Get Adobe Flash player

Indiana Issues

Indiana High Court doubles down on Barnes

From Angry White Boy:

Last May the Indiana Supreme Court surprised constitutionalists and patriots the nation over by calling the “castle doctrine” — that is, the age-old view that a man’s home is his castle, his place to defend from all unauthorized invasions — a thing of the past.

The newly minted Justice Steven David, writing for himself, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan, decreed the following to be Indiana law (over the dissent of justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson):

“We believe, however, that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. … Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means available at common law for the redress against unlawful police action.”

Please note that the Royalist “we” above is limited to 60 percent of the Indiana Supreme Court in 2011. Three contemporary men in black have taken it upon themselves to roll back almost 800 years of common law. Thus the hubris that is post-modernity is on full display in Indianapolis.

On Tuesday, this same court reaffirmed its May ruling, allegedly “clarifying” (i.e., in a manner likely to pacify the politicos getting grief from their constituents) that their decision visits no harm upon the Fourth Amendment. (Rightly understood, that is — which really means Leftly understood, of course.)

The Indiana Supreme Court now assures us that even though it uprooted common law established by Magna Carta in 1215, the court did not intend to encroach upon the Bill of Rights hammered out some 560 years after that seemingly optional social compact. And lacking the intent to encroach, must not have encroached, right?

Read the rest at Angry White Boy.

Mike Pence addresses the recent Barnes vs Indiana Supreme Court ruling

From Wrap Your Head Around:

Mike Pence (R-IN-6) responds to questions about the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling regarding the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home and about Article 11 Section 7 of the Indiana constitution which states “All bills or notes issued as money shall be, at all times, redeemable in gold or silver.”

Hoosiers Show How It’s Done: Indiana Posts a Surplus And Dems Are Unhappy

From The Blaze:

Indiana State Auditor Tim Berry announced the news on Thursday: the state posted a $1.2 billion surplus in the state budget. Considering that that the nation is in the middle of a nationwide recession, this may come as a surprise to many

Indiana’s fiscal year ended June 30 with the state having $400 million, or 40 percent more money in its coffers than it had at the same time last year.

“We’re showing . . . that you can manage a budget by reducing expenditures and not raising taxes,” said Berry.

According to the report, “Barry credited state agencies who slimmed their spending and Governor Mitch Daniels’ fiscal accountability.”

“More money in Hoosiers’ incomes and a terrific job of cost control by state employees working together combined to produce an even stronger result than we expected at budget time,” Daniels said in a statement Thursday.

“With the national economy still limping badly, and downside risks still abounding, it is reassuring to have a safety margin that other states would love to have.”

Last year, Daniels and Indiana lawmakers were concerned the state was going to bankrupt by the end of the fiscal year. Now, the state has an amount in reserves that was not predicted to be reached until 2013. A happy situation for any state.

“Indiana arrived at its surplus despite receiving 5.5 percent less revenue, or $1.34 billion, that was anticipated in the 2010-2011 fiscal year from the budget passed in 2009. At the same time, the state found ways to spend 5.5 percent less, or $1.52 billion than expected,” the report continued.

However, as per their usual, Democrats decided that this was no cause for celebration.

“From even the most cursory examination, it is apparent that this budget surplus has not been built on a strong economy keyed on job creation,” said House Minority Leader Pat Bauer (D-South Bend) in response. “That’s because this administration has no such program.”

Pat Bauer, as some may remember, made headlines recently when he coaxed his fellow democrats into fleeing the state in an attempt to halt a vote on anti-union legislation.

Bauer continued: “Instead, it is obvious that this surplus owes a great deal to budget reversions and other accounting tricks that this administration frowned upon when it took office. Without the past use of federal stimulus dollars, the continual demand for trimming agency budgets, and the occasional raid on dedicated funds, our financial picture would not be as rosy as the governor and the auditor would like. At that point, it is prudent to wonder at the cost extracted by these gimmicks. What services are suffering as a result of the obsessive need to maintain a $1 billion surplus?”

Despite his overtures, Gov. Mitch Daniels plans to keep the money in savings rather than restore state programs that were cut.

At this moment, the $1.18 billion surplus does not meet the 10 percent budget surplus amount required for an automatic taxpayer refund which state lawmakers passed earlier this year. However, Indiana lawmakers are optimistic that the saving will come close to that at the end of the current two-year budget cycle.

With a fiscal hawk like Mitch Daniels at the helm, Indiana could teach Washington, D.C. a thing or too. With effective cuts and real fiscal austerity, budgets can be controlled.

Senator Mike Delph Proving Himself To Be A True Public Servant

From Wrap Your Head Around:

Is criticizing liberalism a crime? Well, no. But some sure are acting like it is and, at the rate we’re going, I wouldn’t be surprised if it soon is.

Yesterday I wrote about Missouri Congressman Todd Akin’s comments about there being a hatred for God at the heart of liberalism and how some were demanding an apology. While Akin’s comments were making headline news the past couple of days, Indiana State Senator Mike Delph was taking some heat for his analysis of liberalism—liberalism in the courts.

On Monday Senator Delph, who authored Indiana’s recently-passed immigration reform law, posted the following comments on his Facebook page:

Judicial reform is grossly needed both at the national and state level. One of the great American lies is that Judges are apoliticial. Liberal elitism is choking America, especially in our Halls of Justice.

Of course, we can see recent examples of this “choking” all across America. But, because this came after Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker blocked part of the new immigration law, Delph has come under attack for his analysis. The media is pretty much saying that because he’s a law school graduate who is studying for the bar exam, he shouldn’t be voicing his opinion. WISH TV 8 has quoted Bill Jones of the state Bar Association as saying, “I would counsel any applicant for the bar against intemperate criticism of any judicial official.”

Funny, I’m looking at Delph’s Facebook page as I write, and I don’t see where he mentioned the judge in his comments. And Delph himself has rebutted by saying that his statement is about the judicial system in general.

Read the rest at Wrap Your Head Around.

Exposing the Planned Parenthood Mythology

From National Review:

Indiana is full of non-Planned Parenthood clinics and primary-care doctors that provide all those basic medical tests Planned Parenthood claims poor women need. As a new series of Live Action phone calls to Planned Parenthood facilities in Indiana make very clear.

As Live Action points out, Planned Parenthood serves less than one percent of Medicaid patients in Indiana but performs more than half of the abortions in the state.

From Live Action’s press release this morning:

“Indiana has become Ground Zero in the national battle to defund Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion business in America,” states Live Action President Lila Rose. “As more and more states, most recently Wisconsin and Texas, continue to defund the abortion giant of millions of dollars, Planned Parenthood wants us to believe they are the only game in town when it comes to providing care for Medicaid patients. In reality, their own staff admit that they aren’t the only option for women in need.”

In an official press release, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards claimed that Indiana’s defunding of Planned Parenthood would “take away health care from thousands of women in Indiana.” Last week, Live Action’s undercover investigators called 16 of the 28 Indiana Planned Parenthood clinics posing as women on Medicaid concerned about where they could receive services if Planned Parenthood’s funding was not restored.

 

What Do Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Wisconsin Teachers Have in Common?

From National Review:

They’re both trying to overcome (for them) terrifying cultural trends through brute political force. Why else would the unions fight the absurdly over-the-top “Battle of Madison” over marginal changes in employee benefits and a collective-bargaining limitation that, truth be told, wouldn’t much impact the daily lives of teachers?

Why is the Obama administration willing to hold $4 billion in Medicaid money hostage until Indiana funds Planned Parenthood? Even worse, why was the Obama administration willing to shut down the entire federal government rather than force Planned Parenthood to forgo $317 million in federal funds?

It’s clear that losing union power in Wisconsin or Planned Parenthood funding in even one state represents the crossing of an invisible line for the Left. In 2003, as the American military marched towards Baghdad, the media reported that Saddam had drawn a “red line” around his capital, and if American forces crossed that line, he’d unleash his full (mythical) arsenal. Well, the Left has its own “red lines,” and it’s unleashing its full arsenal as the conservative movement marches on.

Americans are increasingly pro-life. In an era of record deficits, there’s no justification for funding America’s primary abortion mill. Likewise, public patience is exhausted with unions’ endless demands for pensions we can’t afford, job security we don’t enjoy, and work rules unthinkable in modern corporations. Thus, two central partners in the Left’s cultural coalition have their backs against the wall.

Their response? Brute political force, applied against a backdrop of hysterical rhetoric and relentless litigation. Their message is clear: You can’t touch our sacred cows.

Three years ago, Republicans would have caved in the face of this assault, retreating with half-hearted compromises and apologetic rhetoric. But that was before the Tea Party. Now, liberal chants of “Shame! Shame!” sound like applause to conservative ears, Sarah Palin leads rallies in snowstorms, and far from being deterred by union protests, other state legislatures yawn . . . and then kill collective bargaining.

It’s a new day, and now is not the time for Indiana — or any other state — to waver in the face of leftist fury.

Holding the Hoosier State Hostage

From National Review:

If consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, the Obama administration must be thronged with elves. For the second time this year, the Obama health-plex is staking an entire government funding stream on the retention of full subsidies for Planned Parenthood.

In April it was the fate of a continuing resolution to fund the entire federal government for the rest of this fiscal year. President Obama personally threatened to veto the cut of a single federal dollar for the abortion-industry giant when it was one of only two issues stymieing agreement with congressional Republicans. Now, thanks to a letter from the Center for Medicaid Services and its recess-appointed chief, Donald Berwick, Indiana’s entire $4 billion federal allotment for Medicaid is at risk — all because the Indiana legislature had the temerity to disallow Planned Parenthood’s participation in its state Medicaid plan.

Indiana is hardly alone in its sentiment that the house that Margaret Sanger built doesn’t help the neighborhood. Its decision to deny Planned Parenthood participation in programs that provide STD testing, family planning, and other services mirrors the House of Representatives’ decision to defund the agency entirely and the preferences of several other states as well. A series of Supreme Court rulings decades ago ratified the constitutionality of municipal hospitals deciding to defund abortion and favor childbirth services over abortion; it is no less sensible for a state to disfavor subsidies of any kind for agencies that clearly favor abortion over childbirth.

Hoosier officials point out that the women’s health services the federal Medicaid program underwrites – encompassing all of Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion repertoire — are amply covered by other outfits. Indiana has some 800 qualified providers who manage to deliver care without controversy. Federal officials insist that states can’t curtail funding for agencies based on their “scope of services,” but only on grounds of fraud or other malfeasance. Planned Parenthood’s record on the financial-responsibility front, however, is less than stellar.

Indiana’s attorney general says that the state will continue to contest a Planned Parenthood lawsuit insisting it is entitled to taxpayer support. The pressure from Washington may become irresistible if Berwick and company follow through on their implicit threat to withhold every dollar of federal medical aid to the poor unless Indiana relents. That fact is a sober reminder that more is at stake in this battle than the fungibility of abortion revenue. The federal health-care bureaucracy is an unelected piper calling an increasingly aggressive tune. When 2013 rolls around and Obamacare takes full effect, that tune will rise to a symphonic roar.

Barack Obama’s pro-abortion extremism

From HoosierAccess:

When Mitch Daniels signed HEA 1210 into law and prohibited Planned Parenthood from receiving tax money through Medicaid, he said that “any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.”

Planned Parenthood of Indiana could not abide this restriction because they are determined to murder unborn children. If they are truly so concerned with providing the alleged “wide range” of “services” to their clients, why not end the abortion practice that they claim is such a small portion of their business? Why not work within the system to provide health care to those who need it?

Let’s not forget that PPIN has been caught twice on tape by Live Action Films trying to cover up the sexual abuse of 13 year old girls.

Let’s also not forget that Planned Parenthood also bragged in a request for funding from the Bloomington City Council and Monroe County Council that they would provide contraception to 13 year old girls. When a 13 year old girl is pregnant, that is prima facie evidence that a felony has taken place. As I explained months ago, giving contraception to these girls helps sexual predators cover up their crimes.

Read the rest at HoosierAccess.

AG Zoeller Argued for Expansive Barnes v. State Holding; Said Only Thing Homeowner Should Do Is Hold Door

From Ogden On Politics:

Attorney General Greg Zoeller has stated publicly that his office didn’t ask for the Supreme Court’s expansive ruling in Barnes v. State and has now asked for a rehearing to narrow it. Given Zoeller’s track record of a lack of candor in public statements, I decided to go to the Clerk’s Office and read the petition for transfer briefs myself.  It turns out my suspicion the Attorney General did ask for the broad ruling was right.

In the Attorney General’s Petition to Transfer, Zoeller’s Office asked that the Indiana supreme Court find that the right of a person to resist unlawful entry into one’s home by a police officer be limited to holding the door shut against the attempts of the officer to open it. According to the position enunciated by Deputy Attorney General Karl Schonberg, any touching of the officer to remove the officer from the home would be a battery and should not be considered “reasonable force.”

The Attorney General cites the Court of Appeals case, Robinson v. State, 814 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. App. 2004), a case which seems to mix up the concept of resisting an unlawful entry and resisting arrest.  More importantly the case predates the 2006 “no retreat” amendments to IC 35-41-3-2.  That statute now says in pertient part:

(b) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Not only did the Attorney General’s Office completely overlook that statute which is a defense to the charge of battery, so did the Vanderburgh County Public Defender’s office.  In its Response, the Vanderburgh County pointed out that the issue of whether it was a “battery” or “reasonable force” is a jury question.

The Attorney General’s Office either doesn’t understand the law or doesn’t care to.  That you are using “reasonable force” to repel an unlawful entry to one’s home is a defense to a battery on a police office. Interpreting the law so that battery is never “reasonable force” is to render the legal defense to battery meaningless.  Now that the Indiana General Assembly enshrined into the Indiana Code the legal principle that a homeowner can use “reasonable force” to protect himself from unlawful entry by (and there is no exception for police officers) into one’s home, the Court can’t simply read that statute out of the Code.  In this case though, it appears the Indiana Supreme Court simply missed the statute.

ACLU files suit over new immigration law

From The Indianapolis Star:

The ACLU of Indiana is seeking a federal court injunction against Indiana’s new immigration law passed this year by state lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

In a lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, the ACLU is asking the court to effectively prevent the law from going into effect on July 1.

The suit was filed on behalf of three Central Indiana residents — two from Mexico and one from Nigeria — who claim they stand to be arrested under provisions that were included in the bill signed by Daniels on May 10.

Major provisions of the legislation passed this year included penalizing businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and denying in-state college tuition aid for undocumented students who live in Indiana.

At issue in this lawsuit are provisions that allow state and local police to arrest persons based solely on a “removal order” from an immigration court, a “detainer or notice of action issued” or if they have been convicted of one or more aggravated felonies — even if they have served their time and been lawfully released.

“Insofar as (it) authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to arrest persons without reasonable suspicion or probably cause of any unlawful conduct, much less criminal activity, it violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures,” reads the lawsuit, filed by Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana.

It also asks the court to declare this a class action for all potentially affected people.

The individual named as parties to the suit include: Ingrid Buquer, a citizen of Mexico but a resident of Franklin; Berlin Urtiz, a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Indianapolis (who has been a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. since 2001); and Louisa Adair, a citizen of Nigeria and a resident of Indianapolis.

 

God Bless America

Find Us On Facebook!

Hot Topics

Random Quote

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

Today’s Events

None

Upcoming Elections

  • No dates present