Friday, August 15, 2014


1) Sometimes police shootings are justified and sometimes it's a tragic misunderstanding. On very, very rare occasions, police have knowingly committed murder. These cases are very difficult to investigate because they involve suspects who know how police investigations are carried out.
 2) Peaceful protests are great, rioting is bad.
3) Arresting rioters is great, arresting peaceful protesters and journalists is bad.
4) Police officers are civilians, and should not have weapons that are prohibited for civilian use.
5) Here's an idea: All funding for state and local law enforcement should come from the state and local level. If voters in a jurisdiction won't support a bond issue or tax increase to spend $500,000 on an armored vehicle, then maybe the police shouldn't have that armored vehicle. Maybe an MRAP designed to protect its crew from a roadside bomb belongs in the Mideast and not the Midwest.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014


My initial response to this was: "Im all for sifting the voter rolls on the one year where there is no election going on, but this is just a little bit ridiculous, then again what do you expect from Republicans anymore, especially one whom was appointed because of a rule change after the last guy committed voter fraud." However after learning certain details I must apologize for misconstruing intentions by the current Secretary of State, whom actually prevented a costly lawsuit from affecting Hoosiers and others in this Country by "accelerating" a plan to filter voter rolls.

As someone whom is liberty minded, when it comes to ballot access whether as candidates, officers, or voters, Libertarians can get really jumpy really fast because we are both itching for that fight, and at the same time, on guard for it always. The other issue is with all the other schemes going on (especially in the South, most notably North Carolina,
and even Ballot fraud in ALABAMA) , now that the one clause (Section Four) of the Voting Rights Act was suspended by the SCOTUS, every one whom is liberty minded is on edge when it comes to disenfranchisement of the voters, by those elected to represent them and by laws or actions which prevent them from excising that essential civil duty to vote. 

Seriously though, CHECK YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION, even if you dont get a notice and by all means tell everyone you know that this bullpuckey wont happen improperly again, if you elect Karl Tatgenhorst for Indiana Secretary of State in November.

Monday, August 11, 2014

The Statist Reality: My response to Paul Krugman's "The Libertarian Fantasy"

Toledo has had problems with their drinking water. Phosphorus run-off from farms has been causing an algae bloom in Lake Erie, and that's bad. Paul Krugman has cited it as a reason why libertarian economics won't work. Krugman wants you to think that Libertarians think that pollution is no big deal. But pollution is a problem in any modern society, no matter what your ideology is. I think that the good folks of Toledo would be justified in filing a class action suit against farms along the Maumee River. The phosphorus is coming from fertilizer used on crops. And what should make you mad is that a lot of these crops aren't going to be used as food. A lot of corn is used to make ethanol. Most gas stations sell fuel that is 90% gas and 10% ethanol. The ethanol doesn't do anything to make your car perform better or pollute less. It's just there because the federal government has been trying to pump up corn prices. This is to help corn farmers and corporations that own corn farms. I have no objection to regulations to reduce phosphorus runoff, aside from that they would be difficult to enforce. Instead, Congress should stop encouraging farmers to pump chemicals into the ground by ending ethanol subsidies.

Monday, August 04, 2014

Jeanette Jaquish: Necessity or Complacency in FWCS Free Food Program?

LPAC Vice Chair Jeanette Jaquish, issued an Editorial last month questioning the reasoning and motives behind Fort Wayne Community Schools enveloping of all students into the free lunch and breakfast programs, made available through certain Federal Grants and funding loopholes.

Personally I will agree with her that the Fort Wayne Community School Board of Trustees willingness to pay almost five dollars a gallon for their milk program and not seeking out other format sources for competitive bidding is a little disheartening and should also make people weary of what else they rubber stamp "because, because" etc., but she didnt even bring that fiscal responsibility issue up.
"•Approved the sole bid of $1,722,855 from Prairie Farms Dairy to provide the estimated 5.7 million half pints of milk that FWCS and 12 private schools will serve next school year. The board also approved bids totaling $3.278 million from three food companies to provide the meat, produce and staples used to prepare school lunches."
FWCS fosters dependence through free-meal plan

“To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Where the Red Fern Grows,” “Bridge Over Terabithia,” “The Grapes of Wrath,” even “Harry Potter” – all have characters in poverty who either refuse or are ashamed to take charity. What will schools do with those books now?
I am deeply disturbed by the unanimous vote of the Fort Wayne Community Schools board to give free breakfast and lunch to all students in elementary through middle school through the Community Eligibility Provision of the Department of Agriculture. I think meals at home are important for families to communicate, bond and learn life skills, as well as show the kids that parents take care of them. I did not like it before when kids who ate breakfast at home had to wait on the bus 15 minutes while the school breakfasting children ate inside, but this is worse. I get up at5:30 make hash browns and eggs, 30 minutes later for cold cereal. If I didn't have to make breakfast, would I get up just in time to say goodbye? Or at all?
It is ludicrous. Middle-income and wealthy kids do not need tax-funded free breakfast and lunch. FWCS Superintendent Wendy Robinson said, “This was strictly based on it is the right thing to do.” She says some families are too busy to eat well, and that school meals are the only nutritious meals some children get. I say, “So teach the kids how to make nutritious meals.” A small child can pour a bowl of whole-grain cereal and peel a banana. A 5-year-old can make toast, grate cheese and cut up an orange. An 8-year-old can cook oatmeal or blend a fruit smoothie. A 10-year-old should be able to fry eggs and potatoes. These are skills to be proud of and build upon, and those are inexpensive healthy foods.
I look at the nice cars in the school parking lot and the many overweight children, and I do not think our local population is so absolutely helpless that our government needs to provide free cooked food.
For half my life I was very poor. I learned resourcefulness, and there is not a day that I do not appreciate what I have now. The philosophy behind this CEP program will lead to equalizing everyone and weakening the individual.
Finally, I am disturbed by the unanimous approval. I watched FWCS's next board meeting, and the chair does not even pause after asking for the nays: “All in favor? (pause) Nays?-Motion carries.”
And of course people have responded in kind. Here are some excerpts with links:

EMILY RICO: Statistics indicate that in 2012,23.4 percent of Allen County children younger than 18 lived in poverty. Recent figures indicate that some level of poverty exists in all Fort Wayne ZIP codes.
The Community Eligibility Provision of the US Department of Agriculture school lunch program is an option when more than 40 percent of a school district’s students are certified to receive free/reduced lunches. In 2013, 70.5 percent of FWCS students qualified. FWCS had more than 200 homeless children in its school population. Without free meals at school, many of these children would come to school without breakfast, and some would not have lunch. While it is important to teach responsibility, what is being taught (or learned) at school when a child can think of nothing but his gnawing stomach?
Children can and do endure unfortunate family circumstances and grow up to overcome and better their conditions. But perhaps we can make the way a little easier for someone else in need. The success of all is beneficial to society generally. 

KRISTIN STARK HUFF: ..... Children are at the complete mercy of the adults who surround them. Teaching kids to make their own meals is fine, but the adults in many kids’ lives are too unstable to do so, regardless of their income bracket. Whether they don’t have food in the morning because they are too busy, too poor or too unstable does not matter. Breakfast is essential to developing brains.
Making sure that as many kids as possible eat before and during school is a smart decision for FWCS. Kids who eat a nutritious breakfast and lunch are better able to sit still, pay attention and learn. This results in better test scores, stronger enrollment and better funding for the schools, which benefits all FWCS kids. Better-educated kids result in a stronger workforce and rising level of education and stability for our community.....

KATHLEEN KEARNS: .... The books she referred to that she believes model the correct way to handle poverty are all fiction. FWCS is reality. Not just when school is in session. These children belong to us 365 days a year.
I am a retired teacher, having served 25 years, .....
Nutritious food is undeniably more expensive than junk food. Recently I purchased enough food to make four dinners, and it cost $67. That provides four well-balanced, highly nutritious meals for one person. The families of whom Jaquish spoke cannot afford that. They are working two and three jobs trying to pay for housing, keep gas in the tank and clothing on their children’s backs.
And while they are doing that, their children are at home alone during the day. Jaquish suggests that children prepare their own meals. I would not want a 5-year-old making toast alone or cutting up an orange as she suggests. I have 10-year old grandchildren whom I would not want at the stove making eggs and potatoes while the adults are away from the house.

PATTI MURZYN: (in response to the original news story)
..... advise Wendy Robinson that there is no such thing as a “free” lunch (or breakfast). .....
.... The article noted the board had approved a little over $5 million for milk meat, produce and staples for school lunches. The students may think they eat for free, but the $5 million bids are proof that it is not “free.”
..... Really? We are all busy, but using “I’m too busy” makes these individuals victims rather than people in serious need of a meal. Those families need to look at priorities and manage their time better instead of asking taxpayers to cover these school meals. This is an extremely poor use of our tax dollars. And now they no longer need to fill out applications (too busy?) for “free” taxpayer-provided meals? Where and how will there be accountability for the tax dollars used? How do you know who is still eligible?
It was also noted that due to a change in an application process “the district will have to develop a new process to help eligible parents apply for free textbooks for their students.” Again, these are not “free,” these textbooks are costing the taxpayers money.....
I know it’s not popular, but there needs to be “ownership” for these individuals so that they take responsibility and show gratitude for the things given to them (and now they don’t even need to complete paperwork). The students (and parents) need to understand they are receiving these meals and books at no charge to them because the costs are being covered out of taxes taken from others so it only appears to be “free” to them. Things that are “free” are generally not as well cared for and rarely appreciated.

 I will add more editorial responses as they come across my purview.

Culinary Advocate Issues Survive And Thrive Cookbook For Food Stamp Recipients

I am posting this as both a matter of fiscal responsibility and constituent advocacy. 

Canadian Culinary Author Leanne Brown released this Good and Cheap: A Healthy Cookbook for Food Stamp Budgets back in June of this year after witnessing the struggle of so many on SNAP benefits to find healthy and nutritious meals for under $4 per day. You can download a 67 page PDF of the cookbook for free and there are also printed copies available in bulk purchases at $4 per copy.

Sunday, July 13, 2014


Please note that other meetings will be announced but these are the remainder of the Official Business Meetings as scheduled per our current bylaws in order to facilitate better planning and coordination with our members and advocacy with the general public.

15th of September  18:00-21:00 or 6-9p.m.
Kroger Marketplace Village of Coventry
Liberty Mills Road at West Jefferson/US 24 and I69 @Exit 302. 
Food is available for individuals to purchase at their leisure from the food court until 7p.m.
RSVP on our FACEBOOK Event Page Here pretty please and thank you. 

17th of November 18:00-21:00 or 6-9p.m.
Richards Restaurant Inc in New Haven, Indiana
11155 Isabelle Drive next to Lincoln Highway (US 24/SR 14 East) 
between I469 Exit 19 and Minnich Road on the south side.
Food is moderately priced and available for purchase at your leisure.
RSVP on our FACEBOOK Event Page Here pretty please and thank you.

19th of January, 2015 18:00-21:00 or 6-9p.m.
Kroger Marketplace Village of Coventry
Liberty Mills Road at West Jefferson/US 24 and I69 @Exit 302. 
Food is available for individuals to purchase at their leisure from the food court until 7p.m.
RSVP on our FACEBOOK Event Page Here pretty please and thank you.

THE PRIVILEGE OF INCUMBENCY: Ethics Violations Or Laziness While In Office?

The query you should be asking yourself is: 
"Why arent these seven State Elected Officials subject to the same rules that govern their employees?"

Then again, I do understand that running a campaign while holding that position can become a ethics quandary all on its own: EXAMPLE: "This post is for my job, but its also good news for my campaign. Why cant I do a quick copy paste share from one account to another even if it is on a Government Office Computer and Internet signal?"

The other query comes into play when Elected Officials (not naming names yet) should be in their office working and instead are standing on top of a bank building taking pictures of Downtown Fort Wayne, but I digress.

What about having the issue of their personal laptop using the Government issued WiFi signal while working late in their office one night, does their personal laptop now become Government property?

The overall issue is that our ethics and information tech laws need modified for the times but they do not need to be weakened to accommodate laziness of our Elected Officials while in Office!!

Article excerpt via NWTIMES

Indiana Inspector General David Thomas determined that during (Dr. Tony) Bennett's 2012 re-election bid, he held joint staff meetings between Department of Education employees and his campaign team in Bennett's Statehouse office.

Bennett also used state-owned and maintained calendar software to track official and campaign events on a consolidated calendar, as well as received and responded to political emails from his state account, according to the inspector general's report.

In addition, Bennett directed DOE staff following his defeat to compile a personal contact list that he could use in his new job as Florida Education Commissioner. The final list included contacts from three campaign lists "The 5000," "The Big Hitter List" and the "Red Meat List" that were stored on a state server, the report said.

Thomas found those uses of state property violated a DOE policy Bennett signed upon taking office in 2009 expressly prohibiting any user from employing department equipment for political activity.

But Thomas noted that Bennett could have avoided an ethics violation by not signing that policy statement and instead authorizing himself to use state property as he wished.

That's because the seven state officers — the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state auditor, state treasurer and state superintendent — are not subject to prohibitions on state employees engaging in political activity on state time, Thomas said.

Monday, July 07, 2014


This next meeting will be an informal planning session for the Party on Sunday the 13th of June from 15:00-18:00 or 3:00-6:00 p.m. at Kroger Marketplace on DuPont Road near Coldwater Rd/State Route 327 in their Bistro on the west side of the building facing DuPont Rd. Food is available for individuals to purchase at their leisure from the food court. Please RSVP to our event page please and thank you.

Friday, July 04, 2014

Happy Independance Day

These videos are great, in my humble opinion. If you have kids in the room, you should be spending the holiday with them instead of watching videos on the Internet. If you're offended by this kind of stuff, notify your monarch...oh wait that's right. Yeah, just don't watch this.


Well that was a wierd ass dream .... proving once again, I really shouldnt listen to WOWO's Pat Miller on my drive home from a certain intense medical procedure ..... but given the political punditry climate on the most recent immigration issues, this would become a feasible and definitely problematic solution to the current Immigration debate (if it hasnt happened already), once realized and exposed and tried to be dealt with legally.

What happens when our kids start selling off their American birthright to the highest bidder for a quick thousand dollars or more and a letter of dissolution of Parental Rights which wouldnt be enforceable here thereby making them liable anyway for their offspring? What should our Country's response be when dealing with shipwrecked babies versus anchor babies in the on going Immigration debate?

Now you are probably thinking to yourself,
"I know what an Anchor Baby is but what is a Shipwreck Baby?"

They used to be called War Babies! There are a lot of them in our history and even some currently. What happens when our kids, some whom dont serve in the Military and understand the privilege of our birthright or respect it for that matter, give it away for pennies on the dollar just to get by for a couple weeks, or to get out of jail down in Mexico for their indiscretions scott free? Traditionally, Shipwreck Babies are considered automatic (because our Citizen Birth Parent is viewed as being forced to abandon or chose to leave behind their offspring or because they didnt know they existed) Citizens of the United States, their Foreign Birth Parent (typically a mother) is not and then the Citizen Baby is used to bring them and any of the Citizen Baby's siblings here, to be naturalized.

But if the dream I had was any indication of what hasnt been exposed yet in the current debate, and Whiskey Rebellion/Tea Party Hate Mongering, is the fact that our younger generations dont necessarily give a flying donkeys pa-toot as to how or with whom they get laid, especially during Spring Break or Summer Vaca, and if there is a grand bonus check or a get out of jail free card involved, then that is just gravy. Theyre just spreading their wild oats, right? Which would also be one prime reason why safe sex needs to be taught in the Schools, but I digress.

So that brings me back to my original pointe of inquiry, because it already happens, everyday. The problem is we just havent got hit with it in waves like we are right now with these drive and drop offs of a thousands kids per facility. What happens when someone comes here and gets pregnant, or gets one of our daughters pregnant, or our sons get this really hot chica that he met pregnant with twins? The Shipwrecked Babies are technically by law and some would consider Constitutionally automatically United States Citizens by birthright (look at John McCain). There is no backdoor privilege being used here when it comes to Shipwrecked Babies, the Citizen Children are automatically conferred, the issue is their FBP and any other siblings.

So now how do we fix our Immigration situation when we could already be selling it off to the highest bidder without even realizing it? The Dream Act (for those whom were dragged here as kids by relatives without a choice) is beginning to look like a 5 pound bad of red potatoes when you factor in that there is at least the potential for an even larger wave of a 50 pound bag of Yukon Golds, Completely Legal American Children flooding our Social Services and Immigration Networks.

How much are you willing to sell off your birthright for?
A thousand dollars cash or a get out of jail free card?

In ten years time how are you going to explain to your husband and or wife and kids that you are now the proud Padre of Foreign Born Citizens that are as old as they are and they along with their other Parent and siblings are now coming to live with you all, no exceptions? Oh BTW, before you answer that last query with the following retort: "But I got I got a grand for my donation and a letter here that says I am not responsible for the child's well being!!" Guess what, that not notarized/certified and non registered document locally, doesnt apply in the United States of America, one because it would fall under like three felonies to start with and you would be considered under duress when making the transaction and pending agreement too.

So can we can we stop with all the pandering to your base and politics as usual and actually have discussion about Immigration issues and policy rather than spinning our wheels (meanwhile our kids are selling it off to the highest bidder or for their own freedom or even worse yet being violated of their birthright without even realizing that was happening, but the sex was great) and suffering the least among us to brunt the ironies that already exist in our American Law and collective Civil Morals?

Probably not, but it was worth asking the questions anyway!!

One unemployed protestor is angry she "can't get unemployment (video included) because there's so much money going towards the welfare."

The irony of course is that there are a lot of single and married GLBT Families ready willing and more than able to take some if not all of these kids into their homes, with half of the assistance dollars for refugees from the government. And a good portion of us are quasi multi lingual as well, so the adjustment phase will be less cumbersome for the youth as well.

You know what is pretty sad, the fact that were fighting about someone elses kids whom sent them to the USA for safe keeping. Now we have people playing politics with other peoples children. We used to not put children in the line of fire on political debates!

We have Whiskey Rebellion/Tea Party clowns blockading the border to keep them out. When in fact their blockading the busses to send them home. That was just brilliant! Then again look at the source of the outrage as well, Glenn Beck, Faux Noise, and Republicans in Congress running scared for their careers at tax payer expense.

The ones whom get lost in all of this are the least among us, foreigners in a strange land, the orphan, a child. And the last time I checked my BIBLE it said something along these lines:

Exodus 22: 20-23
20You shall not oppress or afflict a resident alien, for you were once aliens residing in the land of Egypt.f 21You shall not wrong any widow or orphan. 22If ever you wrong them and they cry out to me, I will surely listen to their cry. 23My wrath will flare up, and I will kill you with the sword; then your own wives will be widows, and your children orphans. 

Deuteronomy 10:16-20
16Circumcise therefore the foreskins of your hearts,* and be stiff-necked no longer. 17For the LORD, your God, is the God of gods, the Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who has no favorites, accepts no bribes,p 18who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and loves the resident alien, giving them food and clothing.q 19So you too should love the resident alien, for that is what you were in the land of Egypt.r 20The LORD, your God, shall you fear, and him shall you serve; to him hold fast and by his name shall you swear.

Both text are from the New American Bible Revised Edition, NABRE.
via the United States Conference of (Roman) Catholic Bishops.

Friday, June 27, 2014


In one of eleven unanimous decisions in recent years the USSC halted all inspections (except varification that it is not a weapon ie airport security checks) of cellular phones unless the police have a separate warrant even if the suspect is already in custody and the phone is held in evidence citing privacy and proper search and seizure concerns primarily.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN THE HOOSIER STATE!! Analysis USDCJ Richard Youngs Ruling on IN DOMA should bring everyone to their feet in offense against the Attorney General Greg Zoeller's incompotence in office and wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

UPDATE: 27th of June, 2014, as of 19:03 EST The Seventh District Circuit Court issued a stay in the Indiana Marriage Equality ruling. Still waiting on final tallies of how many Marriage Licenses were issued/Ceremonies performed and how many already were married in other jurisdictions but were now legally able to register their Marriages in Indiana. As soon as those results are available they will be posted here.

For those whom possibly havent heard yet, two days ago, United States District Court Judge Richard L. Young issued a ruling late Wednesday morning on several Marriage Equality Cases pending in the Federal Courts, which in turn single handedly struck down Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Equal Protection Clause and ushered in Same Sex Marriage almost immediately across the Hoosier State.

..... Pardon me for a moment ...WOOHOO!! YES!!  HALLERLUJAH!!

With in 48 hours of the ruling 80 of Indiana's 92 County Clerks (as of 22:17 last night) have started issuing marriage licenses and performing weddings, 186 in Marion County with 200 licenses issued on Wednesday alone and 57 couples in Allen County since yesterday, with more to follow today, until someone issues a stay on the ruling, or the 7th District Circuit Court steps in the way. There were some hiccups along the way, to the pointe that even though he has threatened to appeal as well as ask for a stay (aka waste even more tax dollars on a frivilous legal action) INAG Greg Zoeller has already issued this statement in the wake of the ruling:
From Indiana's Attorney General:

"For those county clerks that were named (Hamilton, Allen, Boone, Porter, Lake) in the cases ruled upon today please be aware that you must comply with the court’s ruling or be subject to contempt of court. Other county clerks are not under the direct jurisdiction of the court order but as an officer of the court we must encourage everyone to show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued."

There you have it folks, Allen County was listed in the ruling and yet still our own County Clerk was not ready for a response to the ruling for another three hours. Ironically the local News Stories at first wouldnt even list her by name even though she is an elected official. However with that being expressed, I must also applaud Lisbeth Borgmann for her prompt attention to due diligence and not putting a hold on the process of adapting documents and procedures in this situation, Allen County began issuing licenses at 14:00 Wednesday afternoon.



So Ive been reading the ruling and this USDCJ cleared the board when he handed down his ruling.

Mike Pence was excused from his cases as a defendant but then the Judge not only did he use the one primary exception to the 11th Amendment ( Under the Eleventh Amendment, a citizen cannot sue their state in federal court unless the state consents. However, the Supreme Court created an important exception to that immunity in Ex Parte Young (1908). Under that doctrine, “a private party can sue a state officer in his or her official capacity to enjoin prospective action that would violate federal law.” Ameritech Corp. v. McCann (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel (7th Cir. 1999)).

USDCJ Young then verbally beat down the State Attorney General for being a moron of a Prosecutor and the Indiana Dept of Revenue Commissioner (INDORC) for being a dolt, caused by the undue burden of every married couple having to fill out and file 3 separate Federal Tax Forms in order to comply with Indiana's Tax Code circa the Marriage Prohibition.


Then the three (AG Zoller, GOV Pence, INDORC) tried to argue with the Judge over Baker v. Nelson, which has been roundly nullified in more recent years, especially by Lawrence v. Texas which outlawed all State Sodomy Laws across the board and then again last year in the USA v Windsor case and the Perry v Hollingsworth (aka the PROP8 case in California): (Page 13 of the ruling) ....

First, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as “ only a legal union between one man and one woman.”. .... The Court noted that the differentiation within a state caused by DOMA “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.” Windsor, ..... Additionally, the Court found that the purpose of DOMA “is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages.”

Second, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of California’s prohibition on same-sex marriages, not because Baker rendered the question insubstantial, but because the law’s supporters lacked standing to defend it. Hollingsworth v. Perry. ....

So the USDCJ read them the riot act on trying to use Baker v. Nelson:

These developments strongly suggest, if not compel, the conclusion that Baker is no longer controlling and does not bar the present challenge to Indiana’s laws. .... (holding that Baker was not controlling as to the constitutionality of DOMA, reasoning that “[i]n the forty years after Baker, there have been manifold changes to the Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence” and that “[e]ven if Baker might have had resonance . . . in 1971, it does not today”).

NOW THE RULING In summary and by pointe:

1. Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. The purpose of the Due Process Clause is to “protect[] those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty . . . .” Washington v. Glucksburg (1997) Because such rights are so important, “an individual’s fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote.” DeLeon (citing W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, (1943)).

Defendants, relying on Glucksberg, argue that the fundamental right to marry should be limited to its traditional definition of one man and one woman because fundamental rights are based in history. The concept of same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in history; thus, according to Defendants, the Plaintiffs are asking the court to recognize a new fundamental right. Plaintiffs counter that Defendants’ reliance on Glucksberg is mistaken because the Supreme Court has repeatedly defined the fundamental right to marry in broad terms.

2. The Traditions of History (aka the Institution of Marriage)

The court agrees with Plaintiffs. “Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.” In re Marriage Cases, (Cal. 2008) (superseded by constitutional amendment).

In fact, “the history of our Constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.” United States v. Virginia. The reasoning in Henry v. Himes is particularly persuasive on this point: The Supreme Court has consistently refused to narrow the scope of the fundamental right to marry by reframing a plaintiff’s asserted right to marry as a more limited right that is about the characteristics of the couple seeking marriage. [T]he Court consistently describes a general ‘fundamental right to marry’ rather than ‘the right to interracial marriage,’ ‘the right to inmate marriage,’ or ‘the right of people owing child support to marry.’

3. Loving v. Virginia 1967 (interracial Marriage legalized)

The court finds Loving v. Virginia best illustrates that concept. In that case, the Court held that Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause. The Loving Court stated
“[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and further recognized that, “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’”
If the Court in Loving had looked only to the “traditional” approach to marriage prior to 1967, the Court would not have recognized that there was a fundamental right for Mildred and Richard Loving to be married, because the nation’s history was replete with statutes banning interracial marriages between Caucasians and African Americans. Notably, the Court did not frame the issue of interracial marriage as a “new” right, but recognized the fundamental right to marry regardless of that “traditional” classification.

4. Judicial Scrutiny and Legal Ramifications (Page 19)

Defendants (STATE) agree that if the court finds that the fundamental right to marry encompasses same-sex marriages, then heightened scrutiny is appropriate.“When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.”

Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. .... The burden to show the constitutionality of the law rests with the Defendants (STATE). .... For strict scrutiny to be appropriate, the court must find: (1) there is a fundamental right, and (2) the classification significantly interferes with the exercise of that right.

First, as stated above, the court finds that the fundamental right to marry includes the right of the individual to marry a person of the same sex. Second, Section 31-11-1-1 significantly interferes with that right because it completely bans the Plaintiffs from marrying that one person of their choosing. Therefore, Indiana’s marriage laws are subject to strict scrutiny.


Section 31-11-1-1, classifying same-sex couples, “cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388. Here, Defendants proffer that the state’s interest in conferring the special benefit of civil marriage to only one man and one woman is justified by its interest in encouraging the couple to stay together for the sake of any unintended children that their sexual union may create. The court does not weigh whether or not this is a sufficiently important interest, but will assume that it is. Defendants have failed to show that the law is “closely tailored” to that interest.

Indiana’s marriage laws are both over- and under-inclusive. The marriage laws are under-inclusive because they only prevent one subset of couples, those who cannot naturally conceive children, from marrying.

WHOOMP THERE IT IS!!! ==> For example, the State’s laws do not consider those post-menopausal women, infertile couples, or couples that do not wish to have children. Additionally, Indiana specifically allows first cousins to marry once they reach the age that procreation is not a realistic possibility. On the other hand, Indiana’s marriage laws are over-inclusive in that they prohibit some opposite-sex couples, who can naturally and unintentionally procreate, from marriage. For example, relatives closer in degree than second cousins can naturally and unintentionally procreate; however, they still may not marry.

Most importantly, excluding same-sex couples from marriage has absolutely no effect on opposite-sex couples, whether they will procreate, and whether such couples will stay together if they do procreate. Therefore, the law is not closely tailored, and the Defendants have failed to meet their burden. The state, by excluding same-sex couples from marriage, violates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause.

5. Back to the Equal Protection Clause

Summary: Under Strict Scrutiny, the IN DOMA law DOES NOT discriminate based on Gender! (Page 23)

HOWEVER: Plaintiffs also argue that Indiana’s marriage laws classify individuals based on their sexual orientation, because they prevent all same-sex couples from marrying the person of their choice. Defendants respond that the marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples because they may marry just like opposite-sex couples may marry; the law merely impacts them differently. The court rejects this notion. As the court stated above, the right to marry is about the ability to form a partnership, hopefully lasting a lifetime, with that one special person of your choosing. Additionally, although Indiana previously defined marriage in this manner, the title of Section 31-11-1-1 – “Same sex marriages prohibited” – makes clear that the law was reaffirmed in 1997 not to define marriage but to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying the individual of their choice. Thus, the court finds that Indiana’s marriage laws discriminate based on sexual orientation.


For strict scrutiny to be appropriate, the court must find: (1) there is a fundamental right, and (2) the classification significantly interferes with the exercise of that right. .... For rational scrutiny to be the standard of the 7th Circuit The court disagrees and believes it is bound to apply rational basis because one of the cases the Court relied on in Schroeder, e.g. Romer, is still valid law. .... The court agrees with Plaintiffs that it is likely time to reconsider this issue, especially in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs (9th Cir. 2014) (interpreting Windsor to mean that gay and lesbian persons constitute a suspect class). However, the court will leave that decision to the Seventh Circuit, where this case will surely be headed. The court will, therefore, apply rational basis review.


According to Defendants, Johnson () means that they must only show that there is a rational reason to provide the right of marriage to opposite-sex couples, not that there is a rational basis to exclude. In essence, Defendants assert that the opposite-sex couples have distinguishing characteristics, the ability to naturally and unintentionally procreate as a couple, that allow the State to treat them differently from same-sex couples.

7B. IN DOMA was passed in a knee jerk reaction the Federal DOMA
and to Hawaii's original passage of Marriage Equality circa 1996-7. (Page 25-27)

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, allege that the primary purpose of the statute is to exclude same-sex couples from marrying and thus the Defendants must show a rational basis to exclude them. The court agrees with Plaintiffs.

According to Plaintiffs, the purpose is evident by the timing of the statute, which was passed in an emergency session near the time that DOMA was passed and immediately after and in response to a Hawaiian court’s pronouncement in Baehr v. Miike (Haw. Cir. Ct. Dec. 3, 1996),(Haw. 1997), that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. See Family Law – Marriage – Same Sex Marriages Void, 1997 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 198-1997 (H.E.A. 1265). Because the effect of the law is to exclude and void same-sex marriages, the Plaintiffs argue that the court should analyze whether there is a rational basis to exclude same-sex marriages.

Additionally, Plaintiffs assert they are similar in all relevant aspects to opposite-sex couples seeking to marry – they are in long-term, committed, loving relationships and some have children.

7C. 614 Reasons why the Court agrees that gay and straight couples are the same.

The court agrees with Plaintiffs that they are similarly situated in all relevant aspects to opposite-sex couples for the purposes of marriage. Also of great importance is the fact that unlike the statute at issue in Johnson, “[m]arriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693. In fact having the status of “married” comes with hundreds of rights and responsibilities under Indiana and federal law. See 614 Reasons Why Marriage Equality Matters in Indiana, Fujii, Filing No. 46-2).

As the court in Kitchen stated in analyzing the Equal Protection claim before it: "[T]he State poses the wrong question. The court’s focus is not on whether extending marriage benefits to heterosexual couples serves a legitimate governmental interest. No one disputes that marriage benefits serve not just legitimate, but compelling governmental interests, which is why the Constitution provides such protection to an individual’s fundamental right to marry. Instead, courts are required to determine whether there is a rational connection between the challenged statute and a legitimate state interest. Here, the challenged statute does not grant marriage benefits to opposite-sex couples.

The effect of [Utah’s marriage ban] is only to disallow same-sex couples from gaining access to these benefits. The court must therefore analyze whether the State’s interests in responsible procreation and optimal child-rearing are furthered by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Like Utah’s laws, the effect of Indiana’s marriage laws is to exclude certain people from marrying that one special person of their choosing. This is evident by the title of Section 31-11-1-1 – “Same sex marriages prohibited.”

Consequently, the question is whether it is rational to treat same- sex couples differently by excluding them from marriage and the hundreds of rights that come along with that marriage.


The court finds that there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples. The purpose of marriage – to keep the couple together for the sake of their children – is served by marriage regardless of the sexes of the spouses. Furthermore, the exclusion has no effect on opposite-sex couples and whether they have children or stay together for those children. Defendants proffer no reason why excluding same-sex couples from marriage benefits opposite -sex couples. The court concludes that there simply is no rational link between the two. (finding there is no rational link between excluding same-sex marriages and “steering ‘naturally procreative’ relationships into marriage, in order to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and reduce economic burdens on the State); (noting that prohibiting same-sex marriages “does not stop [gay men and lesbian women] from forming families and raising children. Nor does prohibiting same-sex marriage increase the number of heterosexual marriages or the number of children raised by heterosexual parents.”).


Defendants concede that whether Indiana can refuse to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages turns entirely on whether Indiana may enforce Section A. Because the court finds that Indiana may not exclude same-sex couples from marriage, the court also finds it cannot refuse to recognize out-of-state, same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, the court finds that Section B violates the Equal Protection Clause independent of its decision regarding Section A.

The parties agree that out-of-state, same-sex marriages are treated differently than out-of-state, opposite-sex marriages. Thus, the question is whether that difference violates the Equal Protection Clause. .... The Eastern District of Kentucky found two guiding principles from Windsor that strongly suggest the result here. See Bourke v. Beshear (W.D. Ky. Feb 12, 2014). First, the court should look to the actual purpose of the law. The second principle is that such a law “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”


The purpose of the law is to prevent the recognition of same-sex marriage in Indiana, which Plaintiffs assert was motivated by animus. If Section 31-11-1-1 was in fact motivated by animus, it violates the principles of the Equal Protection Clause. See Romer (“[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate state interest.”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Dep’t of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973)). Section 31-11-1-1 (IN DOMA), like DOMA, was passed during the time that Hawaii courts were deciding whether the United States Constitution required it to allow same-sex marriages.

Additionally, Section 31-11-1-1 is an unusual law for Indiana to pass. As described above, in Indiana “[t]he validity of a marriage depends upon the law of the place where it occurs.” This includes recognizing marriages between first cousins despite the fact that they cannot marry in Indiana unless they are over 65 years of age. See Mason v. Mason, (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The State of Indiana chose one group to single out for disparate treatment. The State’s laws place same-sex marriages in a second class category, unlike other marriages performed in other states. Thus, like the Supreme Court in Windsor, this court can conclude that this law is motivated by animus, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause.


Even if it were not, the law fails rational basis review. Defendants proffer that the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages because it conflicts with the State’s philosophy of marriage – that is that marriage is to ameliorate the consequences of unintended children. Recognizing the valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, however, has no link whatsoever to whether opposite-sex couples have children or stay together for those children. Thus, there is no rational basis to refuse recognition and void out-of-state, same-sex marriages. Therefore, Part B violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

I will let you read the USDCJ Conclusion (beginning on page 31) for yourself. It is a doosey and this ruling is going to be hard pressed to be turned over, because of the incompetence of both our current Attorney General and our General Assembly members from both 1997 and currently serving today in Indianapolis. I will leave you though with this quote from the Judge:

In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage – not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such. Today, the “injustice that [we] had not earlier known or understood” ends. Because “as the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Gay marriage is now legal in Indiana.

I thought it would another 10 years before I typed a sentence like that. If I would have told you all five years ago that gay marriage would be legal in Indiana, a lot of you would have said that I was crazy. In hindsight it was inevitable. Only the sqwick factor keeps most people opposed to it.

Sunday, June 08, 2014




The Officers of the Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana do not endorse the message and the established purpose of REFOUNDERS INDIANA for these specifically itemized reasons:

Priority of the 10th Amendment versus ARTICLE 6, CLAUSE 2 and 3

While we endorse fully the right of the individual to be sovereign over their person, property, and home as a Constitutional right, which limits both Federal and State and Local Agents and Laws from being oppressive of every citizen by the people whom elect to represent them by vote, we do not endorse the biased message of promoting one factions ideas over the multitudes of the citizenry. This organization RFI stated purpose is to not only elect strictly conservative candidates (which is contrary to Libertarian principles) to Statewide Office but to assert an authority (aka STATE NULLIFICATION versus THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE) that never existed by the very Constitutional provisions they wish to claim for their own message.

Furthermore RFI cannot take the Constitution out of context and that is clearly their motive and end purpose to eventually radically change the Constitution by an Article V Convention. We cannot in good conscience endorse this position as it has become an act of aggression towards the standing law of the land and then limits the option for the people to fully exercise their individual right to vote for their leaders and elected representatives.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution which made everyone a Citizen of the United States not just of their respective State or Territory also includes the Privileges or Immunities Clause. which states unequivocally
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
It is obvious to those with a clear mind and purpose of Liberty that RFIs primary goal is to eventually repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was established in July 1868 after the Civil War, among many other Constitutional protections and provisions. We the Libertarian Party of Allen County cannot in anyway endorse a hostile overthrow of our Government and neither can we deny the individual citizen first and foremost their rights granted as Citizens of the United States under that Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land.

ARTICLE 6 CLAUSE 2 and 3 puts the final nail in the coffin of the Theory of State Nullification. And even several cases validates such assertions ranging from 1793 (Chisholm v. Georgia), 1959 (Ableman v. Booth), to as recently as 1958 (Cooper v. Aaron), which held that

The Supreme Court rejected the doctrines of nullification and interposition, which had been invoked by segregationists. Segregation supporters argued that the states have the power to nullify federal laws or court rulings that they believe to be unconstitutional and the states could use this power to nullify the Brown decision. The Arkansas laws that attempted to prevent desegregation were Arkansas' effort to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective.

Moreover, since public officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution (as per Article VI, Clause 3), for these same officials to ignore the Court's precedents is equal to a violation of that oath. Even though education is the responsibility of the state government, that responsibility must be carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment. 

And just for your information here is the text of Article Six clause two and three:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Finally it is the position of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA that as we cannot endorse the group REFOUNDERS INDIANA we also cannot support their events in our local area with their guest speaker KrisAnne Hall. However for the record we have only found this one issue so far to be a stumbling block for Dr. Hall's presentations.

We do encourage every citizen to be involved in both the Civic and Electoral process. Use your voice, they are your elected leaders and representatives. Let them know that you are tired of the quid pro quo, whether that be in City Hall, the General Assembly, or even Congress and the White House. But please remember, that this "more perfect union" we are still trying to achieve, we will not form if you try to cut out or eliminate part of its growth on the path to true freedom, with liberty and justice for all.

Securing the Blessings of Liberty,
Kenneth White, Jnr. Secretary LPAC
Dated this the eighth of June, 2014

Obama was right to get Sgt Bergdahl back

Why did Sgt Bergdahl go wandering around Afghanistan alone and unarmed? If that is what happened, it seems likely that he was mentally ill. Perhaps someone with more information can explain how Bergdahl's actions make any sense in terms of duty to his country or providing aid to the enemy. Only a thorough investigation can sort this out, and all US military personnel are entitled to due process when they are accused of committing a crime. If it is determined that he was a traitor, it is better to have such a dangerous man in US custody than in the hands of the Taliban. So what if the President failed to give 30 days notice? Why do either the President or Congress still pretend to care about the rule of law? If Congress impeached him over this oversight, it would be like giving a bank robber a parking ticket because he left his getaway car in a handicap spot and dismissing all other charges. The war in Afghanistan is over, or at least it should be. Osama bin Laden was our reason for invading in the first place, and that monster has been dead for three years. To stay in Afghanistan is like going to the hardware store for a tool, finding that tool, and then staying to look around for other expensive crap that you don't really need. Just go to the checkout and leave. But before you leave, bring home everyone you brought with you.

Monday, April 14, 2014

and slide baby slide, to the left, to the left, now dip baby dip!

Earlier I covered the possibilities of this taking hold  (14th of February) and now the construction has begun:

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (21Alive) – Work to transform I-69's DuPont Road interchange into a diverging diamond begins Monday.

According to traffic engineers, a diverging diamond uses traffic signals to direct vehicles from the right side of the road to the left. They say that makes left turns as easy as a traditional right turn.

With the diverging diamond, crews will reduce the speed limit to 35 mph on DuPont Road and put in lane restrictions on the northbound I-69 off ramp to DuPont.

The $3.5 million project is estimated to take all summer and most of the fall to complete.
In the meantime, drivers can use alternative routes, such as the new Union Chapel Road interchange at Exit 317, to avoid delays.

That is one expensive little rodent

$300,000 worth of damage and $50,000 out of pocket expenses at the McMillen Community Center for our Fort Wayne Parks and Recreation Department which is already under a budget shortfall because City Council forgot to budget in 25 new firefighters and the cost of salt and ice melt this year. One would think that a two million dollar renovation Legacy Fund paid project would have included more incidental protections put in to place; but then again at the rate City Council is trying to repetitively waste away this precious resource for the Citizens of Fort Wayne at 200,000 increments, who cares about 350,000 in damaged property and resources.

We Rely On One Another To Make Our Community Better