Should saving a wild animal be illegal?

In Indiana, killing and eating a deer is legal with the right permit. But apparently saving the life of a deer is not.

Upcoming Events!!

So since not a lot of people were at the last meeting due to my screw up on the calendar I wanted to give you a basic run down of our schedule for the next couple of months so everyone can be at least aware of our tentative planning:

February Social Meetup Bowling
(This is still being planned out because of drastic cost regarding reserving lanes and event turnout etc. at our initial preferred locations)

March 23rd LPAC Convention ACPL Main in the Globe Room from 2-5pm

April 15th Tax Day Protest @Main Post Office from 4-8p (depending on weather conditions)

April 19th-21st is @LPIN State Convention in Columbus, Indiana
The Clarion Hotel and Convention Center is providing LPIN convention attendees with their choice of a Double Queen or King bedded tower room at the nightly rate of $89.00. As an added bonus up to two breakfast buffets are included per room! Reservations must be confirmed before March 19th to receive the group benefits. Please call as soon as possible 812-372-1541 and ask for the Libertarian Party rate. All reservations will be confirmed with a credit card and allow for cancellation without penalty until 6Pm EST day of arrival.
(delegates will be picked in March at LPAC Convention)

No Social Meetup for the month of April will have a Joint Business Meeting 
and Social Meetup in the first part of May.

Jeanette Jaquish is working on getting us a website in addition to our blog and our facebook page.

Our old facebook page will be eliminated today.

Sometimes you Wade other times you Roe ... Unfortunately we keep sinking the boat before we make it to dry land. How long can we tread water?

Father with Child (source and cite unknown)

Regarding the March For Life this Saturday I would like to provide both a libertarian and personal commentary as we approach the 40th Anniversary of the Supreme Courts decision in Roe vs. Wade which legalized a woman's equal access to terminate their unborn child. 
~Kenneth White, Jnr.

Even the Early Church Fathers and St Augustine and Jerome (both contemporaries and Doctors of the Church) considered Aristotle's theories of a gradual intellect being formed up to 40 Days after Conception as the child being non human or not having been ensouled yet; the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew text, a pre-Christian translation that the early Christians used, introduced a distinction between a formed and an unformed fetus and treated destruction of the former as murder. (wiki: Ensoulment) Certain readings of Sacred Text would limit the definition of "Life Being Present" to the sixth month mark (John The Baptist in his Mother's womb danced), or when the baby takes its first breathe and "Breathes in the Spirit", or the reverse from Jeremiah's perspective is held true as well: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you. ~Jeremiah 1:5 (NABRE, USCCB.ORG)" etc., which asserts preconception knowledge not just post conception awareness. All are equally valid arguments based on particular interpretations of the same over all Sacred Volume of Texts. 

Unfortunately for those holding to which ever position they so choose, and citing which ever passage they prefer, the Courts cannot legislate morality from Scripture or Philosophy only justice from law and Supreme Laws. Those same limitations which allow one to hold any of those if not more positions, are countermanded by the the same protections which prevent the Courts from viewing this mandate from an authentically questionable alternative source and restore permission back to the individual to terminate a pregnancy without  any other scrutiny then a legal or scientific viewpointe.  

Scientifically speaking the modern very basic definition of life at least exists from the ninth month all the way back to the first week after Conception. I, as most rational thinkers also, have a problem with people taking the assumption then that the basic definition of life is still defined scientifically within the first week, as no evidence still exist nor can it be measured. So for lack of a better phrase, it would be scientifically heresy to make that leap of seven days prior in defining life as sacred, from the very moment of conception; and therefore a logical fallacy to do so within legal definitions as well, even taking it back to two weeks prior to conception for certain birth control legislation, as profoundly ridiculous, let alone unconstitutional to the hilt.

Being Pro Life or Pro Choice?

And that is where the rubber fell to the floorboards. The scientific definition while a little more stable than the religious interpretation and philosophical exercise that this debate has turned into is also not definitive when it comes to a Court of Laws. The Law has four main documents that it can look at: The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation (Under the United States Code as part of the "Organic Laws") and of course primarily the Constitution of the United States as well as any International Treaty which also has the ability with Constitutional force to override any law at the state or federal level. The Courts are bound by what we wrote down so many years ago whom we considered a life and alive.

The question the Court must ask, pertaining to the Constitution is not, "Whom is a Life"; it is, "Whom is a 'Person'?"

"Persons" are one of the two main classes which are the subject of rights, powers, and duties, the other being "citizens". Persons may be "natural" or "corporate". "Citizens" are a subclass of "natural persons". Only persons have standing as parties under due process. Each government has the power to define what is and is not a "person" within its jurisdiction, subject to certain restrictions of Common Law and the Constitution, the 15th Amendment to which requires that it not exclude anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat. But technology has created a new situation, opening the way for statute or court decision to extend this definition and set the conditions under which personhood begins and ends. (http://constitution.org/powright.htm)

I think both arguments limit the discussion to the pointe of fierce contention rather than conversation. While I do have my concerns over multiple theological, scientific, and legal, definitions of life, and I also know that while life is sacred, the question of when life begins and whom has rights over that life need to be examined without shouting and propagating misinformation and vilifying another fully formed mature conscious equal human beings right to have any opinion or Society to evolve in its consensus regarding the issue.

If you want to claim Pro Life ... Be Pro Life!

I also hold that we have a twisted moral and legal compass when it comes to assuring life within this Country. For instance, were you aware that, right now in the State of Indiana, a Father has no legal rights over a child, unless a DNA test is performed and validated by the Courts. I believe that Fathers deserve at least a 25% stake in the legal remedies for their offspring. This would prevent so many children from being left in a quasi abusive or neglectful maternal living situation overnight, and give fathers one leg to stand on with surrogacy and adoption issues too. Please note with all emphasis that, just because your name is on the kids birth certification doesn't mean jack squat when dealing with Police, DCS, or the Courts until a DNA test has been certified!!

Like I said many times before that if we truly treasure life we would compensate mothers and or fathers with a moderate stipend around ($14-20,000), housing allowance, and reduced cost technical training, for the first two years so that they can focus on raising their child without having to worry about when their next meal comes in, or where they lay their head at night, and what they are going to do for the next twenty years to support and raise their children, because it is in our best interest as a Civil Society. As a Society bound together by our Sacred Honour to "Secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity" to say with one voice we want you to not just pursuit happiness but achieve it and succeed to make this Nation better for all of us .... Plus if we help in the beginning we wont have as big of a mess to clean up afterwards when they become teenagers or grown up into adults.

There is a big difference between being an Activist and being an Active Participant In Society! 

Both are necessary but the later will make this one of the most beautiful Cities and Counties in America bar none!! That is the true libertarian message we look out for each other and dont just rely on government to do everything and anything for everyone and take care of one another rather than sticking them in a program that doesnt even begin to meet their needs without making them jump threw twenty hoops to get a loaf of bread, a two dollar pound of bologna, and maybe a couple squirts of mayo on the side if they are lucky in some cases. Fortunately though Allen County has several great food bank network that serves at least a 25,000 households per week; but like any network or agency, they can always use some tweaking and oversight.

So instead of marching, I am going to assist a single father I've known for fifteen years in securing him and his three sons housing by writing a letter of recommendation and sponsoring his application process so that they can actually begin to excel in life around our three rivers not just exist. I will also donate my limited resources to Charis House, and many other charities that help fledgling and struggling families get thru another week a little less stressed than they were before. 

If you do choose to parade around the Courthouse and threw the streets this time though look down the alley and invite the person raiding the trash can behind the restaurant or grocery store to feed his family of five something other than mac n cheese or an item from a fast food chains value menu over for a wonderful homemade dinner and show them what Hoosier Hospitality is all about. You could also volunteer to take someone to Miss Virginia's or any of the other food banks throughout the week so they and their children will be able to eat better frequently.  

No matter the circumstances, Cherish and Nourish Life! and please don't forget about Liberty either!

Please check out these websites for more information to form your own opinion:
BABY CENTER - 12 WEEKS |  LIVE STRONG - 12 WEEKS

Andrew Horning would like you to join him in a protest assembly outside of a gun show in Indy on the 19th

THIS WILL BE INTERESTING!!

I believe that balancing the Constitutional view and thoughts and practices by 
the Congress and Executive Branch is specifically what the Supreme Court is for 

...!?ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION?!.... 

What we need to consider in my honest opinion is Amendding the 22nd or 25th Amendment 
and the Third Article of the Constitution to:

1. Add term limits of twenty five years for the Supreme Court 
    with possibly an exception for the Chief Justice 
   (while we're at it lets slap a 25 year term limit on Congress too.)

2. Rotate the position of Chief Justice for five to ten year terms 
    based on seniority with a primary deliberation privilege cap at about 70

3. Increase the amount of Justices from 9 to at least 11 if not 15
   This will gain a true consensus body of the Common Sense interpretation 
   mixed with a diversified American experience not just a body of lawyers 
   trying to preserve their own agenda.

ITS BEEN TRIED BEFORE.....

.... The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan, was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six ....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

..... MAYBE ITS TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN.

I wonder how many Conservatives are going to bitch about it being an FDR idea, lol?

NEXT BUSINESS MEETING REMINDER

13th of January, 2013 2 p.m. - 5 p.m.
at Little Turtle Branch of the Allen County Public Library
off West State Blvd 1 block south on Sherman Blvd.
http://www.acpl.lib.in.us/littleturtle/index.html