Veritas Rex

Traditional marriage dealt a blow today in California

In a blow to traditional marriage, California's gay marriage ban has been overturned today by the state's top court.

So for all of you out there who still buy the argument that a Marriage Amendment in Indiana is redundant, there is no more room to hide.  Also note the quote at the end of the article (emphasis added).  Apparently, activists in California fully intend to use this decision to force other states to recognize gay marriages.

We told you so.  But this is one time I wish we would have been wrong.

But alas, some folks like Pat Bauer and Terri Austin will still try to make the case that our docile gay marriage proponents in Indiana would never think of trying (again) to overturn our laws.  Pat Bauer may trust them, but I don't.   This strategy is sure to be used in Indiana (again) to attempt to overturn our law through the only means available to gay marriage supporters- the courts.  Because we are without a marriage amendment, we may soon be hostage to the same court system that banned the word "Jesus" from the Statehouse.

California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco. (emphasis mine).

Murder is Murder

As has been reported by WIBC and Taking Down Words, State Representative Mike Murphy and Senator Jim Merritt plan to introduce a bill in the 2009 legislative session to eliminate the viability standard from the state statute, elevating the murder of an unborn child to the crime of murder. The push for such legislation comes as a result of the shooting of Huntington Bank teller Katherin Shuffield. She was wounded during a bank robbery and later lost her five month old twins.

Here is what Taking Down Words (blog closely tied to the State Democratic Party) has to say:

Did Eric Miller take a vaycay? It certainly seems like this would have prompted him to crawl out of the woodwork. For those of you living under a rock, mom-to-be Katherin Shuffield was shot in the stomach while she was simply doing her job as a bank teller on April 22. Days later, her twins died at five months gestation, two months shy of the point required by Indiana law to bring forth a murder charge.

Where's the love??  Come on Taking Down Words, you must not have attended many committee hearings on pro-life bills lately.  I'm always there.  What am I, chopped liver?  :)

Taking Down Words goes on to say:

So, how many legislators do you think will file similar bills criminalizing the murder of an unborn fetus in any circumstance?

It's interesting to me that they admit that killing an unborn "fetus" is murder, yet they are still supportive of it as long as a doctor does the dirty work with a scalpel rather than a gun. 

Voter ID law is good for families

Last week I had the opportunity to interview Indiana Secretary of State, Todd Rokita about the recent Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law and what that might mean for Indiana families.  We had a frank and open discussion that merits mentioning.

When I asked Secretary of State Rokita what he had to say to families who may have had their votes offset by others voting illegally in past elections, he told me that the "Photo ID law protects the family from being disenfranchised."  He went on to say that thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the voter ID law, "Their vote won't be stolen by someone who cheats the system."

Common sense.  Show your ID to vote.  If you are doing things the right way you have nothing to fear.

Secretary of State Rokita called voting the "most sacred civil transaction."  He also went on to say that those who claim racism on this issue may be showing some racist tendencies of their own.  Some of the critics of the voter ID law are inferring that minority groups do not have the ability to participate in mainstream, modern society.  Secretary of State Rokita rejects this notion and showed faith in the minority community's ability to obtain an ID and bring it to vote with them.  These sorts of opponents of voter ID remind me of a George W. Bush line, with their "sutle bigotry of lowered expectations."

Test of Faith: Spiritual Mentor v. Ambition

Coverage has abounded on the reckless statements of B. Hussein Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright.  However, what I have been waiting for is a conversation about how you throw your pastor of 20 years under the bus the way B. Hussein Obama has done.  Dinesh D'Zousa does a great job in his most recent article of addressing this very issue (give it a read).  Shouldn't the pastor-congregant relationship be one of the most imporant relationships in one's life?  I know it is for me. The argument that B. Hussein Obama did not know the radical views of his pastor is not a plausible argument in my mind.  So, the real option for Obama was:

A.  Remain loyal to my pastor and spiritual mentor and face the consequences.

B.  Throw my pastor and spiritual mentor under the bus in the name of political expediency. 

Obama was faced with a lose/lose situation, but he may have chosen the worse option.  What does it say about a person when they sell out those closest to them in order to pursue their ambition?  Nothing good.  Is D'Zousa right?  Is Wright really the consistent one, while Obama hides in the shadows?  You can dedide for yourself.  Here is an expert from the D'Zousa article:

Now Obama would have us believe that, as far as Wright is concerned, he's had just about enough. But why? What has Wright said that has finally caused his disciple to end their relationship? While Wright has been pontificating a lot lately, he has not given us any new bombshells. But he did suggest that, in his beliefs like the one about the U.S. government and AIDS, Obama agrees with him.

Wright noted that of course Obama is now saying something different; that's because Obama is now running for president. So he has to say something different! Translation: what we see with Obama is not what we get. And Wright is in a position to know. He's nursed Obama intellectually and spiritually over the years. It is Obama himself who has given us this man, and assured us of his integrity and reliability.

The more I examine the two, the more I think that it is Wright who is being consistent and calling it the way he sees it, and Obama who is hiding the part of himself that once embraced this man and maybe still agrees with many of his beliefs but now finds him a political liability. While Obama continues to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk, at this point he is a candidate enveloped in shadows

Vote!

Today is primary election day!  Get out and vote!

For helpful information on the 2008 Indiana primary election you can visit the Secretary of State's website.  Speaking of Todd Rokita, I had a very interesting conversation with him last week.  Stay tuned for a post on the newly upheld voter ID law and what it will mean for Indiana families.

Bill Maher still has his job

Gary Bauer has an editorial in Human Events this week that is worth discussion.

Compare and contrast:

Example 2: Last year, radio “shock jock” Don Imus made an inappropriate and implicitly racist comment about the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team.

The result: Imus’s three-word remark landed him on the cover of numerous magazines, and he was lambasted by everyone from Al Sharpton to many of the presidential candidates. Imus’s hugely popular radio show was canceled, even after he apologized profusely.   

Example 3: Last week, a few days before Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to America, TV talk show host Bill Maher went on a profanity-laden tirade against the Pope and the Catholic Church. On his HBO Real Time program, Maher claimed that the Pope “used to be a Nazi,” and called the Catholic Church a “child-abusing religious cult” and “the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia.”

The result: (Cue sound of crickets chirping.)

I am not a Catholic, but as a Christian I consider the Pope my brother in Christ.  So I am inclined to get defensive over statements like this. 

Either way, however, I've long been confused by our country's attitude towards some of these issues.  We are more Christian than not Christian.  Yet we are largely inclined to allow folks like Maher to make statements like this while at the same time destroying people like Imus for his statements.  I consider them both equally offensive.  So why the difference?

It could be the media who report on these things.  They tend to generate most of the frenzy around issues like this and also tend to yawn over anti-Christian bigotry.

It could also be some sort of complacency from Christians who don't fee that the Catholic church is harmed much by what Maher says.  I happen to agree that this is true, but I don't think Imus' view about anything is all that important either.

So I'm going to blame the media.

Conservatism meets Hollywood

I was really surprised when I came across this video by rapper Nick Cannon.  A conservative, pro-life....rap video....what?  This is yet another indication that the pro-life message resonates with the current generation of young people.

Hearing Crickets

If the following story had been about a self-identified homosexual man being abducted and beaten by a heterosexual man, the cry from the media and homosexual activists would have been deafening.  However, you insert a young Amish man as the victim being sexually assaulted by a male sexual deviant and you can hear crickets (except for the small blurb in the South Bend Tribune below).  Granted, all violent crimes should be highlighted and addressed, but why should we care less about justice for victims when the victim is a religious heterosexual?

From the South Bent Tribune: 

An Amish man riding a bicycle on a LaGrange County road was abducted and sexually assaulted late Saturday, authorities said.

The 29-year-old from near Wolcottville was traveling on C.R. 600 South, near C.R. 675 West in the Topeka area, when a man driving a dark-colored vehicle forced him into a car at knifepoint, the LaGrange County Sheriff's Department said.

After he was wrestled into the car, the man was driven to a remote area and sexually assaulted. Police said he was then driven to another location and released.

The suspect is a white, middle-aged male of average build, possibly driving a dark-colored car.

UMC Church at a crossroads

The liberal United Methodist Church (UMC) is holding its annual meeting for 10 days this month (starting on the 23rd) during a tough time in their history.  Having lost 185,000 US members in the last three years, and struggling with conflict over matters of doctrine, the UMC church must do something to reverse the trend.

One News Now Covers:
Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy will be in attendance. He is hopeful delegates will stand firm on scripture. "Obviously, it's damaging when a third of the church seemingly wants to disregard the scriptures and follow the secular world in accepting homosexual practice as on par with Christian marriage," he comments. "But fortunately -- thanks partly to the growing African church -- there is a growing majority for traditional Christian beliefs that I hope will help to bring this debate mostly to an end."

Associated Press reports the agenda in Fort Worth includes efforts to overturn the UMC's ban on "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" clergy. But many delegates from other countries, in particular Africa, are known for heeding to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

First, here is another example of an issue we've discussed previously in regards to demographic trends in the church.  The so-called mainline liberal denominations are quickly dying off here in the US.  Simultaneously, we are seeing their overseas membership grow.  The center of Christianity is slowly moving outside of the US, particularly in these denominations, and may end up being predominantly Hispanic or African in origin. 

Second, for the UMC, they must determine what is causing this trend.  Despite a multi-million dollar marketing campaign designed to appeal to the un-churched, they've managed to lose a significant number of parishioners.  Some may believe that becoming more like the world will attract new and vibrant congregations, but perhaps it has the opposite affect.  Even those who aren't particularly religious recognize a faith that's bankrupt of principle.  Why attend a church that wants to be please man, instead of one that encourages us to reach for something higher?

Congressman Burton gets conservative accolades

Congratulations to Indiana Congressman Dan Burton, who is also a congressional sponsor of IFI's Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Series.  Dan was the only U.S. Rep. to get a 100% rating with FRC Action http://www.frcaction.org/downloads/EF06J02.pdf.  Given the conservative nature of Indiana and our federal delegation, this is quite impressive.  U.S. Rep. Mike Pence and Mark Souder get an honorable mention with a 93% score and are also congressional sponsors of HCPLS. 

Why shouldn’t the Gipper be conservatives' reference point?

First, let’s be honest, Governor Daniels has done a great deal to promote conservative principles in Indiana.  You need only look at the people who are in positions of leadership within state government compared to four years ago to recognize this fact.  The governor’s agenda has promoted pro-life, pro-faith, pro-free market and pro-limited government policies and should be given credit by conservatives for the myriad of his “crew’s” accomplishments.

However, “My Man Mitch” needs a smack on the hand for his comments on the Gipper.  Here is the full quote courtesy of the Indy Star:

Daniels on Reagan

Here are excerpts from Gov. Mitch Daniels’ comments about Ronald Reagan, made to a conservative crowd in Washington, D.C., on April 17. The governor’s office provided the remarks Thursday to The Associated Press.

“I hope very much not to be misunderstood. I think it is time to let Ronald Reagan go. Not from our reverent memory, of course. Not ever, but as our touchstone, as our icon, as our hallmark and our reference point. Let me please explain what I mean.

“It used to strike me so odd that the Democrats of that day, or other public figures of that viewpoint, couldn’t quit obsessing about FDR. And what it told me as a young person at that time was they were looking backward. They had nothing new to offer, nothing new to say. Nothing to say to me. It was a dead giveaway that they were living in the past.

“Ralph Emerson once wrote that ’In any place, any political system ultimately divides between the party of hope and the party of memory.’ And hope is always, of course, about the future and the next generation. ... People come and go. The greatest of leaders come and go, but ideas and ideals and principles endure.

“I don’t think anyone understood that better than Ronald Reagan, who was always fixed on the future, who always spoke to the next generation, who always believed that somehow, someway, against the apparent odds of the present America, the things that we stand for would advance, and progress and prevail.”

I agree that we should not worship past leaders.  Ronald Reagan was an imperfect person, just like every other mere mortal who has ever lived.  However, I disagree that the Gipper should cease to be an icon and a reference point for conservatives.  Ronald Reagan gave conservatives a great blueprint for what it means to be a conservative and how to ultimately have conservative principles succeed.  I also agree that “leaders come and go, but ideas and ideals and principles endure.”  However, I don’t see how removing Reagan as our reference point for these principles will help them endure.  In fact, I believe the more we move away from referencing Reagan, the more conservative principles will be watered down and moderated.   

Michael Moore: I endorse Barack Obama

After first endorsing the Castro and the Cuban health care system, Michael Moore is now endorsing Barack Obama.

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

Well, fellow conservatives, we now know who is the most extreme liberal of the two Democrats.  Barack Obama has sealed the title with his ruthless pro-abortion position and by earning the "nutty wack-job Bush planned 9-11" vote.

I never thought I would say this, but I am now convinced that Hillary Clinton is the conservative Democrat running for President- by far.

Barack Obama's Elitism

I know I'm way beyond late on this issue, but it's still more than relevant- and not just because Hillary Clinton needs it to win Pennsylvania (and perhaps the Hoosier state as well).

Here's what The Huffington Post revealed that caused such a stir about Barack Obama.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I won't dwell on how offensive it is to have my faith reduced to some sort of gut response to displeasure.  However, I do find this another great example of Barack Obama's elitism- which seems to reveal itself in a distaste for our culture.  These statements are a disturbing look into what kind of leader Barack Obama will be.

Here's the evidence thus far:

1. Michelle Obama says that she's never been proud of her country before Obama's candidacy.
2. Obama seeks spiritual leadership from a man who says US is responsible for 9-11.  He also says that God should damn America.
3. Barack Obama doesn't salute the flag or wear a flag pin.
4. Obama thinks that people are religious or pro-gun because they are bitter.
5. Obama thinks that babies are punishment for sex.

Obama may be running on a message of Hope, but that may not be his biggest contribution to our culture.

Group behind homosexual "day of silence" could expose schools to legal trouble

I made mention of the group GLSEN in my last post (which I jokingly referred to as the Gay Lesbian and Straight MisEducation Network).  With their annual "day of silence" coming up this Friday, today seems like a good day to expose GLSEN's true intentions for Indiana's vulnerable youth.  The Citizens for Community Values (IFI's counterpart in Ohio) has put together an excellent document which highlights the dangerous agenda of GLSEN and the legal liability issues that GLSEN's miseducation campaign could have on schools.  I am posting an excerpt below, but I highly encourage anyone who works in the field of education or has school age children to read the entire document. 

As I studied GLSEN's website and the different materials they offer to students, I was particularly interested in the document explaining how students can develop, "youth-adult partnerships."  This document seems to make a concerted effort to help confuse students as to the distinctions between being a "youth" or an "adult."  They claim that GLSEN considers a youth to be a k-12 student, yet they proceed to call attention to other "cultures, traditions and situations" in which youth as young as 13 are considered to be adults.  This seems to fall right in line with the liability issues CCV highlights below:

Schools Exposed to Civil Liability

Implied approval of child-adult sexual relationships is a frequent and usually positive theme in resources recommended by GLSEN and PFLAG. Beyond the fact that these liaisons often constitute criminal activity for which the adults could be prosecuted, the civil lawsuits schools could face are daunting.

One has only to look to the numerous claims recently made against the Catholic Church for its various roles in sexual abuse scandals involving priests to see the liability schools could face in similar situations. Out-of-court settlements paid for past offenses have totaled in the multiple millions of dollars thus far. It should be noted that a major component of this litigation has focused on the negligent failure of the church hierarchy to protect children from known risks.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for school officials to know whether the adults who want access to the children on their campuses have criminal intentions. But if those adults state their intentions in writing up front – in books and brochures approving of child-adult sex – school officials have a responsibility to keep them at a distance. Failure to do so when the school is aware of the potential danger will very likely result in culpability.

Based on the critical review of the resources provided to young people by groups like GLSEN and PFLAG, Harvey states,

School officials should be aware that many homosexual support groups for teens and their parents believe that sex between a young person and an adult is just an expected part of the growing up process. Numerous stories and episodes of adult-teen homosexual sex are found within the resources of these groups. Incidents are treated at times in a neutral fashion, or too often, in a positive light, as if such abusive relationships are natural, normal, and even an advantageous ‘coming of age’ step in the lives of ‘gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered’ youth.

Hat tip:  Patrick Mangan

Do Our Politicians Have 'Hometowns' Anymore

by Craig Ladwig

We note with admiration how easily Bill and Hillary Clinton (with native son Evan Bayh jetting in from Washington) found connections in the Hoosier crowds during their campaign stops. It was almost as if they . . . well, as if they lived here. Truly, politicians are global citizens now. They don't have hometowns anymore in the traditional sense.

And yet, when it comes to democratic representation there remains a pesky provincialism in Indiana. At the very least there is an expectation that our politicians, who owe their status and ample retirement benefits not to marketable skills or business acumen but to the loyalty of a constituency, should retire amid that constituency.

None can say that Bill, Hillary or Evan, now welding power and influence around the world, won’t return to Hope, Chicago or Shirkieville when their days of public service are over. It’s a good bet, though, that they won’t.

And if you're going to join in that wager you'll want the term “hometown” carefully defined. Most politicians could answer honestly that they plan to retire to their Indiana hometown but only if you accept a mailing address as a home.

What the rest of us mean by a hometown is what Harry S Truman, “the man from Independence,” meant by a hometown. *

Keeping tabs on the retired president wasn’t difficult. Harry was always at home except for his morning walks. And this was the home, please know, that Harry owned before he went to the White House.

“I've been taking my walks around the city and passing places that bring back wonderful recollections,” Truman wrote. “The Presbyterian Church where I started to Sunday school at the age of six years, where I first saw a lovely little golden-haired girl who is still the lovely lady that is my wife. What a pleasure to be back here at home — once more a free and independent citizen.”

Times change, say those who reject such sentimentalism. The new politician, it can be argued, serves his hometown best by maintaining a presence near a power center — Washington, New York or, if duty calls, the capitals of Europe or the Orient.

Most of us would buy that except for the fact all the places in which our former politicians choose to serve in retirement are decidedly nicer than the Indiana towns from which they first petitioned our trust and support.

What is it about the climate of Arizona and the Gulf of Mexico or the social swirl of Georgetown that so commands an attention of Hoosier interests? Wouldn’t chance dictate that at least one retired pol, though resigned to serving Indiana from afar, end up somewhere without 365 days of golfing weather or a celebrity at the next table?

And while we're at it, isn’t there somewhere that our governor and legislative leaders could visit on their annual summer trips in search of Hoosier jobs that doesn’t require a luxurious jet ride to Europe or the Pacific?

Seemingly not.

Perhaps it's not so much the times that have changed as the leadership that has changed. A British historian, Paul Johnson, relates a conversation between King George III and an adviser following the shocking news from Yorktown:

“What will George Washington do now?” the King George asked.

“I expect he will go back to his farm,” was the answer.

“If he does that, he will be the greatest man on earth,” the king responded in sincere admiration.

That, in fact, was what Washington did, Johnson notes, first at the end of the war and again after being called from Mount Vernon by election to the presidency.

Indiana has eight months remaining in another season of modern election campaigns marked by unbridled ambition and narrow factional maneuver. It may have seen the last time a person of accomplishment with a sincere call to public service simply waited at home among family, friends and neighbors until he or she was elected to something.

T. Craig Ladwig is editor of the quarterly Indiana Policy Review. Contact him at cladwig@inpolicy.org.

* Truman's middle initial has no period because, oddly, it doesn't stand for anything. The editors of the Kansas City Star, however, perversely required that it be written with a period because it so irritated the former president. Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to this hometown thing.

The Letter "A," Spitzer, and the Misrepresentation of Puritanism

I thought this was a very interesting article in response to the "sexual freedom should know no bounds" crowd.  I urge you to read the full article...I'm just posting a snippet below.  Additionally, for those interested in a real history of the Puritans, rather than the liberal demagoguery we usually get from the media, "Puritan Christianity in America: Religion and Life in Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts" by Allen Carden is a good resource.

The Letter “A,” Spitzer, and the Misrepresentation of Puritanism
By Mary Grabar
Sunday, March 30, 2008

As predictable as a college freshman telling me that the “A” sewn on Hester Prynne’s dress symbolizes Puritanical hypocrisy were the commentaries about the Puritanical hypocrisy of the prosecution of men (like Eliot Spitzer) for engaging the services of a prostitute. 

The charges of “Puritanism” echo those made during the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair, and feature such notables as Huffington Post’s Chris Weignet asking us to “get beyond our Puritanical roots” in a commentary titled “In Defense of Hookers.”  The Economist saw the Spitzer affair as the latest example in American history of “Puritanism deranging the law.”  Legal and ethical scholar Martha Nussbaum, whose feminist “caring” ethic fills college anthologies, begins an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial, “Eliot Spitzer, one of the nation’s most gifted and dedicated politicians, was hounded into resignation by a Puritanism and mean-spiritedness that are quintessentially American.”  She then expresses her “caring” for “sex workers”—the latest group of the oppressed in the Marxist universe of the American university.  Our more prestigious campuses now host an annual sex workers show.  “Sex workers,” unlike us “word workers” who toil at grading papers, were paid good money for their performances. 

Click Here to Continue Reading

Hat tip: Townhall.com

Tony Perkins in Crown Point on Saturday

If any of you live up in the northwest part of the state or feel like making the drive on Saturday, this event should be a good one.  Tony Perkins will be at Living Stones Church in Crown Point.  One of IFI's favorite pastors, Ron Johnson Jr., put this event together.  Pastor Johnson and Living Stones understand the value of thinking like Jesus on matters of public policy.  You will not regret attending this event.  Say "Hi" to IFI President Curt Smith if you go, as he will be participating in the conference as well. 

Bridge to Nowhere or Great Idea?

VLADIMIR PUTIN, the Russian president, is to raise plans for a tunnel to link his country with America when he meets his US counterpart, George W Bush, next Sunday.

The 64-mile tunnel would run under the Bering Strait between Chukotka, in the Russian far east, and Alaska; the cost is estimated at £33 billion.

Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea football club and governor of Chukotka, has invested £80m in the world’s largest drill but has denied that it is linked with the development.

Proposals for such a tunnel were approved by Tsar Nicholas II in the early 20th century but were abandoned during the Soviet era. If finally built, the tunnel would allow rail connections between London and New York.

Read the full article in the Times Online.

I am trying to decide what I think of this.  What do Veritas Rexers think?  Will it be a "bridge to nowhere" or a great idea?  Will it be like the "Big Dig", a government debacle costing many times more than estimates, or will it lead to greater economic development activity?

Let us know.

Shocking news...Bil Browning joins Veritas Rex

In shocking news Bil Browning, gay activist and founder of the Bilerico Project, has become a social conservative.  Following an intense lunch at the Elbow Room in downtown Indianapolis (pictured below) Bil realized that I am, in fact, right about all social issues.  Given this epiphany, he decided to jump ship from gay activism.  Bil will now be leading the charge against the homosexual agenda in the Indiana Statehouse and elsewhere across the Hoosier state. 

Bil had this to say:

"I am honored to join the ranks of Ryan McCann and the Indiana Family Institute.  Ryan is right...a social conservative perspective on life really does make more sense." 

Welcome to the religious right, Bil!

APRIL FOOLS!

Future lawyers of tomorrow

What is Lambda Law Society?  Here is their group description on the IU Indy law school website:

The IU School of Law-Indianapolis chapter of the Lambda Law Society is an organization for law students who share a vision of equality in all endeavors, regardless of sexual orientation. The society's goals include developing a social structure where gay, lesbian, and bisexual students feel comfortable being themselves; offering education opportunities at the law school on gay, lesbian, and bisexual interests; providing service to the legal community in areas of interest to the homosexual community; and offering charitable assistance to the Indiana community in areas of gay, lesbian, and bisexual concerns.

I'm not sure whether promoting cross-dressing fits under the "offering education opportunities" umbrella or "providing service to the legal community."  However, I'm sure Veritas Rex nation will help me make that distinction.  Here is an invitation to participate in an upcoming "drag show" that the IU Indy law students received:

Hello Student Body,

The Lambda Law Society would like to offer an opportunity for anyone interested in participating in our upcoming drag show.  This is our main fund-raising event and all proceeds will go to The Indiana Youth Group -- an organization dedicated to supporting local youth [Ryan cutting in - In actuality, the Indiana Youth Group is a gay activist organization that promotes homosexuality and bisexuality among Indiana's youth].  This is a very important organization as it helps youth face the everyday challenges of parental relationships, school, individuality, and social awareness.  We would really appreciate your support.

This show will be a light hearted, tongue-in-cheek, drag show. 
Participants will be competing for the prestigious title of Ms. IndyLaw
2008 (complete with crown and sash).  The winner will also receive a large prize package that consists of $50 cash prize and gift certificates from various restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and salons.

Your very own law professors will be asked to judge; however, just like in American Idol, their opinions are just gudance and the audience members will be casting their own votes to select the winner.

Also performing will be the locally famous Bag Ladies -- a group of men who do drag shows to raise money for charity; a real drag queen -- Ms.
Annastacia DeMoore (emphasis mine), a drag queen MC, and IYG.  The professional participants are happy to help with hair/wigs, makeup, costume, and performance tips.

This event will be held Thursday, April 10th in the Atrium at 8 pm.

When searching for the details of the Lambda Law Society I came across the Washington College of Law's chapter of Lambda Law Society and had to add it here because it made me laugh.  Here are the examples they use for social events that they host:

"Activities Include: ...Social events, such as Happy Hours, pot-luck dinners, and Bingo."

Wow...if you didn't know any better you would think that the Lambda Law Society was a church group of elderly ladies, not a den for drag queens!

New leadership for the Evangelical movement?

A recent discussion in Washington DC about the future of the Evangelical movement brought to my attention an interesting organization, The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

From an article about the meeting:
 

Samuel Rodriguez, who heads the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, disagreed with Perkins, predicting the future of the evangelical movement will be "brown, prophetic and centered." He claims that via America's fastest growing demographic, "Latino evangelicals will reconcile the righteousness and justice platform with a bit of salsa and a couple more Taco Bells."

Pastor Rodriguez also argued that the agenda of evangelicals is broadening because in 50 years, the majority of evangelicals in America will be non-white. "That browning of the evangelical movement in America will reconcile ... righteousness, life and marriage issues with healthcare, immigration reform, education, poverty, [and] global warming," he continues. "Not only is it an ethnic transition -- or demographical shift -- but a trans-generational element ... the generations after the baby boomers -- they really repudiate the idea of trying to put in a box in the Christian right category the ethos of a entire belief system."

According to Rodriguez, although they reject the "religious right" label, Latino evangelicals are more committed than are white evangelicals to protecting life and traditional marriage.

I've long held that Hispanics belong on the Conservative side of the political aisle.  Most are very religious, many are Catholics.  After Bush won 40% of their vote in his campaigns, it was clear that they are not going to be the voting block for the liberals like the African American vote is.

Perhaps with McCain at the top of the ticket, Republicans will again win more of this vote in 2008.  And with continued growth from their demographic, it is entirely possible that Mr. Rodriguez's prediction will be true someday- that Hispanics will dominate the Christian right.

And liberals fret over 'hate speech' in churches??

Looks like it's not just Obama's pastor spewing anti-American and hateful, intolerant things to his congregation.  Seems this lady pastor helpd Hilliary link her opponent with the grand opponent of all! 

From Citizenlink.com 3/25/08

Commentary: Hillary Also Has Skeletons
in Her Church Closet   

Religious supporters use sacred hymn to compare her one-time opponent to Satan.
by Paul Kengor, guest columnist

Hillary Clinton has been conspicuously silent regarding the political fallout created by Barack Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I suspect two primary reasons for this: 1) She may be adhering to what the late Republican political strategist Lee Atwater used to call “the Napoleonic maxim: Never interfere with the enemy when he’s in the process of destroying himself." 2) Senator Clinton’s campaign may be aware of her own vulnerability in this area.

This second point is much less obvious. I’m aware of it only because I’ve written a book on the faith of Hillary Clinton, during which I repeatedly encountered the often explosive situations involving Mrs. Clinton in African-American churches — situations utterly ignored by the media.

One of my favorite examples took place at Emmanuel Baptist Church in New York City before the 2000 election, in which Mrs. Clinton was running against Congressman Rick Lazio, R-N.Y., for the U.S. Senate seat from New York. On that morning, Mrs. Clinton was introduced by co-Pastor Darlene Thomas McGuire. After McGuire issued the standard claim that she was not speaking for the church — so as to suggest that her tax-exempt church was not making a political endorsement, a claim that any honest ACLU lawyer would laugh right out of the courtroom — the Rev. McGuire issued a religious proclamation to her congregation: Hillary’s opponent was evil.

Actually, Congressman Lazio was judged much worse than that. In a rousing hymn for the faithful, McGuire substituted Hillary’s opponent for no less than the Prince of Darkness. Immediately after claiming, “I’m not speaking for the church today,” McGuire led Hillary and the entire congregation in a unique rendition of an old-time hymn:

I told Satan, get thee behind
I told Satan, get thee behind …
Victory today is mine!

The good reverend then made a seamless transition, leading her flock in a revised second verse, belting out the new lyrics loudly and proudly:

I told Lazio, get thee behind!
I told Lazio, get thee behind! …
Victory today is mine!

The hymn, Victory is Mine, about Jesus Christ defeating Satan, was transformed into a political hymn about Hillary Clinton defeating Rick Lazio.

This was a unique integration of church and state. Now, granted, Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said some crazy things behind the pulpit at Barack Obama’s church, but he has yet (to my knowledge) to dub Obama’s political challenger — Hillary Clinton — Lucifer.

This display of Christian charity from the Religious Left was transcribed for political posterity by Beth Harpaz, a New York reporter who traveled with the Hillary campaign in 2000. To her credit, Harpaz — who shared a van with a group of sycophantic “reporters”/Hillary advocates who long ago tossed all objectivity out the window — figured that making a direct analogy between the Catholic Lazio and the Devil might be just a tad over the top, and stopped to ask the former first lady what she thought of the new lyrics. “She paused for a second,” recorded Harpaz, “then smiled and replied, ‘I love hymns.’ ”

So did the press, which, uplifted by that old-time religion, was experiencing an old-fashioned conversion. Not one of the usual liberal pundits, like the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank — who flipped his lid when President Bush in 2003 was introduced as “our friend and brother in Christ” by a group of fellow Christians — or The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, who accused Gov. Bush of “playing the Jesus card” when he cited Christ as his favorite philosopher in Iowa in 1999, complained about how Hillary Clinton’s supporters were comparing her opponent to Satan.

For that matter, fast-forwarding to 2008, Barack Obama has not complained, either. Sen. Obama has not made an issue of such documented church moments by Sen. Clinton. Hillary Clinton (thus far) has gotten away with this kind of thing, including the occasions in which she was just as divisive as the Leftist pastors who fawned over her. One might recall the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2006 — a day of national unity on race — when Sen. Clinton stepped to the pulpit of the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem and claimed the Republican leadership was running the U.S. House of Representatives “like a plantation.”

I’ve cited only a couple of examples. Beth Harpaz counted 27 churches in which Mrs. Clinton campaigned in the two months prior to Election Day 2000. There have been many more since then. The names of many, if not most, of those churches are known, as well as their pastors. One must wonder if the Obama campaign has looked into these churches to see if there is video of a Rev. Wright at one of them — one who could be used to embarrass Mrs. Clinton, if she seeks to make hay of Rev. Wright.

I’m not being conspiratorial. This is how political campaigns think. And it may help to explain why Mrs. Clinton’s political team is not expressing outrage over the unhinged remarks by Obama’s pastor, including Rev. Wright’s nasty remarks (and body gestures) regarding Mrs. Clinton’s husband’s sessions with Monica Lewinsky, which surely must have made Bill Clinton’s blood boil when he (like the rest of us) first caught the video on Fox News. Mrs. Clinton herself no doubt hopes to keep the door shut on more than one church closet. Barack Obama is not the only Democratic frontrunner with some skeletons.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College in Grove City, Pa. His recent books include God and Hillary Clinton (HarperCollins, 2007) and The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius, 2007).

Our deadly enemies

Recently, at the Politics Online Conference run by GWU, I spent some time talking with a number of individuals from the left and some Paulistinians. 

Their position on the war on terror: "If we just stop intervening all over the world, particularly in the Middle East, then our enemies will have no reason to attack us."  The idea is that if we mind our own business, they will go away.  This argument goes hand in hand with the "Bush is a bully.  When he's gone we'll just meet with all these dictators and peace will come."

I don't know how they reconcile that view with reality.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened the European Union with grave punishment on Wednesday for publication of cartoons mocking Islam's Prophet Mohammad.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet coinciding with the birthday of Islam's founder, bin Laden said the drawings, considered offensive by Muslims, were part of a "new crusade" in which Pope Benedict was involved.

"Your publications of these drawings -- part of a new crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican had a significant role -- is a confirmation from you that the war continues," said the Saudi-born militant leader, addressing "those who are wise at the European Union".

You are "testing Muslims ... the answer will be what you shall see and not what you hear."

Don't they realize that our enemies are deadly, and they are willing to kill over CARTOONS!?  Our enemies aren't rational, thoughtful human beings.  They are deadly, hateful people who want to kill us.  They won't go away when we get out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. 

No, then they'll hate us because some newspaper criticizes Mohamed.  Or they'll hate us because our flag has stars and stripes or because our President meets with some foreign leader they don't like.

Our enemies won't stop until their brand of deadly religious extremism has covered our world in blood.  If the left can't see that, they and their political allies aren't fit to defend our country.

Will Obama bring racial change?

It's been a bad couple of weeks for Barack Obama.  In recent days, voters have been focused on coverage of Barack Obama's preacher and his anti-American, anti-white remarks (I have been in Los Angeles, sorry- but, now I am back).  It's raised the larger issue of Obama's race and has dove-tailed poorly (for him) with his wife's remarks that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" and Obama's failure to salute the flag.

For me, the problem for Obama regarding race is that he doesn't bring change.  He brings more of the same.  He re-packages ideas from the '60s in great rhetoric, but we still get more race politics.  He continues to fight for the great delusion, propagated by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright and others that the greatest friend to minorities are the liberal leaders of our country.

Obama's speech, given yesterday to try to end the issue, made a number of good points about race in our society and was remarkably even-handed, but Obama also resorted to the same talking points on racism from the left.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.  That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.  And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

If Obama is simply highlighting the challenges that black people face, then I agree with these sentiments.  But what we really need is an acknowledgment from liberals that many of these problems are of our own making and have nothing to do with race?  Are the Indianapolis Public School's struggles a result of racism?  I don't think so.  Is the answer a funding system that favors black schools in Indiana?  No. 

I am refreshed that Obama seems to at least recognize that the very programs set up by liberals to favor poor families have instead eroded them- particularly black families.  I hold out hope that perhaps he sees that the real problem is that the liberals who supposedly fight for minorities continue to destroy their families with entitlement policies.  But I am discouraged because Obama's policies don't free these families, they simply fight for more government intervention earlier in these people's lives, not less.  In fact, Obama wants government education programs starting at age 0.

What we really need, for real change for those minorities who feel oppressed, is new leaders and a new vision.  We need a call for an ownership society, not more government intervention to right the wrongs of the Civil War or Jim Crow.  We need to create more opportunities for minorities, not demand more equality in outcomes.  We need to encourage each individual to excel by teaching personal responsibility and discourage them from the habit of blaming others for their problems (which is a problem plaguing all races in the 21st Century).

With this kind of change we could see true reform of those institutions which are hurting poor or disadvantaged minorities.   

 

Decriminalizing the Unthinkable

In ancient Rome, babies born with disabilities or serious illnesses were often exposed on hills, a barbaric practice that was eventually stopped when (and because) Christianity became the Empire's official religion.

Alas, killing babies born with birth defects is making a comeback in our Post Christian times.  Indeed, support for infanticide is not only gaining respectability among the bioethics and medical intelligentsia—it is becoming positively trendy.

Princeton University's Peter Singer deserves much of the blame for this change.  Back when infanticide support was still an anathema, Singer began advocating for the right of parents to kill unwanted newborns.  He didn't put it that starkly, of course.  He always used the example of babies born with serious disabilities such as Down syndrome.  Thus, he wrote on page 213 of 1994 his book Rethinking Life and Death:

    To have a child with Down syndrome is to have a different experience from having a normal child…For some parents, none of this matters.  They find bringing up a child with Down syndrome a rewarding experience in a thousand different ways. But for other parents, it is devastating.

    Both for the sake of 'our children,' then, and for our own sake, we may not want a child to start life's uncertain voyage if the prospects are clouded. When this is known at a very early stage of the voyage we may still have a chance to make a fresh start.  This means detaching ourselves from the infant who has been born, cutting ourselves free before the ties that have already begun to bind us to our child have become irresistible. Instead of going forward and putting all our efforts into making the best of the situation, we can still say no, and start again from the beginning.

Singer is a master of using passive language and euphemisms to mask the brutality of what he advocates. But make no mistake, his phrases, "detaching ourselves," and choosing to "start again from the beginning," refer to baby killing.

Click on the link to read the rest. http://www.tothesource.org/3_4_2008/3_4_2008.htm

Spitzer Tragedy Public Issue

     The stunning news Monday about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's involvement with a prostitution ring is a personal tragedy for him, his wife and their three teen-age daughters.  But the Governor asserted it is a private matter, an assertion which cannot stand for the chief executive of a state.

     We need not comment on details, both because few are known with certainty and because he deserves every presumption of innocence on criminal charges and every consideration as a fellow fallen traveler through life regarding the actual conduct.  But his effort to separate his actions after 9 p.m. from his actions during the business day just doesn't work at any level.  This is true not only because, if proven, the actions are a violation of clear state and federal laws he took an oath of office to uphold, but because leaders must maintain the highest of ethical standards to be able to lead.

     His is the "Bill Clinton defense" -- sex is a private matter, unrelated to public duties.  But a leader, especially a visible, active chief executive of a nation or a state, must understand their claim to privacy shrinks as they seek greater and greater influence in the public realm.  Voters, citizens and taxpayers alike all wisely and appropriately look to the total person when making conclusions.  The fact such behavior -- extramarital sex, sex for cash -- is often wrapped in deceit, lies, perjury (in Bill Clinton's case), other lawbreaking -- communicates volumes to regular people who need to decide whom should govern them and guide their communities, states and nations.

     We take no joy in his fall.  Indeed, we are all diminished when our leaders fall, especially one with such support from a politician-averse public much burned by prior leaders. (He enjoyed a record vote margin of 70 percent among New York state voters in November of 2006, after all.) But we cannot let stand his claim that this matter is private -- beyond the realm of public concern and personal angst. It is as public as the sunrise, though less noted.  Or perhaps, in this case, a sunset.

A good article on the GOP and Iraq

This article, by John Podhoretz, in Commentary Magazine, is one of the best I've seen when it comes to analysis of the 2006 Election Cycle.

I'm not so much interested in re-hashing the 2006 Election Cycle, or demonstrating any opinions of it.  However, I find Podhoretz's analysis of American attitudes towards the war enlightening. 

I'll highlight a few portions of the article here, but you'll benefit from reading the entire article. 

Podhoretz summarizes his argument about 1/4 of the way through the article.

For a midterm election, what happened in 2006 was an uncommon event: a national wave. In the past half-century, there have been only two others like it, the first in 1974 when Democrats won 75 seats in the House and four in the Senate and the second in 1994. In all three cases, there was a single, identifiable, overwhelming reason for the loss. The 1974 election occurred in the wake of Watergate. The 1994 election took place in the wake of the effort by the Clinton administration to nationalize health care. And the 2006 election? It was decided not because of a few corrupt Republicans, or because Congress had spent a great deal, or because of a flawed immigration measure. It was decided by the fact that the United States was on the verge of suffering a cataclysmic defeat in war.

He has a strong narrative on fading support for the war in 2005.

Meanwhile, for many of those who had supported the war, the Katrina crisis signified something far more disturbing. Having watched despairingly as roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices in Iraq did their monstrous work on a daily basis, they had already begun to entertain severe misgivings. Support for the war, which was at 50 percent nationally at the end of 2004, sank through 2005, almost entirely due to changes of heart among independent voters. And it was these independents who fled the farthest from Bush after Katrina. Washington’s response to the catastrophe suggested to them that Bush did not know what he was doing—and therefore that the trust they had shown him in 2004 had been misplaced.

“This will take time and patience,” Bush said of Iraq in 2005. But not until November of that year did he attempt to present an explicit “Strategy for Victory.” And that document simply repackaged the administration’s existing approach, envisioning not a battlefield defeat of the enemy but a gradual withering-away thanks to progress on the political and economic fronts and enhanced training of Iraqi troops.

As a matter of military strategy, as Bush would concede after the 2006 election, this was a flawed approach. It was also flawed as a matter of wartime leadership. In the realm of public opinion, a war must be won and an enemy must be defeated; for a nation with men fighting on foreign soil, there can be no other major goal. And there was worse. Bush had prevailed in 2004 by offering the implicit promise of winning in Iraq. But then, with great fanfare, he had announced that the great project of his second term would be—an effort to restructure Social Security. He had no mandate for such a thing, and the refusal of Republicans on Capitol Hill to line up behind it was a harbinger of similar discontents to come.

In October 2005, one month after Katrina, the President made the ill-advised decision to nominate his White House counsel Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy. This caused an eruption in elite conservative opinion, and he was forced to withdraw the nomination (while claiming that she was the one who dropped out). Miers was indeed a poor choice, but under different circumstances Bush would have had little difficulty in assuring her confirmation. What made the conservative revolt possible was not her lack of credentials but Bush’s gradual loss of standing in his own party—a loss due entirely to the sense that he might be flying blind in Iraq.

He was even more compromised in the early months of 2006 as Iraq descended into nightmarish sectarian violence following the February bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. It was against this backdrop that the President advanced his immigration-reform bill. It was not well-drafted and deserved to be defeated. Even so, however, Bush had been championing most of its provisions since his days as governor of Texas, and his advocacy had not prevented a single conservative activist from supporting him wholeheartedly in 2000 or in 2004.

Had he come before the American people as the victor in Iraq, Bush would have had his immigration bill for the taking—with, to be sure, muted grumbling from some of his backers analogous to the grumbling after the passage of his education legislation in 2001 or the prescription-drug entitlement in 2003. In 2006, however, he found himself on the receiving end of wildly intemperate blasts of scorn, contempt, rage, and disgust, and his own party killed the bill.

By November, going into the election, the GOP was divided, weakened, and disheartened. Had the Iraq war gone differently, none of this would have been the case.

Podhoretz has interesting things to say about 2007 as well.

What had happened? If the results of the 2006 election had indeed been a straightforward mandate for the Democratic view that “this war is lost” (as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would put it in April 2007), legislation sent from Capitol Hill to the White House would have reflected that conviction. Democrats from Bush districts would not have objected, and fearful Republicans would have crossed party lines to side with their Democratic colleagues. That is what occurs when an issue has a mandate.

Yet Democrats could not get a single withdrawal proposal through the legislative process to the President’s desk. What is more, their efforts to do so have endeared them to no one: neither disaffected independents, nor depressed Republicans, nor liberals crying for Bush’s head. To the contrary: according to polls, the present Democratic leadership in Congress is the object of an icy public scorn several degrees cooler even than the permafrost in which George W. Bush has been embalmed.

Finally, he concludes with his thoughts on how this impacts things in 2008.

It is a great irony that the best political news for Republicans in a notably unfavorable election year—with the public telling pollsters that it is desirous of change and prefers Democratic stands on most issues by margins ranging from ten to twenty points—may come out of Iraq. Should the surge’s progress continue and deepen, the Democratic nominee may find himself or herself in a very uncomfortable position come autumn. The Democratic base will not have changed its mind about the war’s evil, and it will not be happy with a leader who does. So the nominee will find it almost impossible to embrace the surge, and certainly not after having disparaged it caustically in the past. But if the nominee does not embrace the real possibility of victory in Iraq, he or she will run the risk of appearing defeatist, or worse, in the eyes of the same independent voters who fled the GOP in droves in 2006.

Meanwhile, the candidate most associated with the surge, John McCain, will (assuming he becomes the nominee of the Republican party) be uniquely well situated to deploy an accusation he has been leveling at the Democratic frontrunners for nearly a year. “I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq,” McCain said about a vote the two Democrats cast in May 2007. He called this “the equivalent of waving a white flag of surrender to al Qaeda.”

I'm not quite sure if his analysis of 2008 will prove true or not.  Clearly Barack Obama, most likely to surrender precipitously, is gathering momentum in this Election in ways that seemed impossible. 

Part of me wonders if Americans simply want to return to the blissful ignorance of the Clinton years, when the end of the Cold War and relative peace abroad had us convinced that our enemies were no longer amassing against us.  We're tired of Iraq.  I'm tired of the endless discussion of it.  Apparently so is the New York Times, which is giving far less ink to the War in Iraq now that we are winning.

War politics in 2008 is a wild card.  We've got eight more months of it until November.  Only a fool would try to predict with certainty what the result will be.

Saying good-bye

I was emotionally impacted by the Indy Star coverage of the Georgia send-off of the Indiana Guard's 76th Infantry Brigade Combat Team.  Not so much by the article, but by the photos. 

The 76th heads now to Kuwait and then to Iraq.

Louis Farrakhan hypocrisy

On Monday of last week, the Indianapolis Star posted an article on Andre Carson.  Although the Carson article focused mostly on his religion, I was more interested in the first couple of paragraphs.

Andre Carson's greatest political asset may be his grandmother's name, but one of his biggest liabilities is proving to be her funeral.

That's because his family gave a spot in the parade of dignitaries who eulogized Congresswoman Julia Carson to Louis Farrakhan, whom Jewish leaders consider one of America's leading anti-Semites, gay rights activists consider a homophobe and who famously referred to white people as "devils."

In recent weeks, Andre Carson has been reassuring Jewish leaders here and in Washington that Farrakhan's appearance wasn't his idea. He has spoken publicly about his distaste for discrimination, homophobia or racism of any kind. He has talked repeatedly of his desire for unity.

There is almost universal agreement amongst our readers regarding Farrakhan, who is widely known for his hate-filled speeches and racist comments- particularly towards Jews.

7th District Congressional candidate Andre Carson has refused to repudiate the endorsement from Farrakhan, despite this knowledge.  Kudos to Barack Obama for speaking out against Farrakhan, by the way.

That's where I see the hypocrisy.  Farrakhan is probably the most prominent and vocal anti-white, anti-Jew racist out there.  His organization has posted rants from individuals who suggest that white people are an inferior race.  According to the Nation of Islam, whites are newcomers to this planet, arriving long after aboriginals (blacks) inhabited our world.  I also note that many homosexual organizations consider him highly controversial as well.

Where's the outcry?  Where is the left doing their best to save us from racism?  Are two paragraphs in the Indianapolis Star and a few posts from bloggers all we get here?

What would have happened if a local politi