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.

NOW FOR THE ANALYSIS OF HIS RULING

OMG! I JUST GOT DONE READING THE RULING THAT LEGALIZED MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN INDIANA AND OMG! .... MISTAKEN BABY SYNDROME, REALLY? ..... IF YOURE NOT PISSED OFF AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR UTTER INCOMPETENCE BY THE TIME YOU GET DONE READING IT ...... Here is the ruling text from USDCJ Richard Young that immediately allows Gay Marriage.

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.

NICE TRY THERE BOYS!!!

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)
STRICT SCRUTINY VERSUS RATIONAL SCRUTINY SEE POINTE 6 BELOW

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.

THANK YOUR MARRIED FRIENDS WHOM DONT HAVE CHILDREN OR GRANNY AND HER NEW PLAYBOY HUSBAND AND MY GREAT UNCLE DONALD AND HIS COUSIN WIFE HERMIONE FOR THIS NEXT PART!!

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.

6. STRICT SCRUTINY VERSUS RATIONAL SCRUTINY ....

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.

7. UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES IS THE STATES RATIONAL FOR RESTRICTING MARRIAGE RIGHTS
===== YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME =====

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.

8. HERE IT COMES PEOPLE BRACE FOR IMPACT

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.”).

9. RECOGNITION OF OUT OF STATE MARRIAGES (pages 29-31)

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.”

10. INDIANA VIOLATED ITS OWN LEGAL TRADITION (page 30)

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.

11. BACK TO RATIONAL SCRUTINY AND MISTAKEN BABY SYNDROME

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.”

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.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE LOCAL REFOUNDERSINDIANA THREE EVENTS PRESENTED BY KRISANNE HALL

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ALLEN COUNTY INDIANA

OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING
THE LOCAL REFOUNDERSINDIANA THREE EVENTS
PRESENTED BY KRISANNE HALL

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
THE THEORY OF STATE NULLIFICATION versus THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE:

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
SPEAKING FOR THE CHAIR PER THE BYLAWS
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.

2014 Tax Protest

It was cold, but we were there.

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.
 
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Construction-Of-Diverging-Diamond-On-DuPont-Begins-255108521.html

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.

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Squirrel-Causes-300000-To-Legacy-Fund-Project-254895861.html

A New Big Deal

Obamacare has been a huge success, but it doesn't go far enough. Food is more important than healthcare and contraceptives put together. It's time that employers be made to provide food insurance for their employees. There is no debate here, food is so medically necessary that 9 out of 10 doctors recommend it. And I'm still waiting to hear back from that 10th doctor because come on. Maybe I'll need chemotherapy or surgery in the distant future or maybe I won't, but I can say with 100 certainty that I'll need food around noon and again in the evening.

While some might argue that a single payer food plan is needed, that won't happen until we are as progressive as North Korea. The for-profit agricultural industry still has a strangle hold in this country, so we'll have to broker some sort of plan that will make them wealthier before it collapses entirely. And it has to collapse entirely. If a plan actually solves a problem by 2016, how can we campaign on that issue in 2020?

What ever happened to the Oversight Tax Review Board for Allen County?

Just so everyone is clear, the legislation on Business Personal Property Tax Repeal at the local level, signed by Governor Pence is not in effect yet, it will not take effect until 2015.

The Allen County Auditor's Office's page defines the BPPT as:

"Personal property abatements are for equipment or machinery used for the production, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, or processing of other personal property. In addition, equipment used for research and development, information technology systems and on site logistical equipment are eligible for abatement. Used equipment can qualify for abatement if not previously used and taxed in Indiana. Like the real property abatement, deductions for personal property can be granted for a period up to ten years."

The difference with this legislation is that it expands the abatement process for up to twenty years and can be applied "to either exempt new equipment from the business personal property tax, eliminate the tax on small businesses or abate the tax on specific projects for up to 20 years." The legislation also provides for the creation of a commission "this summer to "evaluate a broad range of tax issues and their impact on local governments"

While I dont agree completely with The Kernan Shepherd Report they did stipulate some very practical remedies: 

"... County governments should be led by a single county executive and a stronger county council, to whom professionally qualified administrators should report and be accountable. The services presently performed by township personnel should be transferred to the county governments. Only elected officials should have the power to levy taxes. All spending, including school spending, should be subject to more rigorous examination by elected officials. And Indiana’s school districts should be large enough to gather sufficient resources to educate our children for twenty - first century life." (page 2)"

"With more than 3,200 independent local governments, our complex system of boundaries, (10,000+) officeholders and taxing authorities makes it increasingly difficult for citizens to affect local government services or the taxes that pay for them." (page 3, bottom paragraph) 

Originally recommended by the Kernan Shepherd Report, and it was supposedly passed, that each County was allowed to have an Oversight Tax Review Board, which could look at multiple jurisdictions fiscal requests and then order the new request by a fiscal agent of the taxing jurisdiction to revise their budget and or the new taxes requested, but I cant find anything to stipulate that Allen County put such a Review and Oversight Board in place. Half of the fiscal abuse issues in Fort Wayne and Allen County would be resolved over a years time if such an oversight board existed and kept all the fiscal and taxing jurisdictions in check.

The remainder of the tax and tax abatement issues could be resolved by everyone following an ethical pattern for such abatements, or perish the thought, using this new found authority from the State, and eliminate or severely reduce across the board all business property and personal property taxes, but that would probably be too Libertarian of a view pointe for Fort Wayne City Council to loose their rubber stamp or their pet projects power and control. Lastly why cant Fort Wayne utilize the Allen County process when every other incorporated City does so as well rather than playing crony capitalist and holding up a carrot that has been half molded by the elements of pay for play politics:

The Allen County economic development staff uses a point system to objectively evaluate applications for ERA designation and determine a recommendation for the abatement period. The Allen County Council or appropriate fiscal body makes the final determination. Through professional services agreements, the Allen County economic development staff administers the county's tax abatement program for the cities of New Haven and Woodburn, and the towns of Grabill, Huntertown, and Monroeville. The City of Fort Wayne has its own economic development staff that administers its tax abatement program within its corporate boundaries."

Kernan Shepherd Report refers to the final report on the 10th of December 2007, by the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform, http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/assets/docs/Report_12-10-07.pdf .... Here is the most recent news coverage I could find regarding the very slow implementation of the KSR across the State dated from March 2012,which to give a basic summary, after five years at that time, only thirty three percent considered or even implemented. 

LPAC ANNUAL CONVENTION

Sunday, 13th of April, 2014 from 1:00pm - 4:00pm

Teppanyaki Grill
285 State Road 930/Coliseum Blvd East
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825

This location is next to Dick's Sporting Goods across from Glenbrook Square Mall in the old Circuit City. We will be meeting in the Front Party Room Area
Dinner Buffet $10.99 each person Kids 3-6 yo $5.25 7-10 yo $6.25

::PLEASE RSVP HERE:: 

Russia and Ukraine

Putin is wrong for invading Ukraine. The best way that we can show that it is wrong to deploy troops into a smaller country without the host government's permission is to close our base in Guantanimo Bay and withdraw from Cuba.

Fort Wayne may lose A-10's. Oh well!

The Pentagon is considering removing the A-10's from Fort Wayne due to military spending cuts. The A-10 is a slow moving attack plane designed to withstand intense fire from the ground as it destroys enemy tanks. I would be upset by this move, except that enemy tanks have never been a problem here in the Midwest or anywhere else in North America.

Even if you're the type of person who stays up late worrying about hijacked airliners, the A-10 Warthogs won't help you sleep any better. With a top speed of 439 mph, the Warthog is actually slower than many commercial jetliners.

And even if you think government spending helps the economy, why not push for spending on projects that directly benefit taxpayers? Seriously, I can't imagine anyone of any coherent belief system thinking that A-10's in Fort Wayne are a great idea. But if you're out there, feel free to leave a comment below.

201st Composite Squadron, under new Command, looking for new Recruits. Do you have what it takes to be a part of the Civil Air Patrol?

A FEW GOOD MEN AND WOMEN ARE NEEDED FOR CIVIL AIR PATROL: 

Fort Wayne’s 201st Composite Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol has a new commander. Lt. John Deitrick is seeking cadet recruits (high school students up to age 18) and senior recruits (ages 18+). For those who didn’t know that Fort Wayne had Civil Air Patrol or for those wanting more info on how to get involved, please visit: http://www.capglrin201.com/

NEXT BUSINESS MEETING

The next Business Meeting for the Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana will be held on Saturday the 8th of February, 2014 from 7:00-9:00 p.m. at the Kroger Marketplace in the Village at Coventry near the intersection of US 24 and I69 mile marker 302. The meeting room is near the Deli area to the south side of the store in a front alcove area. If you arrive before seven they have a hot food and salad bar there that closes when the meeting starts the food is good and reasonably priced. You may RSVP via the EVENT PAGE via FACEBOOK although doing so is not required but definitely appreciated. On a side note we are up to 83 followers on the Facebook Page too. If there are any questions please contact the Outgoing Vice Chair/Incoming Secretary, Kenneth White, Jnr. at 260-312-2200 and leave a message or our Chair Douglas Horner at 260-704-4698. Thank you in advance for your attendance and continued support.

Should Congress decriminalize football for medical reasons?

It's a scientifically known fact that the recreational use of football can lead to broken bones and traumatic brain damage. It has even been linked to obesity and heart attacks. And yet many young people indulge in this pastime. President Ford even admitted to playing football when he was in college. While I wouldn't go so far to insist that recreational uses of football be legalized, the federal government should at least allow football to be regulated for medical purposes on the state level.


Ok, so this is obvious satire. But over a century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt had considered pushing a ban on football. Aren't you glad he didn't do that? Shouldn't adults be allowed to decide what sort of risks they take for their own pleasure?

Why even elected officials need to be worried about domestic spying.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: It's 2019, and the 45th President of the United States already has re-election on his or her mind. Somewhere inside NSA headquarters, there is an analyst who believes in his work, and sincerely believes that he has the nation's best interests at heart. This analyst thinks that some of 45POTUS's policies are leading the nation to disaster.

He can't wiretap the White House's phones, because that would just send up too many red flags. But he might be able to access cell phone records and browsing histories of the President's supporters, business associates, donors, that guy with dreadlocks whom the President knew in college, etc. And that analyst could potential find information that may not be incriminating, but it's still embarrassing.

You think a government employee won't try to blackmail the President? It not only can happen, it has happened before. Pick the worst President you can think of, and that's still not as bad as an unelected bureaucrat who doesn't have to worry about being fired or arrested.

Regarding recent handshakes

How the hell do you make an entire news story out of just one handshake? That is something that world leaders are expected to do on a regular basis. If you really are worried about human rights in Cuba, there are other measures that the US government can take. 1. End the embargo and allow US grown food and consumer goods into Cuba. People tend to be a lot less radical while holding an electronic device on a full stomach. 2. End the travel ban. Let idiot college students see first hand just what it is that they are in favor of. They might even appreciate the irony that the cars on the streets of Havana have more capitalist origins than most cars currently produced in the US. 3. Close the prison in Gitmo. Raul Castro cannot be blamed for every human rights violation in his own country. Someday soon, natural causes will succeed where the CIA failed and the Castro dynasty will come to an end. We can influence what happens next by setting a good example and leaving the Cold War in the past.

Cracking the knuckles to buckle down in 2014 Midterm General Elections. Are you ready to make the difference in politics as usual?

Ken Heare is one potential candidate in 2014 for the Libertarian Party of Indiana in the Third Congressional District currently held by Republican Congressman Marlin Stutzman.

Please be reminded that no candidacy is official until the person is selected by the State or County Party respectively, typically during the Annual Convention, held in the Spring. The Annual State and County Conventions are yet to be announced but that doesnt stop you from finding out what is required ahead of time. If you also wish to consider running for any office in 2014, please contact either our 3rd District Central Committee Coordinator and Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana Chairman, Douglas Horner at 260-704-4698, or our State Party Chair, Dan Drexler, or Executive Director, by calling 317-920-1994.

For more information please visit: http://lpin.org/run-for-office/candidate-training/

Securing The Blessings Of Liberty,

Kenneth White Jnr,
Vice Chair, LPAC 

How much is the Congress Member in the Window; I wonder if they are for sale? Congressional Pay: Does 30 dollars an hour sound fair to you?

Congress works a third to a half less then our kids are forced to be in school. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/31/1252118/-House-Republicans-announce-how-many-days-they-ll-work-next-year-hint-not-very-many?

So $174,000 divided by 12 months is $14,500 Does Congress need a paycut? ..... I think so.
 
That is $14,500 per month per all 537 Member of Congress minimum. Even pulling 15 hour days times the typical twelve days per month scheduled next year plus and extra 3 days per two week intervals for constituent (that is you the voter) issues and travel time to and from their Congressional District (18 rd days =6.5+12), means that each member of Congress earns at least $805.55r for every minimum working and traveling day and if you go by per diem (each day of the month avg. 30.5) they received a stipend from your tax dollars of $475.41ru. So based on those two numbers $805 and $475 per day divided by 15 hours, each member of Congress at minimum receives an hourly wage of $53.66 per hour or $31.66 per hour.

Even going off the basic work schedule of 113 days the per diem would set at an astonishing $1,539.82 and that is without modifiers and allotments provided. Let us force them to drop their hourly rate by Statute and Amendment to twice the level of the minimum wage but still tagged to inflation and see how fast they raise it for everyone else now.

Chuga Chuga Woohoo!! Is passenger rail a Legacy we can afford or sustain in Fort Wayne?

I know that I would love to take a day trip to Chicago or Indy: museums, movies, plays, shopping, etc. and not have to worry about driving back home after all that walking, with all those packages, after eating a really really big meal, and partying/drinking up at Boystown or Gregs respectfully. Having a Red Light Shuttle back to Fort Wayne would be amazeballs and I could sleep and sober up on the way back get in my car and drive home too.

The other problem I have is the area surrounding the old train station is already log jammed with CitiLink, Parkview Field/Harrison Square, and Greyhound Bus Service. The Businesses around there and especially Powers Hamburgers, all at the same intersection and not enough inexpensive short term or long term parking to make it feasible for development that will actually be used. And God forbid it if they try to close down After Dark Nightclub (Dont piss off the Drag Queens!) or St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store to provide more parking or eliminate one more bar from their site plans for that area or turn it over to one of their cronies at a profit.

It would be better to use the midsize buses or full size vans on an isolated path road (like I dont know an interstate or state/federal highway) and become more diverse in both travel destinations and fuel economy. Rail for passengers outside of Chicago, Indy, Columbus or Toledo, and Lansing, anything outside of a two hour window, then I would consider it necessary. However, Fort Wayne is also a central location for all of those Cities mentioned above and that is where you achieve the rub of two competing interest groups: travel from the Summit City and commerce coming to the Summit City. Where we need transportation service isnt just to and from the larger Cities it is the small towns within an hour or two or three from here like Columbia City or Syracuse or Defiance, etc. and that is where the CitiLink Service buses could be best used, out on the open highway saving the smaller buses and full size vans for in City and small town driving.

The other obvious objection would be to the use of $200,000 dollars of Legacy Funds, that expense should be covered from the surrounding businesses that will be affected by the expanded tourist dollars and travel lodgers first, and then paid by all the tax revenue that Harrison Square is allowed by law to retain under Special Zoning for maintenance and development, not the rest of the City for a project that by its own record wouldnt even consider turning a profit let alone be self sustaining until at least 2030 by its own speculations.

Besides there is always something else to waste $200,000 on like non supported QR technology (via Dan Turkette's Angry White Boy, October 2013) on street signs. (Really, City of Fort Wayne? Get with the times! You dont even have full wifi blanket across downtown and you want to use something that is three years out of date.) Maybe we could start by actually hiring a consultant that knows what they are talking about for a change? I suggest we start with rotating groups of students in college and/or high school whom have the latest technical knowledge in a particularly given field and pay them a thousand to five thousand bucks each (in scholarship grants partially), depending on the scope of the project and detail to which they are responsible to put together the proposal, action plans, and finally oversee implementation, even if it does or doesnt require a professional directly in charge of the project fruition. They will get it done a lot quicker and for a lot less money and it will last because they will want to show it to their grandchildren.

For more information read this article: http://www.news-sentinel.com/article/2013131109664

What you SHOULD have learned from the shutdown

The more government is involved in your life, the more politics is going to play a role. Which might work out great for you for about 8 to 12 years, and then things come undone when a new administration is inaugurated or a new Congress is elected. Ask any government employee what that's like, and then ask yourself just how much you want the federal involved in your healthcare.

You might be thinking "The Republicans will not win the White House in the foreseeable future." Remember that a lot of people said the same thing in 1999. The foreseeable future in politics is only a few months. Suppose you woke up one day to find Michele Bachmann is the new Secretary of Health and Human Services. Would you like having her decide what treatments you will be eligible for and what's bad for your health?

Man on the street videos with Iranians

Impending government shutdown

This is why things like healthcare and retirement accounts are too important to be handled by an organization as dysfunctional as the federal government.

New Obamacare video

Hoping Obama evolves some more

When a politician changes his stance on a issue and you disagree with the new stance, you might call that "flipflopping". But when you agree with the stance, you could call it "evolving". I'm hoping that the President evolves on Syria and doesn't launch airstrikes. I'm hoping that he realizes that this isn't the way to restore America's reputation. I'm hoping that even if people remember what he said about a red line being crossed, he realizes it's better to lose a little face than lose a lot of lives and property. I hope that he realizes that you cannot bring about peace nor can you win a war just by dropping bombs. I'm hoping that he realizes that neither the Assad regime nor the Syrian rebels are worthy of being our allies. Assad's chief redeeming quality is that he wants to kill the type of people who record themselves dismembering corpses and eating pieces of them. The rebels' chief redeeming quality is that they want to kill Assad. That really doesn't give us much to work with here.

The value and limitations of individual privacy and government secrets

We all have something to hide. For the most part, we have legitimate reasons for hiding personal information. The government doesn't want civilians to know ICBM launch codes, and neither do I. Movie producers don't want you to know how their films in production are going to end. While I love spoilers, but many people understandably dislike them.

Common people have legitimate reasons for concealing things about themselves. For example, I am 34 years old, and I have never been married. From that statement, you may logically conclude one of three possibilities: 1) I have engaged in premarital sex that some people might judge to be sinful 2) I am a 34 year virgin, and some people would ridicule me if they believed that 3) I've just lied to you about having never married. I believe that if the truth about my private nocturnal activities were widely known, I would be treated unfairly in my personal life and professional life. (No, I'm not gay. But unless you want to sleep with me, why should you care?)

I also don't want people to know my comings and goings, and what sort of stuff I have at my home. Maybe all I have is a 10 year old computer and an analog TV, and I'm embarrassed by my home's lack of amenities. Maybe I have all sorts of cool gadgets and I don't want people to know that because they might try to steal my stuff.

What we don't have a right to do is cover up the activities that we didn't have a right to do in the first place. A con artist doesn't have a right to wipe his computer if the police are on their way to arrest him for ripping off pensioners. And the government does not have a right to cover up its own misdeeds or the misdeeds of others.

Often it isn't the scandal that ruins a politician's career, but the cover up. Nixon was forced out of office because he tried to cover up the Watergate burglary. On the other hand, the public largely forgave Bill Clinton after he admitted to having sex with a subordinate. The current administration would be wise to learn from these two examples.

Why move the Anthony Wayne statue?

The most compelling argument that I've heard for moving the equestrian statue of General Anthony Wayne came from Mayor Tom Henry. He said

"I've talked to residents who do not even know where this statue is."

You can share this with your friends and show them where the lovely statue is. I just saved the city $75K.

Tweet of the year.

@Mikexxxx1 No. Taxes are paid on profits not sales. It’s irrelevant to pricing.
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) July 30, 2013

I could say something here, but I'll let my readers do it for me. Have at it.

Service Members and State's Rights Salute The Timely Demise Of DOMA & PROP 8!?! Gay Lesbian BiSexual TransGendered Americans Can Finally Begin To Celebrate Equality Almost!!

via Fort Wayne Equality https://www.facebook.com/fwequality

On the tenth anniversary of the decision of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which began the restoration process of Gay, Lesbian, BiSexual, and TransGendered or InterSexed, (GLBTI) Citizens, as full and equal members of this American Civil Society, by repealing certain laws which did not allow for GLBT persons the freedom to associate freely, and engage in private romantic activities, amongst many other things, including adding a extra classification for JUDICIAL SCRUTINY and placing 'indelible characteristics which cannot be muted' into a Title IX compliance issue, The Supreme Court of the United States took Marriage Equality (which already exists in 13 States or 33% and up to ten Sovereign Tribal Territories) five steps further to a full reality today by repealing the third section of the 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) and ordered the lower Ninth Circuit Court to dismiss based on grounds of STANDING and lack of JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY, the attempt to secure Proposition 8 (PROP 8) as the Constitutional force of the People in California, when the right to marry previously existed by order of the Courts interpreting the State Constitution, and again was repealed by the Courts, because of the trichotomy of Statuses caused by the several different Statuses caused in the impending legal wranglings and pandering by interest groups, leaving well established families to clean up the whirlwind around them and the effect that it had on their children within social peer settings.

However as much todays decisions were five steps forward for Marriage Equality it has taken States Rights into a whole new universal reality. Through a casual skimming of the documents and later analysis, what the Court did today was anything short of expected, they in essence, established the STATE as a Corporate Personhood, the head of that being the Person of the Governor in Office and other Officers of the State in subsequent authority rather than even dealing directly with the individuals involved they issued to the State as a Corporate Person the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment Guarantees and therefore was then able to fry the cord on both the People of California trying to defend PROP 8 (which banned gay marriage) by saying they had no authority to overstep their Governor/Secretary of State/Attorney General etc.decision to not appeal and with DOMA Section 3 repealled, told the Federal Government to get their hands of the throat of the State and her citizens whom the State says can lawfully marry because it has and always will be a State sanctioned action, the Church doesnt even come in second place in this ruling.

The decision in DOMA helped facilitate the decision in PROP 8 (as cited by Chief Justice Roberts dissent). Below you will find links to the rulings and other analysis, and I would encourage you, as even I still am doing so, to diligently read thru them not just make off the cuff remarks about the intrinsic results that will and have now forever changed the conversation not just on Marriage Equality but State's Rights and the issue of Corporate Personhood as well.

Lastly there are several things that have immeadiately come about full circle in light of these two rulings:

1.) All GLBT Service Members (All Seven Branches of the Military and Civil Defense) and Federal Employees whom were married in a State that acknowledges Marriage Equality, even if they no longer reside in that State, can now begin to receive partner benefits, as well as file joint income tax returns next year, along with all the other 1,000 federal benefits and protections. Dont Ask Dont Tell (DADT) has finally been killed off completely, ironically by friendly fire!!

2.) Edie Windsor. Remeber that name. 42 years of together forever love was enough to bring down hate; but it took one 84 year old woman to tell the Courts who where and how, when it comes to Marriage Equality. Dont ever say one voice cant change the world forever, because today, one voice did just that!

3.) Marriage is still defined by the State not the Federal Government nor the Church. The Courts reaffirmed that right to the State indefinitely. They also did not challenge the legitimacy of either PROP 8 or Marriage Equality in California or in the Federal DOMA Statute. They simply stated that the People of California and of the other 13 States attempting to override their dually elected officials did not have the right to usurp the States interest in choosing not to defend the amendment to the State Constitution or act of the State Legislature; therefore in all cases the legitimacy of Marriage Equality itself was not challenged, just the application of it to federal law and benefits.

4.) The Libertarian Party since its founation in 1971 has held that, Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Furthermore the LP National Committee and the LP Allen County applaud yesterday's decision to strikedown DOMA.

Dan Drexler, The State Chair of The Libertarian Party of Indiana also had the following commentary to provide regarding the decision and the forth coming sanctimonious outrage by Governor Mike Pence and others within the Republican controlled General Assembly:

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is clearly an historic move toward marriage equality consistent with the long-held libertarian belief that government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.”

“We encourage Republican leaders in the Indiana Statehouse to heed this ruling and abandon their ongoing efforts to build discrimination into Indiana’s own state constitution in this year’s legislative session.”

5.) Take the time to read the decisions for yourself dont just base your opinions on what other people assert find out why the Justices delivered a three tier punch and a roundhouse kick to the Federal Government and the People of California. Your going to be shocked at some of their reasons, dismayed even, but it will challenge your heart and mind for the sake of our Nation, where to one day, we can all be EQUAL in the sight of God and mankind, but most especially first, in the eyes of the law!

United States v. Windsor (DOMA) | Hollingsworth v. Perry (PROP 8)

6.) THE ISSUES OF STANDING FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS 'BLAG':
In other words, how many millions of dollars did Congress waste trying to Defend DOMA? 
http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=158053

7.) Will the Federal Full Faith And Credit Clause force States that do not recognize gay marriage to recognize a marriage that was legal in another state? A different section of DOMA says that States do not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. That provision was not challenged in today's decision. So the constitutionality of that provision remains an open question.

8.) A Couple Excerpts from SOCTUSBLOG from todays DOMA/WINDSOR ruling:
 
Unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty." The opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

page 20: There is a "careful consideration" standard: In determining whether a law is motivated by improper animus or purpose, discriminations of an unusual character especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. 

Bottom of 25-26: The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.

What I don't understand about Snowden and PRISM

I value my own privacy, and I understand the importance of government secrecy. We can argue about what should be private or secret in another blog post. If maintaining the secrecy of the PRISM program was so important, why not just lie about it? If I were Obama, I'd brush this off by saying it's another conspiracy theory. I'd say something sarcastic like "So this guy has evidence of a secret spying program? Does he also have my real birth certificate?" The White House press core would laugh, and the nation would go back to talking about Honey Boo Boo and Justin Bieber. But by prosecuting Snowden, the government is admitting that PRISM exists. Why is putting this man in jail more important than protecting the secrecy of the program?

PRISM and Privacy

Here's why you should be worried about this.
1. A lot of Americans break the law, but very few actually get arrested for it. You probably think that you have nothing to hide, right? Remember that stuff that you bought online but didn't pay the sales tax on? Remember writing $0 when your IT-40 asked you to calculate the sales tax for these purchases? PRISM remembers what you bought online, and the Indiana Department of Revenue remembers what you reported.
2. But maybe you are 100% in compliance with all federal and state laws. Maybe you're utterly confident that the government has bigger fish to fry, like terrorists, drug lords, and conservative activists. You still should be worried about data collected on you. If the government can't keep PRISM a secret, it can't keep collected data a secret either.
3. This isn't going to make us safer. There are always going to be ways to send messages that can't be traced. Mail a letter with the wrong return address. Post a cat video with a hidden code. ("Calico if by land. Tabby if by sea") And do you think all those spam messages are really trying to sell you something?
4. Private citizen who volunteer information are law enforcement's best resource for gathering information on dangerous criminals. Anything the government does to antagonize citizens makes them less of a resource.

Hoosiers are being fooled as the General Assembly is consistantly trying to stifle home rule advantages and selections; and yet Governor Pence panders for home rule, only to trump the voter, rather than the principled stand he took during the election and previously .... You want to talk about quid pro quo? .... Congrats Indiana, this Governor is fighting you rather than for you!!!

As a Libertarian, I feel that anything that strips both home rule and proper checks and balances within local government, especially without the consent or consultation of those governed, by an outside jurisdiction or officer, should be scorned scrutinized and immediately vetoed, and the people responsible should be voted out of office as quickly as the electoral process and legislation repealed or injuncted as soon as judicial review allows. The fact that this is an obvious slight of hand to remove a validly elected and dually sworn City County Council Member whom happens to be gay is vile in the worst degree of Hoosier politics and just not the way we roll here in Fort Wayne and Allen County. Please call Governor Pence and ask him to VETO this bill SB621 and any others like it. 

What would happen if they tried this in Fort Wayne or Evansville etc.?  

The short answer is there would be a riot at the State House.

According to Zach Adamson, the Councilman directly targeted and one of four affected by the now passed and signed legislation, Allen Countys bill is coming to a head fast as of the 8th of May the General Assembly had sent Allen County's Local Government Reform bill to Study Committee. We are next on the list for having our local representation stripped from us without even a wink or a nod as to what we citizens want. Contact your local Legislator today and tell them to stop the process and talk to the people here in Allen County first. And if they dont listen, vote them out of their jobs, finally, next year.

Sorry Governor Pence, you dont get to excuse your clear violation of "your own 'philosophy'" for the sake of allowing the General Assembly Republicans their dues and kickbacks of power, to run roughshod over the validly elected and dually sworn members of the City and or County Council, and any other branch of local government.

On his last day  to either approve or veto bills, Indiana Governor Mike Pence went ahead today and signed SEA 621, legislation which will change the way Marion County Government operates.  

SEA 621, among other things, gives the Mayor of Indianapolis more control over the budget and it eliminates the four at-large City-County Council positions.  It also creates a central count for absentee ballots, puts IMPD permanently under the Mayor and reduces the residency requirement for an individual to run for Mayor. 

Republicans and 621 supporters have said the legislation was necessary to keep spending under control, while Democrats and opponents had called it a power grab.  Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry and Sheriff John Layton went so far as to say the legislation would hinder their ability to fight crime.

 http://www.indypolitics.org/post/50176374114

Now that the bill has passed, Democrats and City officials held a press conference to urge Gov. Pence to veto the bill. Zach Adamson stated:

It strips the Council's ability to serve as a balance to the now unchecked power of the Mayor, the very balance the voters clearly and decisively demanded when they elected us. It also drastically alters the makeup of the City-County Council by eliminating the four At-Large councillors without a shred of input from the people of Marion County in a purely partisan move that attacks the people's ability to self-govern.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-marie-siroky/indianapolis-at-large-cit_b_3213009.html

 
Indiana’s Republican muscle was in full flex Saturday when Gov. Mike Pence signed a measure to reshuffle Marion County government and eliminate four Democratic-held council seats.

Supporters insist the changes in Senate Bill 621 promote good government, but one longtime political observer disagrees.
“If it’s good government for Indianapolis, why isn’t (Pence) doing it for all the major cities?” asked Brian Vargus, an Indianapolis political consultant and former political science professor. “The elimination of at-large seats is such a blatant power grab, you’d have to be a kindergartner to buy that.”
The measure eliminates the four at-large seats on the City-County Council, grants the mayor-appointed controller more authority over county officeholder budgets and grants the mayor the right to appoint five of nine members to the Metropolitan Development Commission — a majority, compared to the four members he currently appoints.
Vargus said Pence, a conservative who had recently expressed reservations about the measure, signed the bill to appease Indiana’s established Republican leaders.
“It runs against a lot of (Pence’s) philosophy, where the central government, the state in this case, doesn’t tell a city or a town what to do,” Vargus said. “He’s got to keep the powers-that-be in the party happy because they really don’t get along with him.”
Pence issued a statement Saturday that acknowledged he signed the bill despite “misgivings” over the elimination of the at-large seats.
“I am signing this legislation,” Pence said, “because it serves the public interest by granting to the current mayor of Indianapolis — and any future mayor of either political party — the authority to manage the city’s finances in a manner that protects taxpayers and encourages economic development and job creation.”
Reaction was swift and predictable, with Republicans cheering and Democrats grousing

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130511/NEWS/305110034/Gov-Mike-Pence-signs-Marion-County-legislation

 

Senator John McCain attempts to garner his maverickness back; I wonder what or whom pissed him off this time?

I have advocated for this at length a few times. A close friend, who once upon a time - for several years - was a 'caged monkey' for Comcast/Xfinity, and I had a lengthy discussion about this very issue. Its actually called 'Single Profile Masking'. Here is more information via CNET http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57583821-93/senator-john-mccain-pushes-to-end-the-cable-bundle/

Cable Companies have been able to do SPM for years but they dont want to because actual consumer having purchase control would affect their marketability and financial equity severely. You would almost be placed into the position of having to nationalize the system to keep it up and running, while the infrastructure is updated and caught up to specs to handle the service load and security issues that they don't want anyone to know exist currently.

While this provision by law is a long time coming, and with the above ramifications listed, Im scared to know that it is actually John McCain introducing it SCH13204 http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=d26f11d4-7030-44ff-b980-1c0c75e8f5d1.

The SPM provision, while EPIC in itself, probably wont pass this Congress at all; so therefore this is probably yet again John McCain, grandstanding to make himself look important and as 'a fighter for the people', which probably means he is up for reelection in the next two Senatorial cycles or he is getting ready to run for President in 2016 again too and he got miffed by somebody for campaign donations so this is retaliation on his part.

John McCain lost his 'Maverick' status a while ago by his own doing. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds thru the legislative process. I personally feel it is a red herring and am not holding my breathe but I will advocate that everyone pay attention to this bill SCH13204 and ask your Senators and Representatives to allow it to proceed for a full vote by both Houses of Congress.

NEXT BI MONTHLY BUSINESS MEETINGS LOCKED IN FOR REST OF YEAR ALMOST.

Finally was able to confirm with ACPL after playing phone tag with Josette all month, sorry for the delay.

The Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana will be meeting in the Business and Technology Room of the Allen County Public Library (instead of the Globe Room) from 2-5 pm or 14:00 to 17:00 on the fourth Saturday of the month in May (25th), July (27th), September (28th), and eventually (only able to confirm 3 meetings at a time) November (23rd *tentative due to Thanksgiving holiday). Stay tuned for further details and other opportunities to meet your local Libertarian Party and as always we extend a welcome invitation to all of our new members their friends and acquaintances.

Also keep in mind that per our bylaws at this meeting the new Officers will be taking over. They are Douglas Horner, Chair; Jeannette Jaquish, is returning as Vice Chair; Robert Enders, Treasurer; and I, Kenneth White Jnr, am returning to my prior position as Secretary. A big thank you goes out to Elizabeth Lemmon Sepponen whom has served as the Secretary for the last three years.

Securing the Blessings of Liberty,
Kenneth White, Jnr.
Vice Chair, LPAC

Please use this event posting on Facebook to share with your friends and family and to RSVP. Thanks.

The recent IRS scandal

1. I really doubt anyone is going to jail over this. Some people have already lost their jobs. I suspect that other IRS employees are already getting their resumes in order, creating Linkedin profiles, and keeping an eye on the "help wanted" section of the classified section. But the burden of proof to convict a person is much higher than the proof required to fire a person. A competent defense attorney could convince a jury that it was reasonable for a defendant to suspect that anti-tax groups were created for the purpose of tax-evasion. After all, how many cops actually go to jail for unlawful searches? 2. This is exactly why the federal government needs to reduce spending. The more the government spends, the more it will depend on the IRS to ensure compliance. The more pressure the IRS is under to enforce the tax code, the more likely you are to get an audit.

Closing Guantanamo

Obama says he wants to close Gitmo, but insists that Congress won't let him. But does he even need permission from Congress? The answer to that boils down to this: Is the detention facility under the jurisdiction of the Cuban government or the US government? Legally, Cuba maintains sovereignty over the bay, but the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903 gives the US the power to lease Guantanamo in perpetuity. The Castro regime wants the US to leave and insists that they have the right to terminate the lease and evict the US Navy. If the State Department decides to recognize that Cuba has jurisdiction, Obama can close the base on the grounds that we don't have permission to stay. On the other hand, if the United States has jurisdiction over the bay, then everybody there is protected by the Bill of Rights. The President can and should place the Constitution over the wishes of Congress in this matter.

4-15-13

Yesterday, someone set off a couple of bombs at the Boston Marathon. At the time of this writing, we cannot be sure of a motive. But I strongly suspect that the perpetrator just felt like hurting people. Whatever cause that monster claims to support, he will be forever defined by the actual monstrosity of his actions and not his motives. He might claim to be a better person than common street thugs, but he is not. Yesterday was Patriot's Day in the home of the original Tea Party. It was also Tax Day, and the Libertarian Party of Allen County commemorated the day in the usual customary manner, through peaceful, nonviolent protest.






While I am glad that my tax dollars help pay for the FBI investigation of yesterday's bombing, there are a lot of federal programs that do nothing to make us safer or improve our lives.

Annual Tax Protest on Monday

The Allen County Libertarian Party will have a tax protest north of the downtown Main Post Office between 5pm and whenever crowds thin, April 15, 2013. We will hold up signs and hand out a flyers showing each US citizen's share, and each taxpayer's share, of the national debt and obligations -- each a shocking amount. LPAC Chair Doug Horner will be available for quotes or interview.

UNCOVERED Secret Anarchist Plans For Collapse of Federal Government

The best conspiracies can't be proven, because competent conspirators are good at maintaining plausible deniability. Yet this conspiracy is so large, that a majority of the US population is either in the loop or have been duped have into furthering the anarchist agenda. But it's quite simple really. Smart anarchists know better than to resort to violence. Take the government head on, and you'll just end up dead or in prison. But by causing the government to attack other countries and factions, these anarchists can get these people to do their dirty work for them. Another strategy is to get the government to go as far into debt as possible. Once the government defaults, nobody will want to loan it money anymore. How will we bailout our patriotic banks and oil companies when that happens, let alone maintain public order?