About Me

Name: Mr. H
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

A write-in idea

Posted by Mr. H on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:32:46 PM
One of my favorite movies from the 80's is an old Richard Pryor movie called "Brewster's Millions." I was thinking about the major problem of this year's presidential election and thought about this movie and an idea from it that I would love to see implemented. It could never work in our political climate, and would throw the election into the hands of the House of Representatives, but it would be a lot of fun to watch.

In the movie, Brewster has 30 days to spend 30 million dollars but can have nothing to show for it at the end. One of the ideas given to him is that it is expensive to run for public office, and the New York City mayoral election campaign is going on and that he could run for it to spend lots of money quickly. Brewster starts a campaign, and instead of putting himself up as the candidate, he encourages the people to vote for "None of the Above".

Oh that someone with the money could start a campaign like this. Imagine millions of Americans in November requesting paper ballots to write in "None of the Above" with a chance of actually making a difference. I am sorely tempted to do it unless McCain shows me something amazing compared to what he has done so far.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Random thoughs on the Indiana primary election

Posted by Mr. H on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:08:32 PM
You know, I think the main reason I never update this blog is that I believe no one reads it. Hopefully people will prove me wrong and encourage me to write more often.

For the first time in many years, the primary elections in Indiana actually mean something. The overall winner of the Democrat presidential candidate race could well hinge on who wins here today.  I guess that should be something we applaud as Hoosiers, considering that usually our votes in the national primaries mean nothing since winners have been locked in before we hold our May elections.

The flip side to this, as much as I hate to say anything bad about exercising the franchise, is that Indiana has been subjected to an obscene amount of advertising by the Clinton and Obama camps. Tomorrow will be a happy day as I can watch television for more than ten minutes without seeing any candidates' ads.

How much money was spent by both campaigns during the primary season? I can only pray that it was enough to cripple the winner's means to fund as many obnoxious ads in the real campaign. Sadly, even with "campaign finance reform", I fear that the coffers will overflow and the ads will be never-ending.

The real losers in this campaign cycle, like so many before, is the average American. The amount of money required to enter politics now is not only sickening, but should have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves. One local example: a Democrat candidate for the 7th District House seat currently held by Andre Carson is spending over $1.3 million dollars of his own money on his primary campaign. On his primary campaign!!! He is a local doctor and apparently has the means, but goodness sakes. His campaign commercials have been horrible, too. All they do is describe President Bush's "mess" and how he would fix a few parts of it to get us out of it. They don't even say what district he is a candidate in, only that he is a "Democrat for Congress." For those of you not in the know, the greater Indianapolis area is divided into several congressional districts.

Our government of the people is now represented only by those who have the personal fortunes to run for office. Maybe 100 years ago any kid could become the president. Now, it is only for those blessed enough with the financial means to make it worthwhile. Sad.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Constitution Day 2007

Posted by Mr. H on Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:01:39 PM
Although I disagree with the manner in which it was done, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) actually did American students a tremendous favor by requiring schools to teach something about the U.S. Constitution on September 17 of each year.

On September 17, 1787, some of the finest minds in the history of the Western Hemisphere put their signatures on the text of the Constitution, setting for all time the system of government by which the United States would be ruled. A few delegates refused to sign it because it did not contain a Bill of Rights, but the Federalists soon realized that one would be necessary to get it ratified in a majority of the states.

What today is known as the Bill of Rights was actually 12 amendments written by James Madison, of which 11 would eventually be ratified by the states (while everybody remembers 1-10, the 27th Amendment is actually one of Madison's original 12). The most important of these is often seen as the 1st Amendment, guaranteeing the rights of citizens to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition freely.

Encourage your children to learn more about the Bill of Rights and the freedoms they guarantee to Americans. Teach them that these rights are not given to them by the government, but are guaranteed as rights that the government can not take away. As they get older, teach them that if government tries to limit these rights, that it is their duty as citizens to use every legal means to fight back. They probably won't hear that in their public school classroom.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

School Board Circus

Posted by Mr. H on Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:18:13 AM
As a parochial school teacher, I don't have to worry about unions and politics playing into my job. The school board that runs my school on behalf of my church is made up of church members who share a common belief and do their best to make the school run well.

On the flip-side, you have the school board for the Metropolitan School District of Perry Township (MSDPT). Perry Township is the bottom center of Marion County and Indianapolis. This is also the township where my school is located. They voted to suspend the superintendent with pay back in November and he is still suspended with his hearing postponed indefinitely pending a court decision.

The board meetings are both predicable and sadly comical. 4 members have banded together to vote as a bloc that seems to have little regard either for the best interests of township students or for the rule of law. The board vice-president was ruled biased by a federal court judge in regard to the superintendent and subsequently enjoined from voting on his removal. The board, in its typical fashion, is trying to appeal this decision against the advice of their own counsel. Meanwhile, the superintendent is drawing over $15,000 a month in salary and benefits for staying home.

I have been watching this whole matter closely, and all I can do is wish the best for the taxpayers of Perry Township, who will sadly be footing the (expected to be very large) bill for the actions of these misguided four board members. Oh, and my school has open enrollment in grades K-8 for Perry families looking for quality education away from the mess!

Check these links for more information:

The latest news, with links to older stories: Story from Indy's ABC affiliate, WRTV

A grassroots community organization, opposed to the board's actions: Take Back Perry Schools
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arguing with a liberal...

Posted by Mr. H on Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:52:39 PM
Wow, it has been a long time since I posted anything...

How do you know when you are arguing with a liberal? When they can not refute anything you say and either have to fling personal attacks or divert the topic or as of late, insult President Bush. Take the following exchange:

First, read "All the Ex-President's Money" by Cal Thomas.

Then read this response by Indianapolis Star columnist Dan Carpenter.

Here is my response:

"If Dan had really read Cal's column, he would have learned that Cal's problem is not that Bill Clinton is making money for giving speeches, but that there appears to be a real conflict of interest when Bill's wife is a sitting U.S. Senator running a campaign for President. Hillary has already turned down federal funds for campaigning so that she can spend unlimited amounts of money. Having an ex-president husband, and one who is paid handsomely for making speeches that could be considered campaign endorsements, is something that should be looked at closely. McCain-Feingold was a travesty foisted on the American people, but everyone should have to play by the same rules."

Dan's response: "Of course, she could have an ex-president father with lots of money and lots of rich foreign associates. Hardly worth "looking into."

Nothing constructive at all to add, and nothing at all to refute my points. At the very least, he could have corrected me by saying that Hillary has not yet turned down federal funds (she has not had the opportunity yet), but he has to resort to diverting the attention to George W. Bush. Not that these are even the same thing.

Former President George H.W. Bush was restricted to giving his son $1000 in personal contributions just like any other private citizen. Former President Bill Clinton, however, does not have this restriction as his funds count as family assets, not restricted by campaign finance rules. That's the elephant in the room that Dan and the liberals are afraid to see.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My response to Judge Hamilton's ruling

Posted by Mr. H on Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:18:29 PM
Thanks to the miracle that is the Google cache, here is the response to Judge Hamilton's decision about prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that I posted on the web forum of the Indianapolis Star on December 29, 2005.
------
First of all, let me offer myself to Speaker Bosma as the first volunteer to test Judge Hamilton's willingness to enforce his order. I believe the judge will find himself unable to enforce it for several reasons.

First of all, there are serious separation of powers conflicts here. For a federal court to interject itself in the customs of a state legislature seems to me a violation of the 10th Amendment. The Indiana House is not making a law concerning the prayer; it is a custom that some, after nearly 200 years of statehood, have seen cause to take offense at. For those of you saying that the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states, I say read the text of the 14th Amendment again. Section one deals with states not making laws abridging the rights of citizens. A custom of the Indiana House of Representatives is hardly a law.

Second, any private citizen, even if invited to speak by a government entity, has 1st and 9th Amendment rights that this decision seeks to curtail. The argument that the invitation to speak turns the prayer into government speech is unfounded; no citizen gives up their 1st Amendment rights when they step behind a podium. The argument that a sectarian prayer in a government meeting is an establishment of religion is a stretch at best.

Third, Judge Hamilton has placed himself above the basis of our common law system and totally ignored precedent and tradition. When the first act of the United States Congress was to establish a chaplain, which the Supreme Court has upheld, why is there an issue when a private citizen makes a prayer. The prayers offered in the US Congress have certainly not been "generic" all these years. How many years has the Indiana House had this tradition of opening with prayer? Again, ignored.

Fourth, by practically singling-out Christian prayers, this decision deserves to be tossed out for the same reason that Judge Hamilton claims supports his decision: the 1st Amendment. Every civil libertarian can cite the so-called "Establishment Clause," but totally ignores the second part: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By denying a Christian the right to pray in his or her own way, that free exercise is being trampled.

Finally, let me say that leading a hymn after the prayer such as the pastor that is most often cited as the reason for this suit did is going beyond the invitation to pray and is inappropriate in my view. But whatever happened to solving problems without resorting to the courts? If you don't feel comfortable being there before a prayer, step outside.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In Whose Name?

Posted by Mr. H on Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:12:28 PM
On the topic of my last post about the right to not be offended by the speech of others is the case pending before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on the right to pray in the Indiana Statehouse.

This sillyness was brought back to my attention in reading this letter to the editor in the Indianapolis Star today. Once again I decry the horrible lack of civics education in our school systems today.  I am personally offended by the speech that this person used in her letter, but in no way does that limit her free speech rights. This "right to not be offended" that courts around the country are inventing is one of the major things threatening this country.

I wrote a lengthy response when Judge Hamilton made his decision about this case and how it was a violation of the 1st, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments as well as the separation of powers. I saved it on the computer somewhere and will post it here as soon as I can find it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does This Offend You?

Posted by Mr. H on Monday, September 11, 2006 12:19:03 PM
Something I've wanted to write about for a long time in a public forum is the right to free speech we enjoy under the First Amendment to our Constitution and the limitations that some seek to impose on it. What used to be the most sacrosanct part of our government's founding document has been continually under attack from those in this country who want to avoid being offended by someone else's speech.

Let's start with what I feel is the most obvious offender here, sadly written into law and stupefyingly approved by our Supreme Court: the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. I, like many others, like to call this law the "Incumbent Protection Act," because of the disadvantages it gives to the opponents of office incumbents. Whether you agree with the premise that there is too much money in political campaigning or not, this law was a horrible way to solve it. Political speech was the type of speech designed to be most protected by the First Amendment, and now political groups not even affiliated with a party or candidate have been silenced due to the 60-day "gag" on political advertising before an election.

Then there are speech codes. Where on earth did some people get the idea that they have the right to not be offended by what others do and say? I am forced to put up with listening to people with whom I disagree on a regular basis, and I would never think of forcing them to be silent just because I do not want to hear it. Again, the First Amendment was written to protect speech for just that reason. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Mommy is a Democrat

Posted by Mr. H on Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:34:10 PM
My hat goes off the author of this book (Why Mommy is a Democrat) for finding a new low in ways to indoctrinate kids into the "Democrats good, Republicans bad" mindset. One has only to look at the illustrations that go with the trite reason given on each set of pages to see that this is about more than giving reasons why mommy is a Democrat. The illustrator goes out of his way to take digs at Republicans in each of the three sample pages shown. In the first one, "Democrats make sure we all share our toys...", note the rich-looking couple walk past the homeless-looking man in the background. The same couple shows up outside the university on another page where the admission is $160,000. The elephant walking past while "Democrats make sure we are always safe" is another not-so-subtle dig.

Lets disregard for a minute that this is a book for small children. As adults, we know that the only way Democrats make sure we all share our "toys" is by taxing them away from us. And U.S. history shows us that it was Democrat governors who were fighting to keep black students out of integrated schools after the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Freedom of Religious Education Takes Another Hit

Posted by Mr. H on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:37:18 PM
I was a little afraid after reading Jennifer Morse's article on Townhall today. The news that a California Lutheran high school was being sued was news to me, even though the actual event happened a year ago. I was afraid because I know people who teach in Lutheran high schools in California and wondered if any of them were at the school involved. I teach in a Lutheran school myself, and was also afraid if it was a school associated with my church body. It turns out that the school involved is not; it is affiliated with one of the other Lutheran church bodies in this country.

Enough about the fear and on to the matter at hand. I am continually reminded of Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution (the "supremacy  clause") in times like this. A religious institution does not check its right to freely practice its religion at the door just because it is acting "in the public good" as an education institution. A law passed by the California legislature does not trump the First Amendment.

Every tax-exempt organization in the United States is required by the IRS to submit a statement of non-discrimination every year. The year I was principal of my previous school, I had to submit this form. On it, I affirmed that my school did not discriminate on the basis of age, race, gender, or national origin. Nowhere in that statement does it refer to sexual orientation. Despite the gay rights movement's best efforts to the contrary, being a GLBT person does not qualify one for protected status. A religious institution certainly does not have to recognize such status in how it admits or keeps students.

Despite the attorney for the girls' claims otherwise, the precedent set in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale [530 U.S. 640 (2000)] should apply here. A non-profit organization with religious tenets has the right to determine that people who, by their behavior or speech, contradict those tenets may no longer associate with them.

The fact that both the local court and the California Supreme Court are willing to let this case continue through the legal system shows that the Constitutional-law knowledge requirements to be a judge in California must be low. We can only hope that the 9th Circus throws this case out on appeal, but I have my doubts. I have the feeling that once again the U.S. Supreme Court will have to waste its time to correct what should be an easy application of First Amendment law.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Introduction

Posted by Mr. H on Friday, September 01, 2006 12:02:32 PM
Welcome to Mr. H's Neighborhood. This blog will mostly highlight my opinions on things that are going on in the United States and in the state of Indiana.

I am a parochial school teacher, currently in my tenth year. I teach middle-school social studies to grades 6-8, and since my last name is rather long  most of students call me Mr. H.  I am conservative, but lean toward libertarianism in some social ideas.

I have no idea how often I will update; it will probably be whenever the spirit motivates me. I do have opinions on many issues, though, so finding something to write about will be easier than finding the time to.

Comments are always welcome. Constructive criticism is wonderful, mindless flaming will be ignored.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »