H.R. 1591. Although the bill contained funding for the Iraq war it also contained a controversial provision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by August of 2008. Inspite of Democratic Party promises to hold special interests accountable the bill contained $20 billion worth of pork.

According to the Family Research Council and American Values the projects included $25 million for Spinach growers and$74 million for for "peanut storage costs". The AP reported that Democratic House leaders argued that the inclusion of this funding (which made up 20% of the bill) was necessary to insure enough votes for their greater objective of securing a mandatory troop withdrawal.

During the 2006 campaign Joe Donnelly told the voters of the 2nd District that he would be an independent voice for them in Washington. Playing on voter disgust with GOP pork-laden bills Donnelly promised to support the people and not special interests.

Aside from the massive number of pork projects in the bill and its un-Constitutional interference with the Executive Branch on war decisions, 2nd District voters should be concerned that their congressman didn't hold true to his word. Rep. Donnelly was elected because people were tired of Republican games and felt that an honest Democrat would be good. They elected him because they believed his promise to be an "independent voice" in Washington. Unfortunately, Rep. Donnelly seems to have lost his "indepedent voice" on this issue.

On March 1st Joe Donnelly sent a letter to the writer of this piece declaring that he would not support arbitrary troop withdrawals or a defunding of combat troops. While I disagree with Rep. Donnelly's vote Friday, I am more concerned about his failure to keep his promises.

Above you will find the March 1st letter from Rep. Donnelly containing his promise to support the troops. I would recommend that you contact Rep. Donnelly and urge him to stand by his principles regardless of special interest whims.

Turning a Blind Eye to Uncomfortable Threats?

2007-03-22T12:56:00.000-05:00

By: Brian Sikma

Investor's Business Daily recently ran an article on the Muslim community in Baileys Crossroads, Virginia, located just over the Potomac from Washington. The article recorded the differences between the responses of British and American security officials in dealing with cloistered Muslim communities in their respective countries. British officials are highly concerned about extremist Muslim communities within their nation. U.K. authorities estimate that there are possibly thousands of Muslims plotting terrorist attacks against British citizens.

According to IBD the U.S. response: "Responding to new alarms raised by the Brits, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says not to worry, the threat inside America is less severe. He maintains that this country doesn't have the kind of "pockets" of concentrated radicals seen in Britain, where terrorists can find support and plot with virtual impunity."

Secretary Chertoff's assessment of the situation is a little odd. As the piece points out "Baileys Crossroads is the heart of the Wahhabi corridor, which includes the safe houses where the hijackers stayed and the mosque where they and dozens of other terrorists have worshipped."

The article continues:

"The area also includes two luxury apartment high-rises that erupted into cheers when the World Trade Center fell on 9/11. Law enforcement has dubbed them the "Taliban Towers." Investigators routinely find posters and computer screen savers celebrating Osama bin Laden as a hero.

"Down the street is a Saudi charitable front for al-Qaida once run by bin Laden's nephew. The U.S. branch of the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood is in the same office park. Farther down in Alexandria is the Saudi madrassa that's graduated several terrorists, including the al-Qaida operative who plotted to assassinate President Bush."The article goes on to provide facts and editorial commentary on the response-or rather lack thereof-of U.S. Security officials to this threat.

If we were to suppose for a moment that Sec. Chertoff was correct in surmising that we in the U.S. don't have to worry about pockets of Islamic radicals, several important questions would arise. Obviously if we don't have a problem with radical Muslims and Britain does, shouldn't we be asking ourselves why? Shouldn't we also be asking ourselves how we could prevent a similar problem from occurring here? Unfortunately we do have a problem and these and other important questions are moved out of the realm of the 3rd person and into the realm of the 1st person.

Key questions that should be asked include: "How do these pockets form?", "How do they operate after their formation?", "Do they reproduce and form new pockets?", "Is there a way we can minimize their reproductive capabilities?", "Are any U.S. laws broken in the operation and activities of these cells?", "Since we have strong reasons to suspect that some U.S. laws are being broken why, in a time of war, are we turning a blind eye to these national security threats?", "Does the Saudi Embassy have any official ties to these organizations?", and "Why does the Saudi Embassy and other Muslim organizations come to the defence of these people and why should they have so much political clout?".

Such questions are just the beginning of an in-depth debate that the citizens of this country and its policy makers need to have regarding the existence of an enemy among us. I am not advocating a "witch hunt" here. I am merely saying that we need to closely examine what is taking place within the Muslim community and work with law abiding, freedom loving moderates to protect the foundations of our government and the people of this great nation.

Defense policy analysts will tell you that what you don't know is not as dangerous as what you don't know that you don't know. To rephrase it, unknown unknowns are always more dangerous than known unknowns. If you understand that you lack adequate understanding of a specific threat then you can at least take basic steps to protect yourself from the threat. However, if you don't understand that there exists an unknown threat then you have no idea that you need to prepare for Something, whatever that Something is.

In our current situation we are faced with leadership on both sides of the political aisle that is failing to understand the nature of the threat. Although the warning signs are there, and although after 9/11 we should be able to recognize those signs as such, we are turning a blind eye towards a serious threat.

Our present course is one reminiscent of British Gen. Edward Braddock's foray into the dense American woodlands during the French and Indian War. Braddock's mission was to capture Ft. Dusquene and within his expedition he had both British regulars and American militia.

Braddock's experience with war came from Europe where professional armies clashed in open fields. Braddock had no experience with the frontier style of fighting carried out in the American colonies.

Ignoring the repeated warnings of young officer by the name of George Washington, Braddock led his expedition through the wilderness in the same fashion that one would lead a column over the hills of Europe. When the ambush finally came Braddock's orders were for the regulars to stand in the open in straight lines and fire into the surrounding forests. At the end of the day, Braddock's unfamiliarity with this type of warfare cost him both his own life and the lives of over 700 of his expedition members. The French and Indians lost less than 100 men.

Braddock had the opportunity to know about the new threat he would face in this new style of warfare. Col. Washington and others had often tried to discuss the nature of the threat with him. In the end, he turned a blind eye on their warnings and in the heat of battle the unknown-or ignored-unknown threat was what doomed him.

So today we have a simple choice; we can either understand the new nature of this warfare and throw political correctness to the wind and win, or we can choose to ignore the seriousness of the threat before us and one day be surprised by the killer among us.

After the events of that late summer day in September of 2001, turning a blind eye to this threat and actively desiring to not know the nature of it is a game we can't afford to play.

It's time to Redeem the Dream.

2007-03-06T20:49:00.000-06:00

By: Brian Sikma

Last week was the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. CPAC is a forum for conservative leaders to encourage the grassroots and also a place for the grassroots to take stock of the movement.

The most eloquent, and loved, individual to speak at these gatherings was Ronald Reagan; icon of all that it means to be Christian, conservative and American. Although many leaders have successfully articulated what it means to be a conservative, no one has ever quite matched Reagan's ability to describe our vision in such compelling terms.

One particular congressman has been a keynote speaker for the past several CPACs. He has a strong command of what it means to be a conservative, in both theory and practice. He possess the backbone needed to remind Republicans in Washington that they have been most successful when they have issued and enacted a conservative agenda. He has the eloquence needed to motivate and inspire others to go forward in the cause. His name is Mike Pence, and he hails from Indiana.

Rep. Pence's speeches to CPAC are some of the greatest pieces of conservative oratory ever seen. They are so good because they uncompromisingly point out where we have gone wrong in our governing, but also call us to back to our first principles. They call us to articulate our vision in such a manner as to compel our fellow citizens to realize the full greatness of our America Heritage.

This year's speech by Rep. Pence looked at the Republican defeat of 2006. Pence submitted that the voters abandoned the Republican party because the Republican party abandoned conservative governance. Rep. Pence did not hold a pity party though. Instead he said that we need to "...redeem the dream of conservative governance in Washington."

Ladies and gentlemen, Rep. Pence is right. We need to move forward and "redeem the dream". We need to set the tide running again. We need remember that as conservatives we are the only ones putting forward a positive vision for this country. We need to renew our vision. Limited government, balanced budget, free markets, strong national defence, protecting life, defending marriage, and religious liberty are only empty words unless we stand by them as we govern.

In closing his address Pence put forward 4 binding resolutions for conservatives interested in moving our country up a better path, toward a brighter future. If we follow these resolutions and unhesitatingly stand by our vision we will win some big victories in 2008. As you read these resolves remember they are not a political statement issued to win an election. They are a vision for a better nation.

Number One:

Let's resolve to be happy warriors. I've often said, "I'm a conservative, but I'm not in a bad mood about it." True conservatives accept defeat cordially and cheerfully return to the battle. Let's reflect the great joy of free people and squander not one minute licking our wounds. No whining. No complaining. Just the courage and optimism worthy of our cause.

Number Two:

Let's resolve to remain faithful to the ideals of our Founders, embracing the principles of limited government enshrined in the Constitution. Let's ignore the polls and pundits and the promise of electoral success where they stray from conservative values and know that every time the nation failed to embrace these timeless principles, it has been a failure of leadership and not this great people.

Number Three:

Let's resolve to keep believing in the American people and to keep believing the American people are on our side. Let's renew our unshakeable belief in their enduring goodness, wisdom and selflessness. To know that the values espoused by Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan were the values of the American people and they still are today.

Number Four:

Let's resolve to always remember that this is one nation under God. That in all history, America is unique, rich with a purpose yet to be fulfilled. Let's keep our eyes fixed on the Author and Perfecter of our faith, who is also the Author and Perfecter of this miracle of democracy.
To read Rep. Pence's CPAC speech, and you should, click here.

Federal Hate Crimes Legislation, H.R. 254.

2007-03-01T15:39:00.000-06:00

By: Brian Sikma

H.R. 254, introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, would impose greater penalties on individuals if they commit a crime that results in bodily injury against an individual because of that victim's sexual orientation. While this federal bill is not as broad as the bill that was defeated in the Indiana House, it is a dangerous stepping stone towards the enactment of federal legislation that would punish thoughts and opinions.

The problems with H.R. 254 are the same as the problems with every hate crimes law. Although its more narrow scope focuses on crimes that bodily injure someone, nevertheless it results in the unequal administration of justice. One problem that is unique to H.R. 254 and cannot be applied to state hate crimes legislation is the "findings" that the bill contains to justify its enactment.

Traditionally the states have been the authority that punished individual criminal acts. Such crimes as murder, theft, rape, and so forth have been controlled by state law. Nowadays though, it has become accepted that Congress and the federal government enact and enforce criminal statutes that were normally only the arena of the states.

A general survey of the Constitution reveals that nowhere is the federal government delegated the task of legislating or enforcing laws against individual criminal acts such as those listed above. For Congress to pass such legislation they must necessarily have an authorization to do so. Since the Constitution contains no direct authorization for this task members of Congress, using a distorted understand of the Commerce Clause endorsed by the Supreme Court, have gotten creative.

They argue that the Commerce Clause authorizes them to legislate in matters that "substantially affect" interstate commerce. Now, you can find the genesis of this test in the case of United States v. Lopez (1995) where the Supreme Court developed the test to replace the old "direct affects" test. Neither of these metrics are what the Founders intended us to use in determining whether or not a particular matter is within the scope and jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

In attempting to prove that Congress has the authority to pass H.R. 254, Section 2 of that legislation contains a list of "Findings" that justify the bill. When you read through these findings you can quickly see to what ludicrous levels some members of Congress descend to prove justify their actions.

In Sec. 2 of H.R. 254 it is set forth that "hate crimes" pose a "serious national problem". How they figured that out when in the year 2000 only 0.0008 of all crimes were hate crimes is beyond me. The further magnitude of this non-problem is revealed when one considers the fact that according to the FBI only 0.02% of murders can be considered hate crimes.

Sec. 2 also finds that hate crimes are deeply divisive and disrupt the tranquility of the community. Can't it be said that all crimes disrupt the tranquility of a community? The fact is, all crime is bad and all crime should be punished equally regardless of who it was committed against.

If you desire to read the full text of H.R. 254 you can do so by going here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110hsY59w::

Here are some links for further research on this issue:
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF02F1

http://ingenjnetwork.blogspot.com/2006/01/hate-crime-laws.html

I urge you to take a moment and write, call, or e-mail your Congressman and ask them to oppose H.R. 254. Remember, one voice and one vote can make a difference! It took William Wilberforce decades to end the slave trade, so too must we not tire of giving battle when challenged!

Repeal Property Taxes, Protect Marriage!

2007-02-27T18:34:00.000-06:00

Are you interested in permanently repealing property taxes? Do you want to see traditional marriage protected in Indiana?

If the answer to both of those questions is "yes" then I have good news for you! Eric Miller, Founder of Advance America and long-time conservative political activist and leader will be hosting a rally at the Indiana Statehouse on March 27th. The focus of the rally will be two issues: Repealing Property Taxes, Protecting Marriage.

Repealing Property Taxes: Did you know that property taxes are set to increase 17% in 2007? Between the years 1981 and 2005 property taxes increased by 450%! Local government spending continues to rise and Hoosier homeowners are increasingly faced with the reality that they really don't own their own home. It's time for the General Assembly to pass real tax reform and eliminate the property tax. For more information on the elimination of property taxes go to: www.repealpropertytaxes.com

Protecting Marriage: Indiana is halfway through the process of amending our constitution to define marriage as it has always been defined: one man and one woman. The General Assembly must pass SJR7-the marriage protection amendment-one more time before it can go to the voters for ratification in 2008. The Senate has already done its part this time around and now the amendment awaits action in the Indiana House. Speaker Pat Bauer and other legislators need to hear from you that you want marriage protected in your constitution!

If you live in the Indianapolis area, or would be interested in making a trip to the Statehouse, I can tell you that your time will not be wasted. The rally will be held at 12 noon on March 27th at the Indiana Statehouse.

Photograph of the Indiana State House rotunda, courtesy of Andrew Sikma.

Hate Crimes Defeated in Indiana

2007-02-24T21:06:00.000-06:00

This just in: H.B. 1459 was killed in the Indiana House on Friday, Feb. 24th. After thousands of phone calls and e-mails poured into the offices of House members Rep. Porter declined to bring his bill up for amendment, thereby killing the measure.

This is a victory for the grassroots in Indiana and I want to express my deep appreciation and respect for all of those who lobbied their elected officials on this issue. We are thankful to God for His ever present provision in throughout this debate.

Brian Sikma

The War in Iraq

2007-02-24T18:45:00.000-06:00

By: Brian Sikma

When the United States went to war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein we did so with the intent of winning. As the road has continued to become increasingly difficult and as the mission continues into a new year, Americans seem to be tired of the fight. But we must not tire now, the situation in Iraq is at a turning point. The options are simply this: the terrorist win, or we win. There is no other third option out.

If we must change our tactics then let us do so. If we must look at political solutions that we have not yet considered let that also be done. Possibly we should look at splitting Iraq up into varying sections so each faction can live in peace. But at all costs we must not withdraw from Iraq now.

By strategically redeploying out of Iraq or by simply withdrawing from the conflict we will create a power vacuum. This vacuum will not last long however as warring factions will seek to capture control of the government. Since the leaders in Iraq who desire to bring freedom and peace and stability to their people are weak, the thugs and despots who wish to use Iraq as a training ground for terrorism will take control. When these men seize control they will rape the people of Iraq on a scale comparable only to that of Saddam Hussein's regime.

When our enemies see us withdraw from Iraq they will be emboldened to strike at us again. For too many decades now we have failed to punish those that carry out terrorist attacks on us. To often we have issued a slap on the hand in the form of a cruise missile or an air strike. When our enemies saw our timid response to their actions they were emboldened to strike again. They did just that on September 11th, 2001. They will not hesitate to do so again.

Throughout our history the United States has fought for high ideals and principles. From our first freedoms fought and won in the War for Independence up to the current war on Islamofacist terrorism, each generation of Americans has faced a threat to its freedom.

Today our freedoms come to us, handed down from preceding generations, secured by the blood and sacrifice of patriots. It is not up to us to decide for ourselves whether we will live in freedom or tyranny. Our generation must realize like our forefathers realized that each generation is the temporary guardian of liberty. The honor of defending freedom's flame has been handed to us. It is our duty to defend liberty for future generations.

In this conflict there is one fact that we must understand above all others: The terrorists are fighting to win. The question is, are we fighting to win? Terrorist leaders in Iraq have stated that Iraq is a central front in this far flung conflict. They have said that "...right and wrong no longer have any place in our current situation." You cannot withdraw from a fight like this and expect the other side to respect your move. These thugs will continue to hit us as hard as they can until they win.

So with this in mind let us resolve to stand our ground. Let us stand tall in the face of danger and opposition. Let us not have talk of defeat or withdrawal. Let us stand true to our heritage as defenders of freedom. Let us behave like Americans. Let us go forward for Victory.

The Deniel of Equal Justice.

2007-02-16T10:13:00.000-06:00

On Thursday a committee in the Indiana House voted to pass H.B. 1459, a bill that would punish so called "hate crimes". If this bill becomes law it will destroy the idea of equal justice and substitute in its place a twisted sense of right that gives more protections to homosexuals and lesbians than men and women who abide by the standards of traditional morality. This bill is the antithesis of the ideals of our founding and the foundations of our republic.

When the government attempts to judge a crime based on the motives for that crime instead of the actual content of the crime it becomes a thought police. We cannot know the motives for a crime. As human beings we can only judge actions. We are not called to be the arbiters of men's thoughts.

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson correctly reasoned that "the legislative powers of government extend to actions only, and not opinions...." The Supreme Court in the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974) declared "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas." (Emphasis Mine.)

The arguments against this bill are not about denying equal justice to those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle, they are about making sure that every citizen is protected under law. The government must not extend special protections towards those living in risky lifestyles. Some argue that this is about civil rights, it is not. We are talking about the granting of false rights, not the protecting of unalienable rights.

If legislators really want to protect our communities they will realize that all crimes tear apart the fabric of society, not just hate crimes, and they will vote "no" on H.B. 1459.

Please take a moment and contact your representative now. Let them know that "Unequal justice is not justice! Please vote "no" on H.B. 1459." You can find out who your legislators are by clicking here.

Bill outlaws riding in back of pickup

2007-02-15T19:59:00.000-06:00

The Indiana House approved by a voice vote today a measure that would bar passengers from riding in the beds of pickup trucks.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Bill Ruppel, R-North Manchester, was added to House Bill 1237, which requires people to wear seatbelts in both the front and back seats of most vehicles, including pickup trucks.
Currently, only people in the front seats of passenger cars are required to wear seat belts, while people in trucks aren't required to wear them at all.
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Peggy Welch, a Bloomington Democrat who has been a champion of seat belts and protective car seats for children. The bill is now ready for a final vote in the House before moving to the Senate for debate. In past years, the Senate has passed legislation to require seatbelts, but the House has balked.
In addition, the House voted 55-40 in favor of an amendment that would treat trucks the same as passenger vehicles in determining the distribution of local road and street funds, which are based on the number of car and truck license plates in a county.
Ruppel, who also offered that amendment, said that would make rural counties a big winner. Marion County would lose about $620,000 over three years under the amendment.Copyright 2006 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved

Mr. Speaker, We Expect You To Keep Your Promise!

2007-02-14T19:25:00.000-06:00

As courts around the country began to first weaken, and then redefine the institution of marriage, an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana was introduced into the General Assembly in 2004. The amendment sought to protect in our Constitution what was already widely acknowledged in our society and embodied in our state law, that marriage in the State of Indiana shall consist of one man and one woman.

The amendment had overwhelming support among Hoosiers and their lawmakers. Along with this political incentive are the mounds of social data and historical analysis that prove that one man and one woman marriage is the best way to raise the next generation. Additionally it has been shown that no culture, society, or civilization can continue to exist, especially in prosperity, once it loses it traditional morals.

Inspite of all of this however, Speaker Pat Bauer (D-South Bend), decided to sacrifice the will of the people of Indiana and the future welfare of our state on the alter of political correctness. Speaker Bauer denied a floor vote on the amendment. If Rep. Bauer had allowed a vote, and the amendment would have surely passed, the citizens of Indiana would have had a chance to vote on the measure last November.

Instead of voting to protect marriage last fall Hoosiers recieved a promise from then Minority Leader Bauer that if they elected his party, the Democratic Party, to a majority in the House and he became Speaker, he would allow a floor vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment, S.J.Res. 7. The people of Indiana kept their end of the bargin, now Mr. Speaker needs to keep his.

Unfortunatly, the Speaker has begun to waver on his pledge. After he had safely won the election he began to add contingencies to his promise. These post-election statements include remarking that he will only consider the Amendment if it first passes the Senate. Micah Clark, of the American Family Association of Indiana, has reported that Mr. Bauer told one newspaper that he will only bring up the Amendment to ensure its defeat.

We must act now to help Speaker Pat Bauer keep his promise to the people of Indiana. The good folks at the American Family Association of Indiana have assembled a petition politely reminding the Speaker of his promise and encouraging him to keep his word. Please help in the fight to preserve traditional marriage by downloading this petition and then signing it, and having your friends, fellow church members, co-workers, neighbors, and any one else sign it. You can fax or mail your petitions back to AFA IN. Please don't hesitate, we must send Pat Bauer a message: The people of Indiana kept their end of the bargin, now please keep yours!

Click here to download the petition and get to work! We need to move quickly in order to pass S.J. Res. 7.

Brian Sikma
January 8th, 2007

Smoking Bill

2007-02-13T18:23:00.000-06:00

An Indiana House committee approved a bill this morning that would make it illegal for an adult to smoke in a vehicle when riding with a person under the age of 13.

House Bill 1337 would make the offense a $25 fine, the same as a seatbelt violation. But smoking with a child in the car would be a secondary offense, meaning police officers could not pull a driver over for that sole reason. If a driver were caught violating the law a second time, the fine would increase to $100. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, long has been a supporter of cracking down on smokers. He also has said he would support a cigarette tax increase of at least $1. HB 1337 also would make it illegal for someone to smoke within 100 feet of a bus or airport terminal. The House Judiciary Committee passed the proposal by an 8-1 vote. The bill now moves on to the full House, where Brown predicted it would pass. If so, the Republican-controlled Senate would take up the measure, where its chances of passage aren’t as good.

HPV Vaccine

2007-02-12T19:39:00.000-06:00

After an hour of emotional debate, the Senate voted 44-5 today to require Indiana's schools to send home information with girls entering the sixth grade about the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer, and that a new vaccine can prevent it.

Senate Bill 327 now moves to the House for debate.

Sen. Connie Lawson, the Danville Republican who authored the bill, told her colleagues that the vaccination, Gardasil, can save lives.

"Whoever thought we would have a vaccine that can prevent a nasty virus, and that nasty virus can cause cancer?" she said.

Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, noted that 10 women die daily of cervical cancer nationwide.
"They could be your wife, your mother, your sister, your daughter," she said. "We have a real opportunity to do something positive."

Sen. Jeff Drozda, R-Westfield, was one of the five Republicans to vote against the bill, saying that the Senate was moving too fast and that not enough is known about the vaccination. And Sen. Mike Delph, a Carmel Republican who also voted against the bill, questioned whether the vaccination is being pushed by its maker, Merck, to grow its profits.

"To me, this is about one thing and one thing only -- ensuring Merck's bottom line," Delph said.

Sen. Ron Alting, a Lafayette Republican whose wife died of cancer at age 40, said that when a loved one has cancer, no one cares what the drug company might make in profits, only whether the medicine will work.

He and others argued that the state is only requiring that information be sent home to families, and is not requiring anyone to get the vaccination, as Gov. Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, has mandated in that state.

In addition to Delph and Drozda, the senators who voted against the bill are Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus; Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, and Sen. Johnny Nugent, R-Lawrenceburg.

Taken from the Indianapolis Star.

Same-Sex Marriage Ban

2007-02-12T19:35:00.000-06:00

The Indiana Senate this afternoon voted to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

The vote marks the second time the Senate has approved the measure, which now moves to the Indiana House for a vote. If approved there a second time there, the amendment would be placed on the ballot for the November 2008 election. If passed by voters, the constitution would be amended.

The Senate voted 39-10 to pass the proposal, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, spoke against the bill, saying it discriminated against same-sex couples. "I ask you how history will judge our actions today as we consider the possible drafting of constitutional discrimination," Lanane said. The amendment's author, Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, said the proposal does not discriminate, but protects marriage.
"We break no ground by reaffirming what has always been," Hershman said. "In this case, we simply are allowing the people to express their will."

From the Indianapolis Star.

Licensing for Churches and Christian Schools

2007-01-23T18:27:00.000-06:00

From an Advance America Legislative Alert:

Indiana Senate Bill 190, authored by Senator Jeff Drozda, would protect churches from having to be licensed by the government as a business if they have a pitch-in, bake sale or other event involving food. Christian schools would also be entitled to the same licensing exemption if they have a concession stand.

Pastors and administrators could be prosecuted. If Senate Bill 190 does not pass and a church or Christian school has just one event involving food where something is sold and the church and Christian school is not licensed by the state, the pastor and school administrator could be prosecuted for a class B misdemeanor and could face a fine or jail.

Churches and Christian Schools should continue to be free. Call or e-mail your Indiana State Senator and ask them to support Senate Bill 190 to protect churches and Christian schools.

Hate Crimes Legislation, A Good Thing?

2007-01-21T21:23:00.000-06:00

Over the past several years there has been an increasing level of discussion regarding hate crimes and hate speech laws. Recently this debate has come to the fore of various forums in Indiana and nationally a bill has been introduced in the U.S. House defining hate crimes. This discussion has arisen in the past few Congresses and we can expect to hear more about it in the future.

The debate over whether or not such laws are a good thing is an important one. In seeking to understand the full extent of the problems posed by hate crimes laws, and in an effort to educate our others on this matter, I have written a somewhat detailed review of this issue. To read more click here.

Brian Sikma

Freedom of Speech Protected for Now.

2007-01-19T21:00:00.000-06:00

On January 18th the Senate passed the Bennett Amendment to S. 1. This amendment successfully removed the offending provisions of Sec. 220 that would have muzzled the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly enjoyed by citizen activism and grassroots lobbying groups. The vote on the amendment was 55-43 with Indiana's Senators Lugar and Bayh voting to protect free speech.

This victory would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of citizens across the country who contacted their senators and requested them to defend their freedom of speech. This is just one more instance of how powerful the conservative grassroots lobby can be when the citizens of this country are aroused by any attempt to infringe on their liberty. Even though the Democrats took control in November it is clear that the people intend to hold them just as accountable as they held Republicans.

Although this attempt to limit free speech was defeated for now another provision on Capitol would have the same effect. H.R. 4682 is a U.S. House bill that contains a provision similar to the one the Bennett Amendment eliminated. We will keep you updated on this important development. To find out more click here.

We sincerely hope that a vigilance on the part of our fellow citizens will be maintained throughout this congress, and every succeeding congress. It was said at our founding that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and the events of the past 50 years prove that when the people disengage from the public sphere their government will not hesitate to impose greater regulation on their lives and certain segments will attempt to overthrow that morality that is the bulwark of our political order.

Brian Sikma

HR 3 -- Stem Cell Research Funding

2007-01-10T14:46:00.000-06:00

The controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research has been enormous as those who desire to protect human life have lobbied for Congress to fund only those methods that don’t endanger human life. Now, science is showing that these ethical methods are the techniques producing results.

New research from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine makes the answer to the question of whether or not to continue funding embryonic stem cell research even more evident. According to reports, scientists there have discovered an alternative to embryonic stem cell research that increases the promise of treatment without destroying human life. Stem cells found in the rich amniotic fluid that sustains a baby in the womb have the ability to grow into brain, muscle, and other tissues to fight and treat disease.

Considering that the Declaration of Independence calls us to protect the unalienable right of every human being to life, the decision to cut government funding of embryonic stem cell research should be simple. As Christians, it is even more clear. If the government desires to fund anything, fund the new research, which offers broader possibilities without destroying human lives in the process. Early this month, the new House leadership discussed ethics in depth. If they truly want to uphold solid moral values, then they should abandon their quest to subsidize unethical experimentation and focus on research that cures without killing.

You can take action by calling your representatives and urging them to vote NO to HR.3.

S.1 -- Grassroots Lobbying

2007-01-10T12:30:00.000-06:00

The following is an excerpt from an article written by Gary Scheenberger regarding S.1. section 220, which contains serious restrictions to grassroots lobbying. This is an issue that we need to take action on. Because voting will take place on this bill Monday-Wednesday of last week, take the time to call your Senators now!

-------------------------

The newly convened, Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to take up a pair of bills with grave implications for families -- and your voice is needed to keep the ill-advised measures from passing.

In the Senate, lawmakers are scheduled next week to consider a bill that could strip everyday Americans of their rights to free speech. Some provisions of S. 1 would limit citizens' ability to express their views to the very officials they sent to office to represent them.

Even more pressing, a bill to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research is expected to be voted on Thursday in the House. HR 3 seeks to override President Bush's limits on the use of tax money for the suspect science, which requires the destruction of human embryos.

S. 1 aims to clean up recent lobbying scandals that have plagued the halls of our government. While most of the bill is good, it contains a provision, Section 220, that will severely limit the ability of Americans to stay abreast of the important issues facing our country.

Instead of addressing the true lobbying problems – high-paid lobbyists buying influence with members of Congress with international trips and fancy dinners – Section 220 will place the bulls-eye squarely on you.

---------------------

Section 220 will require that organizations such as Generation Joshua that alert Americans to important legislation affecting our country be burdened by miles of new red tape. These bureaucratic restrictions are unconscionable, and failure to comply could result in $100,000 fines.

Call both of your U.S. senators and urge them to oppose the unfair grassroots lobbying provisions (Sec. 220) and ensure that they are removed from S. 1.

The Onslaught of International Policy in America

2006-12-21T14:28:00.000-06:00

The following is an excerpt from a letter written by Dr. Michael Farris that I feel demands our prayers and utmost attention. Please take the time to read this:

Harvard Law School, which acts as an intellectual bellwether for the nation’s law schools, recently announced a major revision in its core curriculum. The school that sets the course for American jurisprudence has strategically shifted the focus of its traditional law school courses from American constitutional law toward an emphasis on international law.

The implication of this shift is staggering, as trumpeted in the deadline of the Harvard’s The International Law Journal: “Shift in Harvard Curriculum Reflects Larger Trend Toward Global Law.”

Let me be frank; this is no simple, passive nod to a fleeting trend or to the fact that international law has come into vogue in American’s courtrooms. Harvard is making a bold declaration to the nation about a strategic course that has long-term, and potentially disastrous, implications for American society. Note that the collage added international law to its first year, rather than to its second or third year requirements. Harvard leadership knows full well that it is during the first year of law school that one’s legal worldview is molded.

Harvard makes no attempt to hide its plan to imprint principles of international law firmly in the minds of its students for the duration of their professional lives. Given Harvard’s nation-shaping influence, the shift in curriculum will place international law squarely before American constitutional law in the judgments of future lawyers.

Should it surprise us to learn that American Constitutional Law has been relegated to that of a second tier course at Harvard? Hardly. The school is simply working to codify in the thinking of America’s next wave of lawyers that is becoming a favored approach by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of its recent decisions have cited international law as a guidepost for interpreting the Constitution of the United States.

Even former Chief Justice Rehnquist said that because constitutional law is solidly grounded in so many countries, the time has come for the United States to being looking at the constitutional courts of other countries to aid in their own deliberative process. It is a tactic revered by the left in the international law typically comes down hard against the founding principles of the United States.

By the same token, liberal educators rejoice every time a bright, Christian teenager enrolls in one of their premier institutions. And why not, they’ve gained intimate access to the young, impressionable mind of another potential opponent. Ponder that for a moment: How better for the left to win a cultural war than to convince education with an institution like Harvard, which, as we’ve seen, favors militant secularism and left-wing political ideologies emphasizing international law over the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution.

It is time for us to stop pretending that elite secular education is becoming anything but downright antagonistic toward Christians. A recent article on wired.com (the online version of Wired Magazine) describes an intellectual movement called the New Atheists, which exults Oxford University as its so-called “Jerusalem.” The article stated:

“The New Atheists will not let us [moderate skeptics] off the hook simply because we are not doctrinal believers. They condemn not just a belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there’s no excuse for shirking.”

Three leading professors at Oxford – Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett – lead the group and make clear their convictions that children should never receive education that is religious in nature. This means not ever, whether we’re talking about school Monday through
Friday, Sunday School, or family devotion.

“’How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?’ Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to believe their beliefs on their children? Is their something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?’”

The inference is clear: for “society” (or government) to step in a prevent children from being taught “manifest falsehoods” (like belief in God), the government must adopt the official religion of atheism.

While these folks hide behind claims of defending intellectual or political liberty, they, quite simply, want to stop Christians from teaching their own children to believe in God. Recognizing the need to work slowly to fain enough power to use government to enforce these ends, they are content for now to ride the coattails of higher education. And too many Christians passively comply, turning their children over to Harvard or Oxford (or the hundreds of colleges hoping to emulate Harvard and Oxford), and watch helplessly as these institutions unleash the full thrust of their intellectual prestige to undo the “damage” of a religious upbringing.

A friend of mine is fond of saying, “You can’t fight something with nothing.” We can’t fight Oxford’s atheists or Harvard’s internationalist by averting our eyes or wringing our hands. It isn’t sufficient to fight them only in political campaigns or by writing articles and books to expose they’re tactics. We must be them at there own game.

Unless there are Christian colleges with the gumption to go toe-to-toe with these institutions, which have academic programs that are second to none, and which are grounded in an unyielding commitment to the Word of God, we will lose. We simply cannot let the atheists and internationalists of higher education train the top leaders of tomorrow without a challenge.

Please hear my heart: we will lose the essence of
self-government if we allow our nation to be rules by the elite graduates
heavily influenced but the likes of atheists and internationalists.

Firearms to be banned at Statehouse?

2006-12-09T15:39:00.000-06:00

Under newly proposed rules that will take effect in early 2007 citizens will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons with them while they are in the Indiana Statehouse and other nearby governmental buildings. The rule must be signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels before it is official and his signature is expected.

The ban does not apply to everyone. Judges, law enforcement officers, and members of the Indiana General Assembly will be allowed to continue to carry concealed weapons. Interestingly, statewide officers such as Secretary of State Todd Rokita or State Treasurer Richard Mourdock will be subject to the same rules as the general public.

Speaking of the new regulations Secretary Rokita (R-Munster) said "It seems that ever since 9/11, we have changed the way we live, at least in terms of access to our public places. And that's unfortunate, because when you change the American way of life, you let the wrongdoers win." Mr. Rokita, who has a concealed carry permit, is right. However, this is more than just a change in the American way of life, it is a compromising of one of our most sacred rights, the right to keep and bare arms.

Brian Sikma

The Need for Moral Clarity.

2006-11-28T17:57:00.000-06:00

In a very disturbing turn of events, newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn), a Muslim, has announced his intention to take the oath of office on a copy of the Koran instead of on the Bible. Liberals hail this sort of event an "opportunity" to show the Muslim world how open minded and tolerant we are. The may even sound patriotic and cite our national motto "E Pluribus Unum", Out of Many One. Or they may say that we must continue to be the melting pot of the world.

Well, this descendent of sturdy immigrants who braved the Atlantic to come to this country would like to say that if we are to continue to be the "melting pot" we must continue to promote the values and principles of our founding. By allowing each and every group to declare which set of moral principles it will be guided by our free government will not continue to work. It is precisely the Judeo-Christian principles of the rule of law and not the rule of man, and the belief that all people have a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience that insures that people of all religious and philosophical persuasions have freedom to hold those views.

Unlike almost every other belief system, the Judeo-Christian view holds that one may only be punished for actions, not thoughts. If an individual commits say, a murder, and in so doing says that he was only killing an enemy of his religion, we do not punish his religious belief, only his expression of that belief, ie: his action, because that expression destroyed the ability of another man to believe according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Keith Ellison has every right to believe that the Koran is superior to the Bible and though I strongly disagree with him on a theological level I would not support any action that would deny him that right. Holding public office though is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the people. If one is to hold office he or she must recognize that though they may hold other beliefs, they are bound to acknowledge and respect the fact that there is a certain belief system that is the basis for our government.

One of my favorite talk show hosts, Dennis Prager, has written a brilliant piece on the subject of Keith Ellison and I encourage you to check it out. Mr. Prager, who holds to the Jewish faith, is correct in saying "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. "

In this age of moral relativism let's make sure that moral clarity and truth prevail over the dangerous and intellectually lacking theory of all value systems being equal.

Brian Sikma
November 28th, 2006

Why Sen. Martinez is a Good Guy.

2006-11-24T16:54:00.000-06:00

With the announcement that Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) will be replacing Ken Mehlman as RNC Chairman in January I have heard of some people complaining that Martinez is not conservative enough to head the RNC.

It appears that the basis of this claim is to be found in a comment that Sen. Martinez made with respect to the recent election defeat for Republicans. The Senator supported President Bush's plan for "comprehensive immigration reform" and had this to say to reporters: "I think we have to understand that the election did speak to one issue, and that was thatÂitÂs not about bashing people, itÂs about presenting a hopeful face. ÂBorder security only, enforcement only, harshness only is not the message that I believe America wants to convey".

I think that we need to be very careful about labeling Martinez too "liberal" to be the head of the RNC. I understand that appointing a sitting Senator to RNC Chair is an unusual move for the GOP. But instead of relying on interesting rhetoric lets turn to the record.

In the above statement the Senator never said that he is agaiborderoder security, he only acknowledged that security is not the only facet in this debate. We must consider the economic impact that Mexican immigrants have on our country. We need to implement a solution that requires dangerous aliens to be deported never to return while providing a way for a guest worker plan that allows foreign nationals to come work for a short time while keeping the "guest" in guest worker. We need to implement a rational third way in the immigration debate.

Just because the Martinez recognizes the need for a guest worker program does not mean that he is against border security. It is true that on July 13th of this year Sen. Martinez voted against a bill that provided funds for 370 miles of double layer fencing along the southern border. This is probably in part due to the fact that only a few weeks earlier, on June 20th, Martinez voted for 370 miles of triple layer fencing.

Voting against federally funded embryonic stem cell research and voting for the Marriage Protection Amendment don't count towards being a liberal.

Even though ratings and rankings issued by various organizations can prove to be very subjective, it may be helpful to see how Sen. Martinez ranks amongst his peers. The American Conservative Union gives Martinez a lifetime rating of 96. For comparison ACU rates Sen. Sam Brownback at 95 and Sen. Rick Santorum at 88. Sen. Martinez has also earned a 100 (out of 100) score from the Family Research Council on his stands for the family and pro-life issues.

Take a look at Sen. Martinez's voting record.

Brian Sikma
November 24th, 2006

Irate, Tireless Minority.

2006-11-21T11:12:00.000-06:00

With the end of the Republican Conference leadership elections I want to thank Rep. Mike Pence for running for Minority Leader and being a voice for conservatism during this important time for Republicans in Congress. On November 7th the American people voted for change. Between that time and November 17th we as a party held vigorous debate as to what the elections meant and who should lead our party now that we are in the minority. Some of us supported leadership candidates that lost. Others supported the candidates that won. Either way I think all of us can appreciate the fact that we took stock of the situation and tried to do what we thought was best for the party and for our country.

Congratulations to Rep. Boehner for winning the Minority Leader election. Although I supported a different candidate, I have every confidence that Rep. Boehner will lead our party well. John Boehner is a man of integrity and courage and we can be proud to have him as our leader. Those of us that did support another candidate need to rally behind our leader and support him. All of us need to stand shoulder to shoulder and support and cover each other if we are to go forward.

We must work to put forward and advance an alternative plan to what the Democrats will be putting forward. We need to oppose not just for the sake of opposition, but for good of the American people. We need to bring forward common sense solutions to our problems. In short, if we are to make our stay in the minority a brief one, over the next two years we will need to earn our way back into the majority.

We must not be afraid to call the Democrats when they try to push forward legislative proposals and policies that are not in the best interest of the American people. Even though we are in the minority we do not need to roll over and play dead. Just like when we were in the majority it is our job now to continue to fight for a "square deal", in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, for the American people, for our military, and for posterity.

We should seize any and every chance to work with the new "Blue Dog" Democrats that may share our policy positions on some issues. In Ronald Reagan's work on tax cuts in the 1980s we can find a precedent for how we should conduct ourselves today.

Throughout the next two years we should be heartened by the words of Samuel Adams who once observed "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Sure, it is easier to work in the majority, but now we must be a "irate and tireless minority"!

Brian Sikma
November 21st, 2006

(Top picture of John Boehner, lower picture of Mike Pence)

Former Reagan Administration official on Pence.

2006-11-15T08:46:00.000-06:00

On November 14th Gary Bauer, a former Reagan Administration official and now President of American Values, announced his support for Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) for the position of Minority Leader. "It's clear from exit polls that the American people voted against Republicans more than they voted for the Democrats, and in the wake of the Foley scandal, I believe new leadership and fresh faces are needed."

Mr. Bauer continued in the next paragraph: "I can’t vote in this race, but I believe Rep. Mike Pence would make an excellent leader for House Republicans. I knew Mike Pence before he was in Congress, and his commitment to pro-family, pro-life values has never wavered. He is also one of the most aggressive advocates for reduced federal spending and smaller government in Congress today. It was Rep. Pence and the Republican Study Committee (RSC) that proposed Operation Offset to pay for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction efforts with targeted spending cuts in the federal budget, rather than adding to the deficit. House Republicans are set to choose a new leader on Friday. If you are represented by a Republican in the House and would like to share your opinions on who should lead them in the next Congress, call your representative at 202-224-3121."

Proof of the statement that Democrats didn't win this election but Republicans lost can be found in a recent Newsweek poll. In the poll only 27% of respondents that voted for the Democrats voted based on a quality that they liked about a the Democratic Party or a Democratic candidate. The rest of those that voted Democrat did so out of dislike or unhappiness with the GOP. I think that those numbers are very encouraging with regards to the 2008 election.

Brian Sikma

Family Research Council endorses Rep. Mike Pence

2006-11-13T18:53:00.000-06:00

Today Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. endorsed Rep. Mike Pence for the position of Minority Leader in the U.S. House. Writing in an e-mail to supporters nationwide Mr. Perkins had this to say about Mike Pence:

"It is no coincidence that with every shift in power in Washington there is a shift in Leadership. In two separate op-eds today both Tom McClusky, FRC's Vice President of Government Affairs, and I point out that the new Democratic Leadership will be representing the most in-your-face liberal ideology we've seen since the early 90's. In response the Republicans must elect leaders who best represent the ideology they hope to pursue as a minority party. Will Republicans in Congress decide to stay the course? To do so will guarantee the Republican Party minority status for the years to come. Republicans should elect true blue leaders who will bring back into focus core conservative principles that brought them out the previous 40 years in the political wilderness. I firmly believe that Mike Pence (R-IN) would be the best choice to lead House Republicans as Minority Leader. As Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mike has shown his ability to work with and lead his colleagues in championing limited government and family-friendly policies. A refusal to change direction in leadership sends a very clear signal that pro-family issues will remain relegated to the level of campaign issues or below. A vote to stay the course is a vote to remain in the political wilderness for another 40 years. Call your Republican member of Congress and urge them to support Mike Pence."

To find the contact information for your member go to www.house.gov. Remember, only members of the Republican Conference (ie: only Republicans) can vote in Friday's leadership elections.

Brian Sikma

Conservatives speak out on Rep. Mike Pence

2006-11-12T16:20:00.000-06:00

On November 8th Human Events, a leading conservative newspaper, published this article on Rep. Mike Pence's bid for the Minority Leadership:

"When the now-defeated Republican majority in the House of Representative was led astray on key issues by President Bush, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, it was Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana who rallied backbenchers to fight back in defense of conservative principles.

That is why Pence should be elected minority leader for the next Congress." For more click below:

Our View: Mike Pence for Minority Leader, Human Events

The Patriot Post, after surveying the results of the election in their 06-45 Digest, had this to say on the future of House Republicans:

"Fortunately, there are still many conservative Republicans in the House and Senate, but the Party is clearly adrift. Republicans need to get back to basics, and in some areas the rumblings have already begun. Perhaps weÂll see Reps. Mike Pence and John Shadegg of the Republican Study Committee get a chance to lead a true conservative movement in Congress."

Redstate.com has announced their support for RSC Chairman Mike Pence's bid for Minority Leader and Rep. John Shaddegg for Minority Whip.

The Club for Growth has also endorsed Rep. Pence for Minority Leader.

Blogger extraordinairee and radio talk show host HughHewittt has a offered a good perspective of the House Minority elections coming on Friday.

Also, on a slightly different subject, some have been wondering where they can find election information. For Indiana one of the best resources is the Secretary of State's Office Election Division website.

Brian Sikma

New Leadership Needed?

2006-11-11T17:23:00.000-06:00

A defeat is a good time to step back and look at where you are headed. You may find that you should continue on the same path or you may conclude that changes need to come. I think that the Republicans in the United States House of Representatives are at an important crossroads after this election. As the President said "cumulatively we took a thumping". Will House Republicans settle for the same old politics-as-usual leadership that has descended on them in the years after the Revolution of '94? This choice will face the Republican Conference when it meets for leadership elections for the 110th Congress.

Don't get me wrong, I sincerely appreciate the hard work of Denny Hastert and the able leadership of Tom DeLay. Frankly, I wish DeLay hadn't stepped down and I have great respect for his willingness to take one for the team. Speaker Hastert has announced that he is leaving his leadership position and I thank him for his service to the party.

With these two leaders now gone, others will be assuming the role of leadership and it is important that if we are to learn the lessons of our defeat, we see leaders rise who will re-energize the minority and instill confidence and support in the base. With 2008 looming ahead we cannot settle for more Big Government policies and leadership that will stubbornly cling to old and failed politics, politics that are not in keeping with what is good for our nation and our party.

After such a defeat as we suffered on November 7th, I believe that new faces need to be given a chance to lead. I'm not talking about unproven leaders, but ones who's conservatism may have limited their role during past Congresses. I'm referring to leaders who have proven themselves in the trenches and have led contingents of their fellow members.

Believing all of the above I am endorsing Rep. Mike Pence to be the next minority leader of the United States House of Representatives. I am also endorsing the idea of Rep. John Shaddegg to be the next House Minority Whip.

After losing his first bid to become a Congressman, in which he engaged in throwing mud at his opponent, he publicly apologized for the way he ran his campaign. In so doing he exhibited the humility necessary to leading a party in the minority. He also became a talk show host in Indianapolis and it was here that he honed his communication skills to perfection. Rep. Pence can clearly and convincingly articulate the conservative message that will energize the base and bring the Republican Party back to power.

Rep. Pence as chairman of the Republican Study Committee has ably led the largest association of House Conservatives to several victories. Among them have been successful attempts to limit spending through legislative offenses like Operation Offset. Rep. Pence has also been a strong supporter of the War on Terror because he realizes the titanic scale of the conflict which we are involved in. While Rep. Pence is an unashamed conservative, he has shown that he can reach out and work for commonsense conservative solutions that will have broad appeal. An example of this can be found in the border security first Pence-Hutchison plan for solving the problem of illegal immigration (see more on that below).

You can read Rep. Pence's letter to his colleagues announcing his run for minority leader here. As the conference election draws nearer I will continue posting about Rep. Pence's candidacy.

Here is an interesting article on leadership elections.

Brian Sikma

Analyzing the Results of the 2006 Election

2006-11-11T17:15:00.000-06:00

There is no doubt about it that Tuesday, November 7th, 2006 was a bad day for Republicans. We lost the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and the Indiana House. Thankfully we held onto the Indiana Senate with a comfortable 33-17 majority. Going into this election history was against us, we were supposed to lose. With a sitting Republican President who is waging a war the Republican party was supposed to lose this one big time.

The American people rejected the Republican party, I don't think that they embraced the Democratic party. This was our election to lose. For the past few years the Republican party failed to fully enact the bold agenda that brought it to power.

To be sure, the Republican majorities working in conjunction with a Republican executive branch were able to put in place a tax cut that has helped the economy recover from the 2001 recession. Wages are on the rise (up 6% since the beginning of this year), employment is at 95.6%, GDP growth is at 3.5%, and the National deficit is lower this year than predicted. The Republican's have also prosecuted the War-on-Terror with many victories, most recently the guilty verdict and death penalty for Saddam Hussein which was handed down by an Iraqi court. The President has nominated, and the Senate has confirmed, the appointment of conservative justices to federal courts across our land.

But inspite of all of our accomplishments, the national debt has continued to rise, Medicare "reform" was enacted and the largest entitlement since possibly the Great Society was put in place. No Child Left Behind, while no doubt put forward with admirable intentions, expanded the federal bureaucracy and violated the principles of federalism (See President Reagan's EO No. 12612). Pork Barrel spending is up from 1,500 projects in 1994 to 15,000 projects in 2006. Border security reform is also urgently needed and amnesty is not the answer. We also failed to pass meaningful government reform that would have required a review of all federal agencies and departments and the abolishment of those that were obsolete or a waste of taxpayer dollars.

With all of this in mind, as a Republican who has watched the Democratic party I think the voters made a terrible choice in electing Democratic majorities to solve these shortcomings. However, I'm not sure they really support any of the Democrat's proposals. The voters were justifiable unhappy with Republicans and so they voted for the only alternative. You can make a strong case, and you would be correct, that the voters that were disappointed with the Republican record on government reform shot themselves in the foot November 7th. However, in so doing they forced us to reconsider our ways and our policies. For that I say "thank you".

For those that are worried that this election means that Americans have rejected the values and principles of our founding let me point out that by and large the Democrats only succeeded in ousting Republicans with moderate to conservative Democrats. To my knowledge, every Democrat that defeated a sitting Hoosier Republican, is pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-second amendment. This is what their rhetoric is at least. I suspect that based on past actions their future votes will not line up with their campaign speech.

Even though Republicans took a beating election night, traditional marriage still stood strong. Tennessee, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin all passed amendments to their Constitutions that protect the institution of marriage. I am confident that the Democrats will not be regarded as the party that protects values, individual Democrats may be seen as champions of social values, but the Republican party if it finds its voice and then puts actions to its words, will once again be correctly seen as the party of traditional Judeo-Christian and American values.

Perhaps the most bitter irony of election night was the fact that conservatives like Sodrel, Chocola, Hostettler and Ryun lost while moderates like Roy Blunt stayed in power. Some conservatives were punished because of the shortcomings of Bob Ney and others.

I think that amidst the ashes of the 2006 defeat we can find hope. Conservative values were not defeated, ballot initiatives proved that. We lost because we as a party over the past few years were more worried about winning the next election instead of bringing about reform and change. We made only halting steps towards enacting our vision. Our principles didn't let us down. We let our principles down. If we learn from this mistake, if this defeat causes us to reaffirm our values in limited government and traditional values, then it will have been worth it and we will stand a strong chance of winning in 2008. I would rather lose this year than two years from now when the stakes will be much higher.

Brian Sikma

Update on the Rentention Question.

2006-11-02T21:33:00.000-06:00

Indiana Right to Life has reversed its position on Judge Edward Najam, Jr. of the Indiana Court of Appeals, First District, who is up for a retention vote on November 7th. IRTL-PAC has dropped its objections to Judge Najam due to a better analysis of his judicial record. It is now fine if you vote "YES" for the retention of Judge Najam.

Indiana Right to Life is however opposing the 6th judge up for retention, Judge James S. Kirsch of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Second District. Judge Kirsch was appointed by Gov. Evan Bayh (D).

For a look at exactly why 5 of these 6 judges need to be voted down please visit Candidate Surveys.

To Retain, or Not to Retain?

2006-11-01T11:18:00.000-06:00

On November 7th there will be 6 appointed, Indiana Judges up for a retention vote. Many times judges are retained with around 80% of the vote. This is not because they are such good judges, it is because their views and rulings on important issues are not well known.

Indiana Right to Life has done some research and found that at least 4 judges (Listed below) have ruled against pro-life and pro-family positions in important court cases. It must be noted that these judges were not required by higher precedent to rule the way they did. In all of these cases they unashamedly usurped their judicial authority and made law.

The most important principle of American government is the idea that only the people have the right to elect those who will make the law over them. Other officers may be elected or appointed to fulfill various duties but only those who are specifically delegated the task of making law are the ones who posses lawful legislative power. Thomas Paine, writing in Common Sense noted that "All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation".

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 declared that the duty of the courts is to "...to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void." He continued by quoting the political philosopher Montesquieu who observed that there would be no liberty if the judiciary were to unite with either the legislative or executive branches. What we are seeing in an activists court system is the absorption by the judiciary of the legislative branch's powers.

On November 7th, defend the principles of our Founding and vote "NO" on the following judges:

Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr., Indiana Supreme Court.
Appointed by Gov. Evan Bayh (D)

Judge Ezra Friedlander, Indiana Court of Appeals, Second District
Appointed by Gov. Evan Bayh (D)

Judge Terry Crone, Indiana Court of Appeals, Third District
Appointed by Gov. Joe Kernan (D)

Judge Patricia Riley, Indiana Court of Appeals, Fourth District
Appointed by Gov. Evan Bayh (D)

Please get this information to as many of your Hoosier friends as you can. For more information on these judges please visit Candidate Surveys and http://www.indianalife.org/ to download a free, non-partisan voter guide.

Brian Sikma
Nov. 1st, 2006

Image of Chief Justice John Marshall, author of the majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Notes From the Campaign Trail, Part 2.

2006-10-25T11:29:00.000-05:00

Who will Win in November?

The United States House of Representatives is on every political pundit's mind. Every one of the House's 435 seats are up for grabs. Grant it, only a relative handful are really competetive races thanks to gerreymandering on the part of both parties; but some are predicting that the GOP will lose its 15 seat majority in the "People's Chamber." Although there are some heated Senate races there seems to be a little less focus on who will control the Senate. Recently conservative writer David Frum predicted that November 7th will be a "debacle" for the GOP in both Houses. Conservative political observer Fred Barnes is also predicting that election day does not bode well for the Republicans.

However, I take a different point of view from these predicters of doom and gloom. What the national political obeservers are lacking is any "field contact" with the campaigns. Sitting in an office analyzing national polling data does not predict how races are going at the local level. Furthermore, when you are looking at a race from the outside instead of being involved in one you don't have as clear a picture of what is going on as even the most optimistic volunteer. During the past few weeks GOTV efforts have hit faster tempos and the pace continues to increase as we approach election day. Are we going to win here in IN-02? You betcha, we've got a superb operation that will be able to crank out more votes on election day than Joe Donnelly's team will be able to.

As all the top Republican's are saying, this election is about issues and turnout. The Republicans have solutions, the Democrats don't. On turnout, the Republicans have contacted 22 million voters to date and the number continues to climb. To read more about turnout check out this Washington Times article :http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061023-121320-7876r.htm.

Here is what the President had to say about Republican chances in November at today's press conference:

"The American people will decide the races. They will decide who is best to keep the American people safe and who is best to keep the taxes low. And second, you didn't ask this, but I will tell you anyway. I see alot of enthusiasm among the grassroots activities. People are putting up the yard signs and manning the phones, and they're showing up when it comes time for the absentee votes. We're organized. We have a fantastic grassroots organization to turn out the vote. This campaign has obviously got national implications to it, no question about it. Implications to it on the Iraq war, the security of the country, and economic vitality and growth. But each of these elections turns out tobe local in their scope and in their character. We've got good candidates running hard and we're gonna win. It will defy conventional wisdom."

Chocola For Congress Luncheon in Logansport.

I had the opportunity to attend a Chocola For Congress lunch in Logansport, IN on Oct. 23rd. The special guest was Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan) who was in Indiana to rally social conservatives to support Rep. Chocola and Rep. Sodrel.

Here is a picture of myself, Senator Brownback, and my brother Andrew:

Notes from the Campaign Trail. Part I.

2006-09-05T20:05:00.000-05:00

Since late July I have been working for Rep. Chris Chocola's (R, 2IN) re-election campaign. The last poll shows us to be about 5 points behind our Democratic opponent, Joe Donnelly. In '04 we beat Donnelly soundly with a 9 point margine of victory. This year is different.

Since late spring the district has been bombarded with TV ads by MoveOn.Org. The ads blast Chocola as a rubber stamp for George W. Bush and attempt to portray him as a country club Republican. The primary thrust of the ads seems to play on the class warfare mentality. Chris is for big businesses who donate to his campaign and is against the blue collar workers that make up most of the district. None of that is true but of course if you're a liberal the means do not matter if the ends are moral and just.

We are also facing our share of anti-incumbent syndrome. Even though Rep. Chocola has fought to cut wasteful spending and balance the budget it seems that since people who don't like the President can do nothing to throw him out of office they are taking out their frustration on Chocola. On one of the hotest issues of the day, illegal immigration, Chocola has taken a stronger stand than the White House. Unfortunatly, people who are tuned into the TV but not to political reality are more apt focus on mindless talking points than a proven record of service.

However, not everything is against us. On August 26th I participated in the Union Mills Mill Pond Festival parade. (The above picture is of me getting ready to drive the campaign Hummer in the parade). During the parade we got a lot of good responses and we had people coming up to us to express their support for Rep. Chocola. Overall the attitude of our supporters is very positive and they are motivated by Chocola's strong record over the past 2 years and the utter failure of the Democratic party to offer a candidate with substantive alternatives.

Case and point: the Marriage Protection Amendment. Donnelly has not yet said whether or not he would vote for a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage as one man and one woman. Chocola however has consistently supported a Constitutional amendment on this issue and in 2004 and 2006 voted "Yea" on the Federal Marriage Amendment and Marriage Protection Amendment respectivly.

There is also a lot of support for Chocola simply because he has helped his constituents when they needed assistence. The Hoosier Vally Railway Museum is a good example. When the HVRM was starting up they need to get a federal grant to buy a section of railroad that was going to be taken out of service. Rep. Chocola and his office assisted the museum in obtaining the grant. When I stopped by the HVRM last week I was wearing my Chocola for Congress T-Shirt. I had numerous museum staff come up to me and express their thanks for the work that Chocola had done in helping them start the musuem.

Overall, the impression that I'm getting from the grassroots level is that people support Chocola because his stand on the issues has reflected their values. Rep. Chocola, unlike others in Congress, represents the values of the people of the 2nd District to Washington and not the values of Washington to the people of the 2nd District. Although this race is tight it is by no means a push over for the Democrats. There is a strong chance that Joe Donnelly might wake up on November 8th to find out that his Congressman is still Chris Chocola.

Brian Sikma
Sept. 1st, 2006

Operation Victory '06.

2006-08-30T14:17:00.000-05:00

Three of highly competitive U.S. House races are here in Indiana. In the 2nd Congressional District incumbent Chris Chocola (R) is facing 2 time challenger Joe Donnelly (D) in what is proving to be a nail-biting race. Further down state Rep. John Hostettler (R) is, as usual, facing a tough fight in the "Bloody 8th" Congressional District. Across the state from Hostettler freshman Congressman Mike Sodrel (R, pictured above) is battling Baron Hill, the liberal Democrat that he defeated in the 2004 election.

In an effort to help conservative congressmen get reelected to Congress the Indiana Generation Joshua Network has launched Operation Victory '06, a grassroots program to help conservatives around the country become involved in the re-election campaign of Rep. Sodrel. After speaking with individuals that are involved in the Sodrel race it was decided that the focus of Operation Victory '06 would be on Voter ID right now with the possibility of assisting in advocacy work once we are closer to the election.

Utilizing modern technology OV'06 has recruited volunteers to make Voter ID phone calls from outside of the 9th District (and in some cases outside of the state). These volunteers are individuals that are in House districts where there is no competitive race or are interested in helping out in a tight race but are unable to travel to the Congressional District to do work on the ground.

Members of Operation Victory '06 have received a script for making their telephone calls and over the next few weeks they will be working their way through the lists of phone numbers that they have been issued. During each call they poll the voter on different issues in order to identify those voters that are supportive of Rep. Sodrel. In practice this effort is very much like what MoveOn.Org is doing across the country. The primary difference being that Operation Victory '06 was launched before MoveOn.Org announced its plan and is working to support the election of conservative candidates.

Brian Sikma
August 30th, 2006

Hoosier Congressman Poised to Break Logjam over Illegal Immigration

2006-08-10T16:06:00.000-05:00

For well over a year now illegal immigration has been a hot topic of conversation on radio talk shows and Congressional townhall meetings. Inspite of all the focus placed on this issue though a log jam has developed between the House and the people on one hand, and the Senate and the White House on the other. The President and the Senate have been pushing for amnesty for the estimated 11-12 million "undocumented workers" living here in the United States, while the House has called for increased border protection and mandatory deportation of those living here illegally. Both houses of Congress have passed their own versions of immigration reform, each bill reflecting the divergent views of the respective houses. This has left the American people without a real solution to this massive problem.

Recently however, one Hoosier congressman has taken action to end the standoff. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), who serves as Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, has unveiled a new plan for dealing with the problem of illegal immigration and the current status of those in this country illegally.

The Pence plan combines tough border security measures with guest worker provisions that calls for the private sector to take a greater role in solving this problem. This plan is classic conservativism in the mold of the Reagan revolution. There are 4 parts to this plan:

1. Secure our borders to stop the tide of illegal aliens and prevent any enemies from entering this country. The Pence bill contains all of the tough contained in the already passed House bill. These steps will include increasing the number of inspectors at the border, building a 700 mile long fence, and deploying UAVs and other high-tech tools to help secure the border.

2. Deny amnesty in all forms. Due to the guest worker provisions of this plan, Rep. Pence has been accused by the Minute Men Civil Defense Corps and some conservatives as allowing amnesty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pence has declared "Amnesty is not the answer. It only will worsen the problem because it will cause more people to come here illegally with the hope of someday having their status adjusted."

3. Enact a no amnesty guest worker solution using the private sector. Individuals who return back to their country will be eligible for guest worker visas known as W Visas. These will be issued only to individuals who will be hired by American companies. However, before a company can higher a guest worker they must first higher as many U.S. citizens as they can. Only when there is no American worker for the job will a W Visa be issued. Willing workers will be paired with willing compaines not through a new government agency but through government authorized private companies known as Ellis Island Centers. If a woker does not have this W visa he or she will be unable to get a job. Since that is the case they will be forced to leave the country in order to re-enter legally. W visas can only be renewed for up to 6 years, this keeps the "guest" in guest worker. In order to renew their visa a worker must show proficiency in English and after a period of time workers will have the option of entering the citizenship process like everyone else if they so desire. Nobody will be allowed to cut in line and get a special "fast track" to citizenship.

4. Strict employer enforcement of new immigration laws. In order to enforce the new guest worker laws, as well as make sure that all illegals currently here will self deport in order to re-enter legally, employers will have to verify that their employees are citizens. If companies employ illegals then they will be forced to pay heavy fines. There will be a database of valid W Visas and companies can call the government to make sure that the individuals Visa is a valid visa.

Although the Pence Plan is the most comprehensive and realistic plan that has been put forward, some respected conservatives have signed on to a statement against this plan. Claiming that the plan is nothing but amnesty in disguise, they argue that it will result in more people attempting to come across the border. I do not doubt that these conservatives have their hearts in the right place, I respect their opinions and even though I agree with them on many other issues I have point out that they are mistaken in their belief that this is only an attempt to sneak amensty in on the American people. Over and over again Rep. Pence has declared that amnesty is not the solution and that he will not support any plan offering amnesty to illegal aliens in the United States. At the risk of being redundent let me repeat and emphasize the 2nd and 3rd points listed above: 2. Deny Amensty in all forms, 3. Enact a no amnesty guest worker solution using the private sector. Those two points are taken directly from the Executive Summary of this plan (see below for link). Remember, before any worker can become eligible for a W visa he or she must self-deport to their country of origin. That doesn't sound like amnesty to me.

I fully support Rep. Pence's plan and I hope that you will to. If you are interested in a more in-depth view of the plan these links will be helpfull: Executive Summary of the Pence Plan and Rep. Pence's speech to the Heritage Foundation. Mike Pence's official Congressional site also has this informative resource: Mike's Blog. The Indy Star has an interesting article on the plan.
We must secure our borders, enforce our laws, and provide a pool of willing workers who can step in and fill in the gap when American workers are not available for the job. I comend Rep. Pence for his plan and I'm proud to say that he is Hoosier.

Brian Sikma
July 21st, 2006

Special Rights Defeated in South Bend

2006-07-11T14:00:00.000-05:00

Last night, shortly before midnight and after hours of debate and discussion, the South Bend City Council voted on bill 29-06, an amendment to the City ordinance that would have added "sexual orientation" to the list of those specially protected against discrimination. In a vote of 5-4, 29-06 was defeated.

Council members Pfeifer, Kelly, Kirsits, and Puzzello voted in favor; Rouse, Varner, Dieter, White, and Kuspa opposed.

While the measure failed for a number of reasons, a few were specifically mentioned by the council members:

1. Overwhelming opposition via e-mail and voice mail. Council member Kuspa stated it was nearly three to one in opposition; White stated it was two to one.

2. Poorly written and vague (Dieter, Varner, Kuspa).

3. Lack of professional and unbiased research (Varner).

4. Lack of Constitutional authority or basis (Rouse).

The reasons given by those in support of the amendment centered on the theme "equal rights" and "equal opportunity" on the belief that such is being denied to GLBTs. Council member Roland Kelley emphasized that his decision was firmly based on his belief that "sexual orientation is not a choice" and must therefore be protected.

It must be noted that this is not the end. Since they cannot bring their complaints before the Human Rights Commission, South Bend Equality has promised to continue bringing their complaints before the Common Council until it grants them the right to seek redress from the Human Rights Commission.

Unfortunately, most of the reasons openly given by the opposing Council members circumvent the real issues. These could be resolved, allowing passage of a similar measure. Merely a single vote would change the outcome.

Therefore, it is imperative that we continue in the fight, and stand for what is right.

2006-06-30T19:36:00.000-05:00

Independence, 1776-2006

"...resolved to die freeman, rather than to lives slaves."

Recently I was asked to come up with a list of patriotic quotes that relate to the coming 4th of July holiday. After reviewing different quotes I decided to take a look at some historical documents that played an important role in the early days of our nation. As I reviewed some documents I came across the "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms". This document was passed by the Second Continental Congress on July the 6th, 1775, almost a year before the Declaration of Independence. It's purpose was to set forth the fact that the colonists were going to war to defend their unalienable rights. This call to arms was fundamentally different than the Declaration of Indepedence because it specifically stated that the Colonies did not want to separate from Great Britain. They were only fighting to regain their deprived rights.

As I read through this lesser known forunner of the Declaration of Independence I was struck by the eloquence and clarity that it contained. In fact, except for the statement that the colonists were not fighting to separate from Great Britian, it reads similar to the Declaration of Independence. This document is somewhat obscure but I wanted to share with you several key quotes from it since it so clearly summarizes the views of our founding fathers on the issue of protecting our liberty.

This is from the last half of the 10th paragraph:

"We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them."

and in the next paragraph:

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves." (Emphasis mine.)

Resolved to die freeman rather than to live slaves! Do we have that kind of commitment to our God given unalienable rights today? Today I'm afraid our nation too often talks the talk but does not walk the walk. We speak the language of freedom, both political and religious, and we speak of liberty, but how many of our fellow citizens understand that freedom is not free and that it must be maintained at a high price? We hear often of our "rights" but we do not hear often the words of our 2nd President, John Adams, who said "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion....Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

This coming July 4th, let us reflect on the great sacrifices that our Founding Fathers made for our freedoms. John Quincy Adams once said: "Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope that you will make good use of it." It would be foolish to argue that we have always made good use of our freedoms. To often we have been silent whenever Big Government or the Supreme Court has chipped away at our liberties. But although we may have not always done the right thing in the past we can do something about today. Today, we can and we must rise to the challenge and defend our freedom. We can share the message of our Founding with our fellow citizens and we can help enlighten our people with a knowledge of the true source of our freedoms.

Only when committed Christians and citizens rise up and defend the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding will our nation be able to continue to stand like a light house, beaming the message of freedom and liberty to all those that live in a world darkened by oppression and sin. America is truly the "Last best hope for mankind" and we must not neglect our duty to defend that hope.

This 4th of July, as we think of the sacrifices of generations before us, let us also commit to reclaiming our heritage from those who wish to expunge from the historical record the fact that this nation was founded on the general precepts of Christianity and the fact that our government is founded on the "laws of nature and of nature's God". Neither the Government nor any man, can revoke the unalienable rights that we enjoy. Let us use them wisely.

Brian Sikma
June 30th, 2006

Update on Operation Completion

2006-06-22T19:04:00.000-05:00

Because of limited funding Operation Completion has had to cancel all of their rallies for the time being. Everyone who is involved is disappointed, but the Lord knows best and has something else much better planed. They are also very much in debt from previous rallies.

We had a garage sale for OC a couple weeks ago (before anyone knew of the cancellations), and it rained all day. It was the worst possible day to have a sale, and I know Satan was trying to stop our efforts, but it didn't work. Altogether we made $59, which is not much, but its more than they had before.

If you would like to learn more about Operation Completion you can go to www.operationcompletion.com
This organization is run by 5 CHRISTIAN, HOMESCHOOLED TEENS, these guys are awesome!

South Bend bill extends special protections to GLBTs.

2006-06-02T20:04:00.000-05:00

Currently the South Bend Common Council is considering a bill that would amend South Bend’s Human Rights Ordinance to include protections for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders. The new “protections” would include preventing private citizens from discriminating against GLBTs in housing and education. The bill would also prevent public discrimination against GLBTs. While religious based institutions would be exempt from the proposed non-discrimination ordinance it is not hard to believe that the exemption could be erased in a future proposed amendment.

This bill is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of GLBT behavior and the reactions of the public to individuals involved in that lifestyle. While the origin of non-discrimination legislation was to prevent racial discrimination as well as unfounded gender discrimination, the authors of the bill do not seem to understand the difference between gender and race on the one hand, and sexual behavior on the other. An individual is born with certain unchangeable characteristics. These characteristics include race and gender. One cannot change the color of their skin or their God given gender. One can change the way they act in private. There have been many claims by GLBTs of discrimination and hate crimes committed against them, but a look at the record shows that GLBTs have far fewer hate crimes committed against them than they some times claim. (Click here for more details.

Throughout our nation's history there has never been a single instance, until recently, of government, local, state or federal, endorsing and providing legal sanction to GLBT behavior. The government should not seek to endorse private behavior that is risky to the general public or offensive to those good morals that are the basis of our civil society.

As a nation we were founded on the belief that there is a set of higher laws to which we must be held accountable. Those laws were not just any belief system, they are, in the words of the Declaration of Independence the “laws of nature and of nature’s God”. The “law of nature” is found in the Judeo-Christian belief system and speaks of those things that have been instigated from the creation by the Creator as the natural order of things. James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and early Supreme Court Justice, once commented on the relationship between a moral belief system and government with these words “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine.... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.” There should be no question that morality influences government. The question should not be “should religion/morality influence government?” but rather “whose morality/religion will influence government?”

Some question why we should be worried about this granting of special protection to the GLBT lifestyles. If it doesn’t affect us why should we worry about it, they ask. The truth is though, we are affected by their lifestyle. Take for example, the instance of a man using a woman’s bathroom. Many parents would object to a man using the restroom with their daughter, but under Bill No. 29-06 you cannot object to that sort of behavior because the man can claim that he is transgendered and therefore protected by law!

Generation Joshua members have been involved in this battle for traditional morality, and ultimately traditional marriage. Timothy and Nathaniel Wesco and their family have worked to increase conservative turnout at Council meetings where this measure has been considered. Stephen Wesco was able to design two stickers, with some slight assistance from the author, that allow citizens to communicate their message of opposition to the bill to the public while attending Council meetings. One of the stickers is featured at the beginning of this article and the other sticker can be seen at WNDU TV’s website.

The organization NoSpecialRights.Net was founded by opponents of Bill No. 29-06 and they have led the way in rallying the people of South Bend against this dangerous legislation.

Brian Sikma
June 2nd, 2006

GenJ Rally in Indianapolis: Fundraising Help Needed!

2006-05-23T06:43:00.000-05:00

Indiana GenJers,

Yesterday evening I received this email from Matt Stone, who is apparently the one heading up most of the GenJ activities coming up in Indianapolis:

"I have a fairly urgent request. Is there a way you and your Gen J club can raise the five hundred dollars necessary to officially obtain the Indy permit? I was just informed the only thing missing was the five hundred dollars. Nice surprise eh? Let me know if this is something you can work on. "

Because my club is in northern Indiana, and due to the unfortunate fact that no one from our club will even be able to make it down to Indianapolis for the events, I thought it would be beneficial to pass this one on to everyone (especially the Indy club) to see if you had any ideas.

Please contact me if you would like Matt Stone's number - I know he would appreciate all the help we could give him!

consto.

Kyle Forti
May 23, 2006

Protect Marriage Now!

2006-05-20T20:04:00.000-05:00

From court rooms to council chambers, from legislative halls to the halls of academia, a small but ruthless minority has been seeking to redefine the basic building block of all civil society. Marriage, as defined as one man and one woman, is without a doubt the most important unit in any civilization. Marriage is the foundation of the family, and families are the foundations of communities, and individual communities make up a nation. Never in history has a nation continued to be a prosperous nation after it has allowed same-sex couples to marry.

As a nation of laws, and not of men, our country was founded on the belief that there are a set of absolutes and that man is answerable to Almighty God for his actions. The United States House of Representatives in 1854 made the following statement: "The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ." Although some may argue otherwise, there is such a thing as right and wrong and the homosexual lifestyle is wrong.

Although 68% of Americans believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman there is a concentrated effort to sideline the views of the majority in favor of the radical agenda of a minority. We must rise up and speak out against those who wish to redefine the institution of marriage. This battle is not just limited to marriage, it also encompasses every one of our Constitutionally protected rights. We must defend what is right while showing love towards those that are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle.

On June 6th the United States Senate will vote on a Marriage Protection Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment will define marriage as being between one man and one woman and will prevent judges and other governmental bodies from expanding that definition. This is the time for us to rise to the occasion and answer the call of duty and defend that which we believe . Please write or e-mail your senator and ask them to vote for Senate Joint Resolution 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

In the winter of 1777-1778 the Continental Army was encamped at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Food and heat were lacking and the soldiers had not been paid for months. It was a dark time for the Patriot cause and it looked as if the end was near. But from that trial emerged the image of the Commander in Chief kneeling in prayer. The next spring came and the Army emerged from Valley Forged strengthened and ready for battle. My friends, although it may look like we are outnumbered in the media and academia, let us go forward firm in our resolve to defend our liberty, just as generations before us fought for the freedom that we now enjoy.

You will find the contact information for your senators at http://www.senate.gov/. If you wish to do some more research on this issue you may find these links helpful: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=RESEARCH and http://www.americansformarriage.org/

Brian Sikma
May 20th, 2006

Primary Election Highlights

2006-05-01T14:47:00.000-05:00

Walker defeats Powerbroker Garton!

Just before the 2004 primary I worked hard for Eric Miller in his race for governor. The Miller campaign was the first political campaign that I or any one in my family ever worked on, and we gave it our all. After so much work and worrying I was pretty disappointed on election night to see Mitch Daniels win by a huge margin.

This past primary election night was a different story. Well after the polls closed I checked the Secretary of State’s website for the election results from Senate District 41. They were reporting nothing. I then went over to the Howey Political Report Online (http://www.howeypolitics.com/) and when I got to the home page I was greeted with the headline: “UPSET! Garton Concedes to Walker.” Well, I couldn’t have been happier. After working for Walker’s campaign and trying to line up volunteer efforts I was thrilled to see the hard work and effort put forward by the Walker campaign, as well as others who helped them, pay off.

Without a doubt the SD 41 race was the most important state race last night. Inspite of the fact that both the Johnson County and Bartholomew County GOP chairs endorsed Bob Garton (they’re not supposed to endorse any Republican candidate in the Primary) Walker was able to win. It’s not often that a first time challenger can defeat a long time entrenched incumbent who is a power broker in his party.

Now that the most powerful senator in the Indiana General Assembly is gone there is the question of who will fill his place. Regardless of who takes over as Senate President Pro Tempore, if Greg Walker can win in the fall, conservatives around the state will have scored a huge victory. I intend to do everything I can to help Greg Walker win in the General Election. We won 58-42 Tuesday night and we need to do at least 51-49 in the fall.

Other races.

Another long time incumbent was defeated Tuesday as well. This time it was Rep. Mary Kay Budak who has been in the Indiana House since the early 1980s and has been instrumental in holding up a lot of good legislation. As a pro-choice Republican she has often been a great friend to the liberal wing of the party. That changed whenever Tom Dermody defeated her after tough battle that has gone on for several weeks with Budak scrambling for support in the last two weeks leading up to the election.

Dermody is a moderate to conservative Republican who will be a big improvement over Mary Kay. Although I disagree with him on some issues, I supported him because he is for a marriage amendment to the state constitution and is pro-life. We can work out our differences as they come up.

On the Congressional side Rep. Chris Chocola (R-2CD) faced a surprisingly strong challenger by the name of Tony Zirkle. Zirkle, who polled 30%, styles himself as a Republican Robert Kennedy and would probably fit well in the Democratic Party. Rep. Mark Souder also faced a tough race but Representatives Mike Pence, Mike Sodrel, and John Hostettler did well.

It has been said that Chocola could have a tough time this fall in his battle with Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly if the primary is any indication of things. One wonders if Souder and Chocola’s anti-incumbent primary experiences are a harbinger of things to come for the GOP this fall. If there is anything we can learn from the Garton/Walker race about this subject it is this: Keep standing for the Conservative, Judeo-Christian values that put you in office and you will do well. Lose touch with the people and our founding principles and you may end up out of office come November.

If you wish to research who won in your area the Indiana Secretary of State’s website has the election results for all state and federal races. Here’s the link: http://www.in.gov/serv/sos_primary06.

Please post a comment about any races that you were watching and the results!

Brian Sikma
May 3rd, 2006

District 41 Race Illustrates differences within GOP.

2006-04-25T17:29:00.000-05:00

The primary race in Senate District 41 illustrates the two polarities that exist within the Republican Party. On the one hand you have Senate President Bob Garton running for re-election, and on the other hand you Garton’s conservative challenger, Greg Walker.

Garton represents the “moderate” side of the GOP. Catering to special interests (he accepted $9,000 from the Indiana State Teachers Association for his campaign) and status quo politicians in Indianapolis, he is your typical politician. His only interest in the conservative side of the party and the average man is when he is up for re-election or thinks he needs to throw them a dog bone to keep them satisfied.

For an example of that last point take a look at what happened with HBs 1080 and 1172 during this past session. Both bills dealt with pro-life measures and passed the House by considerable margins. After the bills were amended and passed by the Senate the two bills went back to the House where they passed a second time. When it came time for the bills to pass the Senate again though Senator Garton, as Senate President, allowed the clock to run out of time for the session despite the fact that there was plenty of time to hold vote and pass the bills.

Greg Walker (pictured) though is a true conservative and represents the values of the majority of grassroots activists within the GOP. Committed to standing for his constituents-not special interests-and the traditional values that made America great, Walker, if elected, will be a great improvement over Bob Garton. Micah Clark of AFA of Indiana (see link on sidebar) has said that the election of Greg Walker to the Senate is crucial to changing the face of the Statehouse. One of the keys to passing good, solid, conservative (read pro-Indiana) legislation next year will be the election of Greg Walker to serve as Senator for the people of Senate District 41.

The Indiana GenJ Network is involved in this primary race and individual members will be assisting the Walker campaign. I would encourage all who read this to take a few minutes and visit Mr. Walker’s website at: http://www.votegregwalker.com/Welcome.html and if you live in District 41 please vote for Greg Walker on primary day, May 2nd.

Brian Sikma
April 25, 2006

Why we don't need a statewide test for Home Educators

2006-04-10T15:52:00.000-05:00

I was recently asked what was wrong with statewide mandatory exams for home educators and I wrote this paper in response to that question. It looks like there is a strong possibility that members of the Indiana General Assembly will push for an exam similar to the ISTEP for home schoolers during the next session.

Some individuals believe that for too long now some states have ignored home educators. These individuals see that the home education movement is growing and they wish to see the state take a more active role in insuring that a “quality” education is being delivered to those children whose parents have sought to educate them at home. Those who espouse the idea of mandatory exams usually do so from one of two viewpoints, 1) they are sincerely concerned about the welfare of children but are misguided in their thinking, or 2) they do not like to see an increasing number of people educating their children at home so they seek to impose regulations that would discourage this trend. While mandatory testing may sound like a good idea and a harmless plan at first, a closer inspection of the idea reveals several faults.

The main question that arises in dealing with this subject is, “is it within the proper jurisdiction of the state to require a mandatory exam for home educators?” This is the jurisdictional analysis of this issue and is very important in determining the proper answer.

In answering a question about the proper sphere of state authority it would be wise to look at what the founding fathers thought to be the proper role of the state. There can be no question that in a free republic like ours the individual states have a vested interest in seeing their young people educated in such a manner that they will become productive citizens. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend in 1814 remarked on the interest that the state has in this issue. Jefferson's argument was that once an individual had obtained a thorough understanding of the "three R's" and was able to provide for themselves through some trade then they would be able to see through any attempt to infringe on their liberty. In making his case though Jefferson was very clear that he thought that such an education should not be done in contrast to the will of the parent. Home education has proved remarkably successful in turning out the kind of citizens that Jefferson believed were necessary to the maintenance of a free society. Since this is the case why is there a need to further regulate a system that works? According to our founding fathers then, one may conclude that a mandatory (ie: against the will of the parent) test is outside of the proper bounds of state jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of the United States has several times been called upon to adjudicate on the question of where the line is between a legitimate state interest and the protected right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. In the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) the court ruled that “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations (emphasis mine).” In 1972 in the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder the Supreme Court prefaced its quoting of Pierce with these words: “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” More recently in the year 2000 the Court stated in Troxel v. Granville that “The liberty interest at issue in this case—the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”

The Constitution protects parent’s rights through the 9th Amendment (added in 1795) which reads “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” As we saw in the Jefferson letter of 1814, parent’s rights were retained by the people during the time period of the 9th Amendment’s ratification.

In the light of the above cases there can be no question that parents posess the right to fully direct the manner and upbringing of their children without any interference by the state. How does a mandatory exam interfere with that right? We will examine that question next.

If a state devised mandatory exam were implemented there would be the problem of coordinating the instruction of the parent with the material covered in the exam. While this is not an impossible feat it would unnecessarily interfere with the liberty of home educators to teach subjects in a way that best meets the needs of their children. Many home educators have chosen the path of home education because while they believe in the subjects that are taught in public schools, they do not always agree with the philosophical standpoint from which those subjects are taught. Since the vast majority of home educators are doing a more than competent job of educating their children it makes no sense to punish the whole when a minuet minority are at fault.

One may question what sort of differences would occur between the way a subject is taught at home verses a subject taught in the public schools so I will illustrate my point. In some schools around the country the history textbooks state that the reason for Thanksgiving was that the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians for their help that year. While that was the reason why the Indians where invited to the feast that is not the reason why the feast was given. A cursory study of the Pilgrims will reveal that they desired to thank the Almighty God for His divine providence throughout the course of the past year. Such differences as this one illustrate the problem of trying to test home educated children with a test based on the statewide ISTEP.

If the state is allowed to dictate what material is covered in the exam they could also dictate how the material is taught. As the above example illustrates. Such a regulation by the state need not come in the form of a law. The same end may be achieved simply by the way a statewide exam was written. Therefore, it can be shown that a mandatory statewide exam for home educators poses a threat to parental rights and is inconsistent with the liberty that our nation and our state were founded on.

Introduction to Peter Stergios

2006-04-10T15:46:00.000-05:00

My name is Peter Stergios and I have been a member of GenJ for about two years now. I really love the organization, though I have not been able to be as active as I would like.

I am 16, and I live in Mishawaka, which is in St. Joe county. I am in 11th grade, and I have always been homeschooled. My family is relatively small. I have an older brother and sister, both of which have moved away. Some of my interests include Boy Scouts (I have almost reached Eagle rank), Civil War reenacting with my Mom and Dad, and my job at the local library. In the future, I plan to participate in more GenJ activities. I hope this website can help us get to know each other beter, thus enabling us to impact our State's politics.

In Christ,
Peter Stergios

April 10, 2006

Post Indy Report

2006-03-27T16:05:00.000-06:00

Hey Everyone,
It was exciting to meet so many of you at the Indianapolis convention! While we did not sign anyone up on the spot, we had several very positive responses, and I am sure that some will end up joining because of our efforts. Besides the exposure that was provided for Generation Joshua, we were able to make several important contacts. I know several of you met Micah Clark, as did I, and I think that was a great opportunity to acquaint him with who we are and what Generation Joshua is all about.
I was also able to meet an intern with Advance America, and I think that there is a possibility that he may join, which would be a great addition to our team.
Does anyone else have any thoughts or comments regarding the convention? How did it go Friday?

Timothy

Congress to Face State Prayer Issue

2006-03-16T13:12:00.000-06:00

Currently the Hinrichs v. Bosma case is on appeal to the 7th United States Circuit Court of Appeals and is awaiting further action. Since the case was not resolved before the close of this legislative session, Indiana House lawmakers were not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus Christ in official prayers before the start of a legislative day during this session. For 118 years the House has often said official prayers that closed with an invocation of the name of Christ.* If it has not been un-Constitutional to pray in the name of Jesus Christ during the past 118 years, why is it a violation of the 1st Amendment now? The answer is that it is not a violation of the 1st Amendment and is only un-Constitutional in the opinion of Judge Hamilton.

Another question that rises in this case is, should federal courts exercise jurisdiction over day to day proceedings of state legislatures? The Constitution of the United States applies to the United States, not to the individual states. If federal judges are allowed to apply (or rather, miss-apply) the Federal Constitution to the day-to-day proceedings of state legislatures the fundamental principles of Federalism will be threatened.

Indiana Congressman Mike Sodrel (who was elected with the help of a Generation Joshua Student Action Team in 2004) announced on Feb. 21st his introduction of H.R. 4776 into the United States House of Representatives. This bill would ban federal judges from being allowed to even consider cases that involve the day-to-day proceedings of state legislatures. Under Section 3, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the power to regulate and exempt certain types of cases from the jurisdiction of the Federal Court system.

If Rep. Sodrel’s bill passes it will have accomplished four major things; 1) It will have asserted the supremacy of Congress in the power to make law, this principle was reflected in Alexander Hamilton’s statement in Federalists No. 78 that “The Legislative authority necessarily predominates”, 2) It will have helped set the record straight for federal judges with regards to the proper application of the first Amendment, 3) It will have reestablished the principles of federalism in the application of the Federal constitution to the states, and 4) It will have protected freedom of speech in state legislatures.

While Rep. Sodrel’s bill has a long road ahead of it before its passage, I think it would be worth while for us to monitor it and, if necessary in the future, lobby our Hoosier Congressional delegation on this issue. Eric Miller of Advance America has been highly supportive of Rep. Sodrel's legislation.

For more on this issue go here: http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039618.cfm. Rep. Sodrel’s website also has more information: http://sodrel.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=39707.

Brian Sikma
March 16, 2006

*While official prayers with Christ’s name were banned, on the opening day of this past session a group of House members gathered outside of the House chamber and bowed their heads and prayed in the name of Jesus Christ. Judge Hamilton, you may have been able to ban official prayers but you cannot destroy the faith of the individual legislators!

Introduction to Emily Chambon

2006-03-06T17:04:00.000-06:00

My name is Emily Chambon I live in Plainfield which is just minutes from Indianapolis. I am 14 and in 8th(because of Indiana law). I have been apart of Gen J pretty much since the beginning, although I have not be actively involved since September 05. The SAT trip really got me fired up about Gen J, I loved knowing that I helped make a positive impact. I also loved spending a week with all teenaged homeschoolers! Before the the SAT trip I really had no interest in politics. In January we initiated the first Gen J club of Indiana , we currently have 14 members.

My family: We have seven people in our family, my dad, Marty, mom, Chris, brothers, Eric(12), Paul(10),and sisters, Rachel(9) and Allison(7). We've home schooled for 8 years and we wouldn't trade it for the world. My dad works for a trucking company called Yellow, along with owning a handyman business. We attend Living Stones Family Assembly which is a home church we started with friends.And because we "home church" and "home school" many people probably think were weird ! In my free time I love to babysit and read. I want to become a nurse so I read lots of anatomy books. I am excited about this website and I can't wait to see the impact we'll have for Jesus Christ.

God bless,
Emily

Marriage Matters - Both State and Federal

2006-02-22T12:00:00.000-06:00

Marriage on the Federal level:
I recieved this notice this morning from the American Family Association. Again, it is easier to kill a bill than pass a bill. Not only do we need to contact our Senators, we must also pray that God would have His will in this.
-------------------------------------------------

Federal Homosexual Marriage Ban Vote Re-Scheduled For Early June
Action Needed! Help Send U.S. Senate One Million Letters Supporting Marriage Protection Amendment - 300,000 Already Sent!

The date for a vote on the federal Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) by the U.S. Senate has been re-scheduled for the first week in June. This constitutional amendment will make only marriage between one man and one woman legal.

Your help is needed in sending one million emails to the Senate in support of the MPA. Three hundred thousand emails have all ready been sent.

Please send your two Senators an email, then forward this to your friends and family urging them to do the same. Those pushing homosexual marriage are actively contacting their Senators.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

Marriage on the State level:
The Indiana Family Institute has published an article on the appeals court decision to preserve the same-sex marriage ban in Indiana. I thought it was well worth reading and provided a good insight into what exactly is going on. (I don't know exaclty when it was published -- I just saw it on their website today, but I don't think it is brand new).
-------------------------------------------------

Indiana Court of Appeals Preserves Definition of Marriage
by Ryan McCann

Yesterday's ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals was not merely about upholding a "ban" on same-sex marriage, as the mainstream media would have us believe (Attention Mainstream Media: When you frame conservative issues in the negative you show your bias and lose your customers). It was much more significant than that. It was about the jurisdiction of the judiciary and whether State recognition of marriage is an absolute individual right or a limited public good.

Same-sex marriage activists must argue that marriage is an absolute individual right in order to convince us that their cause is equivalent to a struggle for equal civil rights. On the other hand, the argument that homosexuality is a public good is nearly impossible for these activists to win and contrary to the beliefs of most Americans. Thus, they argue that allowing a man and a women to marry, but not two men or two women is "discriminatory" and "intolerant" because all Hoosiers and Americans possess this government-recognized, absolute, individual right to marry whoever, or perhaps whatever, we want.

What we can easily miss, but the Indiana Court of Appeals did not, is that these activists start from a faulty premise. The State of Indiana does not recognize marriage in order to promote absolute individual rights. Rather, the State recognizes marriage, "in order to encourage male-female couples to procreate within the legitimacy and stability of a state-sanctioned relationship and to discourage unplanned, out-of-wedlock births resulting from 'casual' intercourse" (Morrison v. Sadler).

In other words, the State recognizes marriage as a limited public good, because, "The alternative, a society without the institution of marriage, in which heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are largely disconnected processes, would be chaotic" (Morrison v. Sadler).

The opinion was not perfect. However, Judges Barnes, Kirsch and Friedlander (in that order) should be commended for their work. In the lead opinion Judge Barnes rightly finds that defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not violate the Indiana Constitution and that the proper venue for the Plaintiffs to institute same-sex marriage is the General Assembly, not the court system. Finally, a judge who understands the role of the judiciary!

--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
And to use a quote that Brian shared in one of his comments recently....

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."--Edmund Burke

Introduction to Kyle Forti

2006-02-20T16:03:00.000-06:00

I have been honored by Brian to write up a little bio of myself for this great site!

My name is Kyle Forti and I am currently a junior in high school. As a 16-year-old homeschooler, I enjoy my life in Indiana very much. It is good to live in a conservative and “family-friendly” state. I am actually new to the Hoosier culture, having moved from southern California a little over a year ago where I grew up. Indiana has a whole new breath to it and I’m grateful for the change.

My actual political involvement has been (and I hate to say) very minimal until recently getting involved in Generation Joshua. I watch the news and current events very closely which has always been a great interest of mine. I grow more and more shocked and astounded by the day as I see where the world is going. It scares me to think how far lost we have become in such a short time; how rapidly our moral foundation has corroded. This is my main “drive” behind my desire to fight back for the ground we have lost; to build back what has crumbled. Freedom is not free and we need to stay involved in the political arena!

I am an NCFCA policy debater and IE speaker. This is my 5th year involved and I enjoy it immensely! I have had the opportunity to learn and practice many skills that will help me as I begin volunteer campaigning and speaking with Generation Joshua. I am working on getting an Allen County GenJ club off the ground with Abby Snyder as one of the members (she is also my debate partner). I hope to get as many people involved as possible and am excited to see how the Lord will work everything out.

There are a total of 10 in my family…My Dad (Scott), Mom (Ann), I am the oldest (16), Josh (12), Joe (10), Russell (8), Rebekah (6), Kristen (4), Promise (2), and Autumn (1). We live on 22 acres in St. Joe, IN which is slightly northeast of Fort Wayne. My dad owns his own trucking business at the moment, but would like to start an organic orchard in the near future here on our property. I work part-time for him in trucking, finding freight and doing some record keeping.

Other interests of mine are digital photography, movie making/editing, hockey, and just plain working…I just like to keep busy, which I find not too difficult! J

Kyle Forti
February 18, 2006

Churches Under Attack Again!

2006-02-16T06:18:00.000-06:00

There is a new issue on the horizon: one that effect the freedoms of churches in our state. Read the following excerpt from Indiana's American Family Association's newletter that came out today.

Churches May Become New Target for Fines and State Regulations!
There is yet another issue concerning state intrusion into church freedoms that has arisen this legislative session. Under a new interpretation of Indiana Code 16-42-5-4, nearly every church in Indiana could be considered in violation of a law concerning food handling.
Certain state agencies seem to want to interpret this law to regulate churches like a retail food outlet or restaurant simply because of an occasional pitch-in dinner or a bake sale.

Advance America’s executive director, Eric Miller, had discussed this problem with me a few weeks ago and now they have gotten the attention of several leaders in the Indiana House and Senate who understand the need to repeal or change this law.

We are asking that people contact their legislator and ask that IC 16-42-5-4 be changed or repealed to protect churches so that they are not treated like a McDonalds or an Arby’s. Advance America is right, "there are not enough inspectors to license, regulate, monitor and keep track of . . . the thousands of churches [and] even if there were, the state should not be licensing churches and Christian schools."

Please contact your Representative and Senator about changing or repealing this Indiana Code.
The toll free numbers for the State House are 1-800-382-9842 for the House and 1-800-382-9467 for the Senate.

I am sure you all know who your Representative and Senator are, but for those whose friends do not here is the link to find out:

http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/

Remember this famous quote:

"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Daniel Fowl

Pro-Life bills in Senate

2006-02-15T16:54:00.000-06:00

Recently the Indiana House passed two pro-life bills by wide margins. H.B. 1080 would regulate the health standards of abortion clinics while H.B. 1172 would require abortion clinic doctors to provide women seeking an abortion with written information on what really takes place in an abortion. Additionally, H.B. 1172 would codify the statement that “life begins and conception”. If that statement does get codified it will be a major defeat for the pro-choice crowd.

While neither of these bills will completely outlaw abortion, legislation similar to this type has been used by pro-life advocates in Mississippi to slowly but surely chip away at abortion clinics in that state. As of today, Mississippi has yet to outlaw abortion, but because of the passage of legislation similar to what we have here there is only one abortion clinic in the whole state and that clinic is fighting for its life. (Rather ironic, a pro-abortion clinic fighting for its life.)

Planned Parenthood has stated that they will have to close down at least 2 of their Indiana clinics if H.B. 1080 passes! Recently I read that the president of NARAL has recently guided that organization through the most dangerous times ever for pro-choice (sorry, but I read that as pro-death) advocates. With the recent confirmation of two new Supreme Court justices, and the passage of a South Dakota law that outlaws abortion, I think that the pro-choice crowd is pretty upset these days. Planned Parenthood bitterly fought both of these bills in the House and there is every reason to believe that pro-abortion advocates will fight them tooth and nail in the Senate.

We can defend the life of the unborn here in Indiana but we will have to work together and move quickly. Both of these bills were scheduled for a committee hearing in the Senate on February 15th. I encourage all of you to contact your state senator and ask them to support the life of the unborn in Indiana. I would also encourage you to contact folks you know and ask them to contact their senators too.

If you have any comments or information on this subject please leave a comment.

Brian Sikma

HR 0001 on the Content of House Prayer

2006-02-14T11:26:00.000-06:00

Action List: House Resolution 0001

2006 Regular Session

Authors: Friend, Richardson, Turner

Date	Chamber	Action
01/19/2006	H	Authored by Representative Friend
01/19/2006	H	Referred to Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures
02/13/2006	H	Representatives Turner and Richardson added as coauthors
02/13/2006	H	Second reading: adopted Roll Call 214: Yeas 83, Nays 0

I would encourage you to read the entire resolution at http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/HRESP/HR0001.html.

Having an Impact

2006-02-03T15:12:00.000-06:00

The Importance of Political Activism

If we are going to be able to influence public policy here in Indiana and in Washington we are going to have to become political activist. I know that many-if all not of us- already are, but we need to make sure that we do not hesitate to spring into action when there is an important issue to be dealt with. If all of us are contacting our elected officials and working on various issues that is a good thing and we will be able to have an impact on our government.

Coordinating our Activism

Recently we had a powerful demonstration of something I have been thinking about for a long time. When H.B. 1347 came up and HSLDA and IAHE moved to oppose it they called on their members to help out by calling and e-mailing their state representatives and asking them to oppose H.B. 1347. We all know what happened next. After much pressure the House relented and Rep. Luke Messer amended H.B. 1347 deleting the daytime curfew provisions. Would this have been possible if we had not called? The answer is no. Would this have been possible if only a few of us had called? Once again, the answer is no. What made the amending of H.B. 1347 possible? The answer is: Teamwork. By working together in a coordinated attempt we were able to multiply our effect by calling and e-mailing within the same period of time and working on the same issue.

When I launched this network I was thinking about several ways we could become more effective political activists. Those times that I have been most effective in my contacting of elected officials have been the times when I was working in concert with other people on the same issue. Don’t misunderstand me, the individual call, or e-mail, or letter is important and I encourage you to keep up that work. But I think it would be a good idea for this Network if we concentrated our efforts on a few issues and lobbied effectively on those issues together rather than each of us focused on a variety of issues. I think that if we focused our corporate efforts on a few issues then we would be able to increase our impact on the policy making process. Once again, don’t think that I am against an individual taking the initiative on a specific issue, if more Christians and more Americans did that we wouldn’t be in the state we are today. But if we as a network are heading all different directions I think we will miss a great opportunity to impact public policy.

Increasing our Impact

Each of us has an impact on someone’s life. There are people that you will interact with and be able to impact in a way that I will never be able to. For that reason we need to make sure that the greatest impact that we have on people’s lives is for Christ. I believe that God brings us into contact with people that we will be able to share Christ with in a way that someone else may never be able to. Each of us has different life experiences and different areas of interest. A person who may never want to talk to a pastor may allow you as a lay person to talk to them, and vice versa, some one who considers themselves religious may not want to talk to a lay person but would gladly hear a pastor. (I’m a little off subject here but I wanted to get those points across.)

All of that to say that we also have people we can impact politically. As some of you know I send out e-mails to folks that I know encouraging them to participate in the civic process (contacting elected officials and voting). I have received very positive feedback from these e-mails. One man recently informed me that since he began getting my e-mails he has contacted his elected officials more than he ever has before.

It is my desire for all of you to start such networks as well. It doesn’t have to be fancy. My e-mails are very basic. All it takes is knowledge of the issue, a willingness to contact your elected officials, and the desire to involve others in the civic process. If each of us will develop a network of people that we know we can ask them to contact their elected officials whenever we as a GenJ group act. This will increase our impact beyond just contacting our elected officials ourselves.

Congressman Chris Chocola (R-In) once talked about his surprise when he got to Washington and found out that if a congressional office received 10 phone calls in a single day, regarding a single issue, then that issue was regarded as a national emergency! Can you imagine the impact that we could have if we as GenJers coordinate our efforts and then each of us goes out and e-mails our own network of people and have them join us in contacting our elected officials? If each of us had 10 people that we could encourage to contact our elected officials then we could start motivating our elected officials in a way that we could never do by ourselves.

Would you consider putting together a list of at least 10 people that you know and then e-mailing them when an important issue comes up? People that you know from your church, support group, debate club, and fellow family members could be the starting point of such a network. Of course you would want the majority of the people in your network to be Christians but in my personal network I also have some secular people.

By starting a network each of us has the opportunity to develop our leadership skills. There are many different people that are opinion leaders in our world today and it is important that if we are to take back the culture for Christ then we become opinion leaders ourselves. Remember, each of can become a leader if we want to and each of us can influence people that another person may not be able to.

Brian Sikma
February 3rd, 2006

2006-02-01T00:00:00.000-06:00

Dear Friends,

Praise God for Freedom, a freedom that rests upon laws founded upon God's absolutes! But in order to work, law depends upon principled men who will strictly interpret and apply it. We need such a man to fill the present vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Judge Samuel Alito has been recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the full Senate for a final confirmation vote. Judge Alito has an impeccable record as a brilliant judge; but more than that, he stands firmly upon the strict interpretation of the Constitution. As such, Judge Alito will strengthen the future of freedom in this country. He awaits the up or down vote of our Senate, which could occur early this coming week.

YOUR Senator needs to hear from YOU! Contact your Senators, and urge them to SUPPORT the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court!

God bless you as we “turn back the tide” in this our beloved country, these United States of America !

The Wesco Family

To find your Senators contact information go to http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Update on H.B. 1347.

2006-01-30T14:42:00.000-06:00

Attention all Indiana GenJers:

No more calls are needed on House Bill 1347 at this time!!!!

Thank you for all your efforts.

Rather than oppose the bill outright, we were advised by Scott Woodruff, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), that the bill would be acceptable with the following changes as stated by Scott:

"All the curfew provisions are contained in 3 stand-alone sections of the bill: sections, 1, 12 and 13. If these were removed, they would not affect the other goals the bill is trying to accomplish. Maybe the sponsors would be willing to offer a friendly amendment to delete these 3 since they are the most controversial and least necessary."

Scott Woodruff did talk to Rep. Luke Messer and these changes have been made. It appears all the offending language will be removed from the bill.

Thank you again for all the quick responses!

Daniel Fowl

H.B. 1347

2006-01-30T11:17:00.000-06:00

Dear Fellow Indiana GenJers:

There is a real important bill in the Indiana House of Representatives right now that needs your action!

The following is information from HSLDA about the bill:

Dear HSLDA members and friends: Calls are urgently needed to defeat House Bill 1347 which would make it a crime for your children to be out in public or drive a car during public school hours. Calls are needed before Tuesday, when the bill could be voted on in the House of Representatives.

Use our legislative toolbox at http://capwiz.com/hslda/home/ to get contact information for your representative.

Background:1. Daytime curfews do not deter juvenile crime.A recent California study compared the juvenile crime rates of counties that enforced curfew ordinances and counties that did not. The crime rates were the same. The curfews had no effect on juvenile crime.

2. Daytime curfews allow searches without probable cause.The Fourth Amendment forbids any investigation of a citizen without a "probable cause." H.B. 1357 allows policemen to stop and interrogate a person merely because he looks young enough to be violating the curfew. It is an invitation to harass homeschool families.

3. Daytime curfews assume a person is guilty until proven innocent.In several incidents where homeschool students were stopped by police, they had done nothing to arouse suspicion. There was no evidence they had committed a crime or intended to. Nonetheless, the police interrogated them and treated them like criminals until they had proved their innocence.

4. H.B. 1357 allows some exceptions. Unfortunately, the only way for a policeman to determine if an exception applies is to stop and interrogate the frightened young person. By then the damage has already been done. The child may be afraid to go outdoors again. The right to homeschool includes the right to be free from fear--especially young people, who are most vulnerable to feelings of fear.
Sincerely,
Scott WoodruffHSLDA Staff Attorney

The following is an alert sent out by my Dad, Greg Fowl earlier this morning:

Update on House Bill #1347 (Monday, Jan 30):

We have confirmed the bill will be up for a second reading in the House today. Therefore, we definitely need to act immediately. However, rather than oppose the bill outright, we have been advised by Scott Woodruff, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), that the bill would be acceptable with the following changes as stated by Scott:

"All the curfew provisions are contained in 3 stand-alone sections of the bill: sections, 1, 12 and 13. If these were removed, they would not affect the other goals the bill is trying to accomplish. Maybe the sponsors would be willing to offer a friendly amendment to delete these 3 since they are the most controversial and least necessary."

However, if these sections are not deleted via the amendment process, we stand opposed to the bill in its entirety.

BTW, here is the number for the switchboard at the State House: (800) 382-9841

Regards,

Greg Fowl
Indiana Association of Home Educators
Legislative Liaison

Your action is needed today!

Calls are urgently needed to defeat House Bill 1347 which would make it a crime for your children to be out in public or drive a car during public school hours. The bill could be voted on in the House of Representatives this Tuesday.

Please call your representative no later than Monday and give him this message: "Please vote 'No' on H.B. 1347, which creates a daytime curfew. Daytime curfews take away freedom and create an atmosphere of fear, but studies show they do not lower juvenile crime."

Thanks for your time.

Daniel Fowl

Introduction to Abigail Snyder

2006-01-28T09:53:00.000-06:00

Since Daniel introduced himself, I figured that I might as well. My name is Abigail Snyder. I am 16 years old and am in the middle of my Junior year. I live with my family near Churubusco, Indiana, which is just NorthWest of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have two younger brothers and a younger sister. Hannah, the youngest of the family, is 10. Joshua is 12 and Nathan is 15. My mom, Denise, homeschools us as well as working with my Dad, Jim, and several other couples on the FWAHS board (homeschool support group). My Dad is a perfusionist (works in the hospital) as well as being a Captain in the ALERT Cadet program.

We live on a 10-acre “farm.” We have 1 horse and a dog. We attend church at Keefer Creek Baptist Church in Fort Wayne, which meets in a nursing home. All of my siblings and me play a little bit of piano (Nathan the most) and I am learning guitar.

My political experience started when I was 8-ish and we helped with Mark Souder’s Congressional campaigns. When I was 13, I started doing policy debate in NCFCA (I love it—this is my 4th year), which has furthered my political interests. I also have a strong interest in Constitutional law and am planning on going to law school at some point in the future. I also helped with Eric Miller’s campaign for governor (and wish he was currently governor!).

As I said, I like Constitutional law, as well as policy debate and other legal issues. Protecting the rights of families, religion, the unborn, as well as other constitutional rights as well as those which are ordained by God are important to me and my family (especially my Dad, from which I get my political background!).

Abigail Snyder
Churubusco, IN 46723
Eph4.15_Heb4.12girl ~AT~ comcast ~DOT~ net

(Read it out loud and you’ll get the last part – it protects against spam)

Generation Joshua at the IAHE Convention

2006-01-26T07:58:00.000-06:00

Hoosier GenJers have an opportunity to man the Generation Joshua booth at the Indiana Home Educators Association Convention in March. The dates are Friday, the 24th and Saturday, the 25th and set up time is for Thursday, the 23rd. Four different families or individuals have signed up to help. Timothy Wesco and my family are two of those that are going to be helping. I posted this information so those of us that are going to be working in Indy will be able to communicate via the blog and e-mail.

Right now I know that my Dad and Mom, my brother Jonathan, my brother Andrew (a GenJer) and myself will be coming to Indy all day Friday. Since we live in the northern part of the state we can only do one day.

We still need to work out the details of the times each of us will be there during the day as well as which day(s) and amount of people that will be there. I have already stated the number of people I have with me and the day we will be there so please leave a comment with the above information. It would also be a good idea to leave your e-mail address as well.

For those of you couldn’t volunteer but will be at the convention, stop by the booth and introduce yourself. This is a great opportunity for us to meet in person and I know that I for one look forward to meeting each of you.

If any of you need to reach me for any reason you may at: jsikma@netnitco.net or brian.sikma@gmail.com

Brian Sikma