BREAKING: Bosma Undecided on Re-Election Bid

This is the logo

BREAKING: Bosma Undecided on Re-Election Bid

This is the divider


BREAKING: Bosma Undecided on Re-Election Bid

November 29, 2017

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma has not decided whether he will seek another term in the legislature, according to Statehouse sources of Hoosiers for Life.  This stunning revelation comes only days after Bosma groused about incivility in politics during a major public address.

Speaker Bosma used the latter portion of his Organization Day speech on Tuesday, November 21, to call for greater compassion for “those who are hurting and those who are misunderstood.”

Addressing House members, their families, press, and many other guests, Bosma also declared in the speech that he would not be part of a “long spiral of uncivil conduct in political life.”

One week later, Speaker Bosma is said to be huddling with close political advisors to plan his next move.

Bosma was unopposed in the 2016 Republican primary, and he won re-election in the fall with 65% of the vote.  However, Speaker Bosma has been under increasing criticism over the past year by life advocates for blocking no-exception anti-abortion legislation authored by Rep. Curt Nisly.

Hoosiers for Life Executive Director, Amy Schlichter stated, “Brian Bosma’s record on life has caused uncertainty inside the pro-life community. He claims to be ‘pro-life’ yet his influence killed the strongest life bill ever to hit Indiana last year and he fully intends to make sure the bill dies this year.  People are wondering if he is truly ‘pro-life’ or not.  The real question is why is he refusing House members a vote on the Protection at Conception bill.  It deserves a real conversation, a fair hearing, and each district should be able to voice exactly how they feel about babies dying in Indiana.”

Speaker Bosma’s current term in the legislature runs to November, 2018. If he chooses to run for re-election to another two-year term, he would need to file an application to do so between January 10, 2018, and February 9, 2018.

Bosma’s largely suburban district includes portions of Marion, Hamilton, and Hancock counties on the northeast side of greater Indianapolis. The Republican has served in the Indiana House since 1986.

Hoosiers for Life promotes the protection of innocent human life from conception to natural death. The group’s objective for the 2018 legislative session is to have an up or down roll-call vote on Rep. Curt Nisly’s protection of life legislation.




A Dismaying Audit of a GOP Supermajority

A Dismaying Audit of a GOP Supermajority

For the use of the membership only (428 words).

by Craig Ladwig

Despite promises during the recent Organization Day at the Indiana Legislature, those hoping for a smaller government from a GOP governor and supermajority are likely to be disappointed in the upcoming session. That is according to the findings of a research project categorizing the more than 1,000 bills introduced into a typical General Assembly.

Nor did Gov. Eric Holcomb’s list of goals released in advance of Organization Day offer hope that there would be significant cuts in spending or the size of government. Rather, he promised to “cultivate a strong and diverse economy, maintain and build the state’s infrastructure and develop a 21st century skilled and ready workforce.” Moreover, the leaders of both houses said this week that they may push for additional funding this session in public education. 

That, according to Saurab Chaudhry, a researcher for the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, would match the pattern found in an audit of the 1,250 measures introduced in the last General Assembly, a budget session.

Chaudhry sorted those House and Senate measures that were assigned a committee into one of five general categories and 21 subcategories. Of the five general categories — Tax Reorganization, Special Interest, Government Reorganization, Shrinks Government and Expands Government — the great majority in both houses sought to make state government bigger with only a fraction seeking to make it smaller. 

“To get a better picture of the legislative landscape, it was important to know how many bills were introduced in specific categories.” Chaudhry said. Routine daily news reports simply can’t give us that kind of information, he noted, and the legislative process tends to obscure it, nothing being named the “Make Government Bigger”  committee.

For every measure the Senate considered that would shrink government, for example, it considered more than seven that would make it larger, according to the study.

Chaudhry says he kept an especially keen eye on the number of bills proposed in the Special Interest category. “One hypothesis was that there would be a good number of bills in this category, and in fact we found that legislators are considering an inordinate number that are narrowly defined and seemingly written to help only a small group,” he said.

That finding, Chaudhry explained, conforms to a Public Choice theory of economics predicting that the incentive of a special interest to pass benefiting legislation will greatly outweigh the incentive of taxpayers, who bear only a small cost individually, to oppose it even when they consider it bad policy.

Craig Ladwig is editor of the quarterly Indiana Policy Review.

What would perhaps be a better use of talent rather than to observe the gross inputs to the sausage grinder would be a positive agenda for lawmakers to consider that would shrink government.  It could be organized in a similar fashion but use wiki like contributions so as to tap the wisdom of the people that is often not tapped by the elected sorts.  By and large an effort like this would not only be appreciated but would also tend to be acted upon.  For instance, Senator Delph had a bill some time back to enable the Senate to tap into more resources.  Others have wished to see more contribution of knowledge from the social sciences to help them guide better social policies for Indiana.  A positive aspect of shrinking government would be to focus the attention and abilities of the elected sorts.  It is difficult enough to handle the basics.  One just cannot even pretend to have expertise on the bloat we now have.  I think IPR had done such a use of talent in something called Mandate for the 90’s (or some such) which was, in retrospect, quite a large part of the Indiana success story.  


Judge Roy Moore identifies biggest threats to U.S.


Judge Roy Moore

Judge Roy Moore

WASHINGTON – Much ado has been made in recent political campaigns about identifying America’s biggest threat. Is it ISIS? Russia? China? North Korea?

Actually, the greatest threats to the United States and the preservation of its freedoms come from within, Republican Alabama Senate nominee Judge Roy Moore believes.

Moore became the GOP nominee for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions, now U.S. attorney general, by defeating establishment-endorsed Luther Strange in the primary. He will face Democratic nominee Doug Jones in the Dec. 12 election.

Moore told WND the greatest threats are America’s domestic enemies: Marxists and Democratic leadership who are intent on expanding the role of the federal government and steering Americans away from belief in God.

“We’ve got more of a threat from the internal. That’s why the oath taken is to defend and protect America from all enemies [foreign] and domestic. We’ve got a lot of domestic enemies that are degrading our country and making us weak,” he said. “We are losing our structure of government. No foreign country will destroy us. We will be destroyed from within when we give up an understanding of the Constitution and how it restrains power all the way down to the people.

Moore emphasized “the people are the power of our government.”

“When we get back to that we will be a strong nation again,” he said. “When we forget our relationship to God, we forget our relationship to the only source of right and wrong, and when you do that you will become an immoral society. People are not recognizing this as a very important source of strength and security.”

The most important point Moore said he tries to convey to the American people, which the media misconstrues, is “the understanding of the relationship between God and our Constitution.”

In “So Help Me God,” Judge Roy Moore brilliantly argues that those who removed a Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse are the ones breaking the law by ordering him to violate his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

“The hardest thing to relay to the media is the relevance of God to a prosperous country. If we don’t understand that then we lose our country because we don’t understand that things like God-given rights are inalienable because they are not given by government – they are given by God. That means that government can’t take them from you. When we forget that, government will take your rights from you,” he said.

“When God gives rights no government can take them from you. When you deny God, government certainly has an ability to take away your rights, and that’s the problem that we face today. We’ve been convinced that government give us our rights, the Constitution somehow gives it to us. The Constitution doesn’t give us our rights, it takes them from us.”

Illustrative of his point about getting the media to understand was a recent comment by NBC News anchor Chuck Todd.

Todd slammed Moore because he “doesn’t appear to believe in the Constitution as it’s written.”

The host of “Meet the Press” played a brief clip of the former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice stating: “Our rights don’t come from government, they don’t come from the Bill of Rights. They come from Almighty God.”

Todd commented: “Roy Moore, where the phrase ‘Christian conservative’ doesn’t even begin to describe him, could very well be your next senator. If you don’t understand just how freaked out some folks in the GOP and the White House are, then you don’t know Roy Moore. First off, he doesn’t appear to believe in the Constitution as it’s written.”


Rokita: The wall must come first

Decades of failure by the federal government to enforce the law, to keep its promises and to create immigration policy have left the United States with a host of problems, including what to do with the children of illegal immigrants who have never known another home. Whether it is the DACA question, crime, drug trafficking, labor issues or national security threats, these are the symptoms of a problem that must be addressed by finally building a wall and stopping out-of-control illegal immigration across the southern border.

It is very clear that unless the border is secured first, it will never happen.

Washington liberals will never agree to any policy that actually secures the border. This is because a secure border runs counter to their open-borders ideology and takes away a political issue Democrats use to fire up their political base every election season. The idea they would ever cut a deal in good faith, or agree to a comprehensive immigration reform that secures the border first, is simply naive.

As a result, before anything is done to deal with illegal immigrants already here, Republicans must work with President Trump to build a border wall and secure the border with all available technology, strengthen internal enforcement to prevent visitors from overstaying their visas, and put an end to dangerous sanctuary cities that allow violent criminal illegal immigrants to stay on our streets.

Once that has occurred, Congress can look at how to handle the children of illegal immigrants who are contributing to society.

First, this will not include amnesty. They will be required to go through the same process as other foreign nationals waiting in line and following the law to become Americans. It is fundamentally unfair to award citizenship while there are hundreds of thousands waiting in line and following the rules. We also need to stand in strong opposition to chain migration, which would allow illegal immigrants, if they’re granted citizenship, the ability to sponsor others. This is just another loophole, and we need to close it.

Second, Congress must make the policy and design it in such a way as not to serve as an incentive for more illegal immigration. President Obama’s DACA did the opposite of that — it incentivized illegal immigration and border crossings. Obama’s executive order also represented the worst of executive overreach. This elitist mentality is all too common in Washington. We have a Constitution and a rule of law that must be followed and respected. Rule of law is one of the things lacking in many of the corrupt and failed states supplying the influx of illegal immigrants across the southern border.

On the topic of ignoring the law, there is no more troublesome example than the liberal madness of sanctuary cities where liberal local officials refuse to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts despite the clear threats dangerous illegal immigrants pose to their own citizens. Kate Steinle, Sarah Root and Grant Ronnebeck each had a bright future ahead of them until their lives were quickly and tragically taken away by illegal immigrants. For all three of these law-abiding Americans, they were living their lives as any of us would, but illegal immigrants — each convicted felons who were released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — took their lives away. Sarah was killed by a drag racer, Grant by a man demanding cigarettes, and Kate was shot while walking with her father. We passed Kate’s Law in the House to address this absurdity, and the Senate needs to act.

Enforcing our already-existing immigration laws could have prevented these tragic deaths. It could also help prevent the flow of drugs across our borders. A study by the State Department found that 90 percent to 94 percent of heroin that is consumed in the United States comes from Mexico. In addition, according to the CDC, each day in the U.S. more than 1,000 people are treated for failing to use prescription opioids properly. Any politician who touts their efforts to combat the opioid epidemic while ignoring the flow of heroin and other illegal drugs across the southern border are not being honest.

Congress also needs to make sure immigration policy is helping the American economy, not hurting American workers. We should reexamine immigration quotas and prioritize immigrants who contribute to our economy in ways that create more jobs for Americans. We want the best and the brightest contributing to our economy and society.

Immigration is a critical issue facing our nation. It must be addressed, but it must be addressed in the right order. We need security — we need to build the wall. This will address the root cause of our immigration crisis and it will help create a situation in which we can address other significant issues that have arisen in conjunction with failed immigration policies of the past like DACA, sanctuary cities, chain migration, the flow of illegal drugs and the impact on American jobs and opportunities.

Rokita represents Indiana’s 4th District.

AFAIN: Boom in Bama, Offending America, Church & Sex

Did You Hear that Scream?

If you heard a scream last night, it was probably from one of the smoke-filled rooms in Washington, DC when the establishment Republican types realized that the disgust with their kind of self-centered politics reaches beyond the election of Donald Trump.   Alabama voters overwhelmingly chose the judge who stood for natural marriage, faith, and the Constitution even to the point of losing his judicial seat.  This kind of rare principled courage among elected leaders is not very welcome in Washington or the Republican Party, but a lot of voters seem to want it.

Judge Roy Moore overcame a multi-million dollar campaign against him from Senator Mitch McConnell and campaign support for his opponent from the President and Vice-President.  Moore defeated incumbent Luther Strange by 11 points.

Moore’s appeal is no surprise to AFA-IN. Many years ago, we brought “The Ten Commandments Judge” to Auburn where thousands of Hoosiers came to hear how he stood against the removal of a 10 Commandments inscription in his courtroom.

Offending, A New National Pastime?

I don’t want to say much about the NFL disrespecting the American Anthem over the weekend.  I think most AFA-IN supporters are common sense patriots who understand that America is not perfect, but we are unique.  There are very few places in the world where people can be millionaires for simply chasing a ball around a field for a few hours.  In most countries, one must work a field for hours for a few grains of corn or a day’s meal.  AFA-IN supporters still feel greatly blessed by God to live in America.  So when the see privlidged entertainers acting rudely toward our country, (it’s not the President’s anthem), it is offensive and counterproductive.

Incidentally, this is why I am excited about our timely event next week with historian David Barton who will be speaking on American exceptionalism.   This is a free event at Grace Assembly Church of God at 6822 US 31 at 7 pm.  No tickets or reservations are required.  There will be an offering to support AFA of Indiana and Wallbuilders.

One of the first items I saw on this NFL debacle was a campaign email from Indiana Congressman Todd Rokita. I’d like to share that with you, as I found it to be a very good statement.  Rokita’s comments came a day after Congressman Luke Messer, one of his opponents in the race to challenge Joe Donnelly for US Senate, tweeted: “Stand for the national anthem. @realDonaldTrump is right. Athletes should stand and honor our great country.”

From Congressman Rokita:

As you are turning on the Colts game today, I wanted to share my thoughts on President Trump’s comments about NFL players who kneel during the national anthem.  President Trump said what needed to be said. 

The media is melting down over it, but the truth is, he speaks for the vast majority of Hoosiers and Americans who are disgusted watching athletes who make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars disrespect our great nation — a nation that affords them the opportunity for that type of success.

The NFL should keep politics out of the game.  NFL owners and the league should have created a standard of conduct on this issue, so that players go into the league agreeing with the patriotism of the sport and the fans. 

There are past injustices that we are still addressing as a nation.  But actions such as kneeling during the national anthem only fuel division, they don’t bring us together or help redress wrongs of the past. 

Our nation isn’t perfect, but it’s the most perfect the world has ever known.  We should respect it and work to better it for future generations.

Detaching Sex From Marriage

Sociologist Mark Regnerus has a new in-depth study of how our culture’s lack of sexual morality is impacting relationships in ways not seen in previous generations.  There was a fascinating, if not disturbing, review of Regnerus’ new book (Cheap Sex) that contained the following section specifically looking at how the culture is impacting Christians. It also mentions how churches are impacted by these changes and the confusion it is causing.

The review states the following:

Long-standing Christian sexual ethics are making less and less sense to the un-churched — a key market for evangelicals. That’s giving church leadership fits over just how “orthodox” they can be or should be on matters of sex and sexuality. “Meeting people where they’re at” becomes challenging. Congregations are coming face to face with questions of just how central sexual ethics are to their religious life and message.

Levels of uncertainty — that is, neither agreeing nor disagreeing — about various sexual practices and attitudes are elevated among Christians. When we asked more than 15,000 Americans about sexual ethics, many who attended religious services at least once a week were on the fence. How many?

• 23 percent are unsure about the wisdom of cohabiting before marriage
• 14 percent are unsure about marriage being outdated
• 21 percent don’t know what they think about no-strings-attached sex
• 25 percent don’t know if viewing pornography is okay or not
• 10 percent are unsure about whether extramarital sex might ever be permissible
• 17 percent don’t know if consensual polyamorous unions are okay
One can interpret those on the fence as movable — open to being convinced. But if trends in sexual norms hold, most who once claimed neutrality eventually drift toward the more permissive position.

Cheap sex, it seems, has a way of deadening religious impulses. It’s able to poke holes in the “sacred canopy” over the erotic instinct, to borrow the late Peter Berger’s term. Perhaps the increasing lack of religious affiliation among young adults is partly a consequence of widening trends in non-marital sexual behavior among young Americans, in the wake of the expansion of pornography and other tech-enhanced sexual behaviors.

Cohabitation has prompted plenty of soul searching over the purpose, definition and hallmarks of marriage. But we haven’t reflected enough on how cohabitation erodes religious belief.

We overestimate how effectively scientific arguments secularize people. It’s not science that’s secularizing Americans — it’s sex.

In Their Own Words:

“To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to laud the more distinguished character of Christian.” – General George Washington at Valley Forge on May 2, 1778

AFA-IN: Immigration Poll, Unemployment & Opioids

 Call to Action
NOTE:  As I’ve written before, 2017 has been a year of some modest financial stress for AFA of Indiana.  Your standing with AFA of Indiana through a tax-deductible donation for any amount this month would be greatly appreciated.  You can donate online at:

Hoosiers Hold a Strong View of a Trump Immigration Policy

A statewide Zogby Poll conducted last month finds incredibly strong support for a congressional proposal (H.R. 3003) that is being pushed by the White House concerning “sanctuary cities.”   The bill would restrict federal Department of Homeland Security grants to states or local municipalities that do not comply with federal immigration laws. It would also require enforcement of criminal detentions of illegal (deportable) convicts.

The poll found that 78% of Hoosiers support the portion of the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act that requires state and local law enforcement to comply with federal requests to take into custody deportable foreign criminals rather than releasing them.   By a margin of 74% to 19% Hoosiers also support a provision of this House-passed bill that allows victims of crime at the hands of illegal aliens to sue jurisdictions that did not follow federal law in holding such offenders.

Not only do seven out of ten Hoosiers want their two Senators to pass this bill, 51% of Democrats want Democrat Senator Joe Donnelly to vote for H.R. 3003.

The Rise of Government, a Labor Decline and an Opioid Problem . . . Are they Connected?

There is a great deal of talk about America’s opioid crisis and what can be done about such drugs.  This has led to a focus on narcotic painkillers.  In reality, America has an addiction problem.  “What might be some of the factors leading to such addictions?” is a slightly different twist to a lot of the attention placed upon the types of drugs being abused.  Could certain trends be connected to this dependent behavior?

In 1960, only 3% of men in their prime were not in the US labor force.  Today, that number has risen to 11%.   What impact might that have on men and the male psyche?  Is there a connection between a loss of work, government assistance, and substance abuse?

Here’s one possible revelation.  Among non-working men ages 24- 54 roughly half are taking a pain pill during the day.  Two-thirds of those are prescription medicines.

And then there is this: two-thirds of nonworking men who take pain pills use government programs, especially Medicaid, to pay for them.

Economist Alan B. Krueger looked into this in a study released through the Brookings Institution.  He writes that, “labor force participation is lower in areas of the U.S. with a high rate of opioid prescriptions, and labor force participation fell more in areas with a high rate of opioid prescriptions.”   (About 40% of non-working men say pain keeps them from working.)

If there is a connection, the question seems to be “did losing work increase drug use or abuse?” or “did more drug abuse lead to a less employment?”  One may wonder too, what the secondary effects from the government’s role might be, if any, in paying for such a large chunk of these medicines.  The study shows a trend, but is it not conclusive. Still, it is worthwhile to contemplate possible links to certain social problems.

Abstinence Message is Still Strong In Spite of a Sex-Saturated Culture

Our friends at the Illinois Family Institute recently posted an interesting article about American’s views of teen sex.   A strong majority of adults still believe teens are not ready for sex and should not be encouraged to engage in it – even if it is labeled “safe.”  In fact, 71 percent of adults surveyed say that sex education classes should primarily use practical skills to reinforce waiting for sex.

Were it not for the responses of Millennials in the survey, the overall support for abstinence would be even stronger as a much smaller majority of Millennials (57 percent) agrees with an abstinence approach.  In contrast, 74% of Gen X, 75% of Boomers and 85% of Elders support the abstinence approach.

It seems that the strongest influence upon views on teen sex and sex education is religious faith. When asked what primary message sex education classes should offer, 78 percent of self-identified Christians and 86 percent of practicing Christians agree it should be a message that uses practical skills to reinforce waiting for sex. The group most enthusiastic about this approach is evangelicals, with 94 percent in agreement. By comparison, only 52 percent of non-Christians agree with this approach.

The way questions are asked about teen sexuality greatly impacted participants’ responses. “When questions about sex education are framed within the context of information about teens’ habits and concerns about at-risk behavior, people’s views become slightly more conservative,” the researchers found.  “For example, when informed that the majority of teens are not sexually active, and that fewer are sexually active today compared to teens 20 years ago—facts that surprised two-thirds of respondents (65 percent)—77 percent indicate that a message that reinforces waiting for sex should be the primary approach to sex education. Before they received this information, 71 percent held this view. Women are more influenced by this knowledge, shifting from 72 to 82 percent who advocate for a message of waiting.”

In Their Own Words:

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.” – George Washington, Letter to Robert Morris, 1786


AFA of IN: Good Taxes & Families

The Tone Deaf Political Party?

My guess is that some Hoosiers may have been surprised to receive an email from state Republican headquarters on Friday afternoon touting Indiana’s “leading the way” in lower taxes.   It was a call to Washington for tax cuts and tax reform using Indiana as the model.  The email had the hutzpah to claim that Indiana Republicans “put Hoosier taxpayers first” with a “blueprint for how tax relief works.”

Let me see, Governor Mike Pence called for a 10% across the board income tax cut, and had to fight his own party tooth and nail to get a mere third of that through the statehouse.  Then, as soon as he was gone, the legislature passed the largest tax hike in Indiana history, erasing that tax cut.  This is the regressive $1.2 billion per year gas tax hike that shackles Indiana drivers with the 5th highest gas tax in the nation and automatically increases it with inflation without any future legislative action. 

The Northwest Times of Indiana has noted that fuel taxes are just few of the 45 taxes and fee increases passed by the legislature this year.  It is true that Indiana is low tax compared to many states, but the idea that Hoosiers no longer suffer from a big government requiring a large tax burden to feed it seems out of touch with average Hoosiers.

In 2013 Indiana ranked 6th best in the nation when it comes to taxes on businesses, something upon which Indiana Republicans have focused a lot of attention.  However, when it comes to the tax burden upon individual Hoosiers, we ranked 32nd according to the US Census Bureau.  The average Hoosier, before this new gas tax hike, already paid $2,049 per year in taxes.  That’s a big difference from the $3,600 paid by the highest taxed state of Vermont, but it’s also a distance from the $1,430 paid by the lowest taxed citizens in South Dakota.  The national average was a lot closer to Hoosiers tax burden than either the high or low taxed states at $2,199.

Incidentally, back in 2013 Hoosiers were already paying 16 cents more per gallon of gas in taxes than South Dakota residents. We were also paying 11 cents more per gallon in taxes than even those living in the high tax state of Vermont.

No one disputes the need to maintain roads, but a review of how our existing gas taxes had been used, and investigating the efficiency of the cost we pay for road construction, were two concerns that were not adequately addressed before this new gas tax hike flew through the Republican led legislature.

To add insult to injury, some of the few Republicans who stood for low taxes in 2017, (like Senator Mike Delph and Representative Bruce Borders), are now finding themselves in primary battles instigated by their own party leaders for not embracing the establishment narrative.

Cultural Impact:  Is One Parent Just as Good As Two?

A recent article in Psychology Today named for a survey of 1,000 women announced, “One Parent Can Do Just as Good a Job as Two, Women Say.”  More than 70% of those surveyed believed that a single parent could do just as good a job as two parents.  This included married women and those with and without children. More than 60% of the women “agreed that children do best with multiple adults invested and helping, but that two married parents are not necessary.”

The article praised this finding as “women’s liberation from one narrow path” calling it “a good thing.”   But is it really a good thing that a majority of women believe one parent can do just as good a job as two when it is women and children who suffer the most from the decline of marriage in society?

A mountain of research has found that children, and parents, do better in a married relationship. One reason married parenthood is better is due to the stability it provides over other relationships.  For example, couples that marry before having children are far more likely to stay together than other living and parenting arrangements.

Marriage also provides family members economic stability. Single mother families are five times more likely to experience poverty than married parents. Single fathers and cohabiting parents are also more likely to live in poverty.

Women and children in a married home also have better physical security.  They have a lower risk of being exposed to domestic violence. Married women are less likely to experience physical abuse than single or cohabiting women.  Children are at the lowest risk for abuse when living with their married mother and father.  They are at the greatest risk for neglect and abuse when they live with an unmarried mother and her boyfriend.

Marriage is also the best means of attaching a father to his children, which is an important parenting connection.   As the American Academy of Pediatrics explained in a recent report:

“Fathers do not parent like mothers, nor are they a replacement for mothers when they are not at home; they provide a unique, dynamic, and important contribution to their families and children.”

Single parents can, and millions do, a good job of raising children, but as a society we should still promote the ideal with the lowest number of obstacles as the best form for child and family well being.

In their Own Words:

“You can’t ignore the reality that faith and family, those two things, are integral parts of having limited government, lower taxes, and free societies.”  – Sen. Rick Santorum


Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.

The conservative who can beat Joe Donnelly by State Senator Mike Delph


I’ve known Todd for 17 years.  Todd is a conservative and a fighter.  Todd is someone Hoosiers can trust.  And Todd Rokita is my choice to be our next United States Senator from the great State of Indiana.

Todd Rokita will not only fight for conservative principles and Hoosier values but also has the work ethic and determination to take the fight to Joe Donnelly and defeat him in November 2018.  Todd is a tireless campaigner.  His work ethic and tenacity are unmatched in this Republican field and he is the only person in this race who has won two statewide elections.

Todd fought for and defended Indiana’s landmark photo ID law to combat voter fraud.  He took on members of both parties and fought for redistricting reform to term limit politicians and give Hoosiers better representation.  As a result, Indiana got better districts, but the insider politicians got back at Todd and drew him out of his district.  But it was worth it to Todd.

Joe Donnelly says one thing here in Indiana, then turns around and votes with Washington liberals.  He voted for Nancy Pelosi.  He voted for the Obama stimulus program.  He voted for Obamacare and even voted against allowing a repeal and replace debate to take place on the Senate floor.  He consistently stands with liberal Chuck Schumer when it counts.  We shouldn’t be surprised since Joe Donnelly is really a liberal transplant from New York City.

Todd’s home, heart, and family are right here in Indiana, not Washington D.C.  Todd won’t raise your taxes.  He believes we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  He’ll term limit Washington politicians, pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, and make sure if Congress doesn’t pass a budget then members of Congress won’t get paid.  Todd will fight alongside President Trump to make sure we have a strong national defense to keep our homeland safe and secure.

Todd believes the 2nd Amendment protects our God-given right to defend ourselves and our families.  Todd is a family man and 100% pro-life. Todd will fight for strict-constructionist Conservative judges who understand the plain meaning of the Constitution.  The late great Justice Antonin Scalia will be the model Todd looks to follow.

Todd Rokita is the conservative fighter who can beat Joe Donnelly, and with your help, he will be our next United States Senator.


Sen. Mike Delph

This email was sent by: Hoosiers for Rokita
P.O. Box 164, Danville, IN, 46122 United States

Privacy Policy       Web Version

Update Profile      Manage Subscriptions      Unsubscribe

AFA of IN: Threats & Opportunities

A Threat to Private Schools and Parental Choice?

Recently, Indiana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jennifer McCormick, joined her two predecessors, Glenda Ritz and Suellen Reed on a panel discussion in Indianapolis.  The event was the annual meeting of the Indiana Coalition for Public Education, a group opposed to school choice, vouchers, charter schools, private schools and home education.

The new Indiana school superintendent drew strong applause from the audience when she went after Indiana’s school voucher system calling for more state regulations on charter and private schools.   McCormick says the Indiana Department of Education is “pushing back” against the state’s free market style school choice program began in 2009.   She wants private schools that receive vouchers to have more academic and financial regulations from the state.

This is not the first time Supt. McCormick has expressed her intent to limit school choice and harm private schools.   She made similar comments in an interview last month with National Public Radio.  Democrats in the legislature recently attempted to have the state audit private schools but were unsuccessful.   McCormick now seems to support such an effort.

Ironically, McCormick won election last fall with strong support from many groups that support school choice.  However, there were some during her convention nomination who raised concerns about McCormick’s liberal views and the fact that between 2004 and 2014 the Muncie educator had voted as a Democrat in the primary in four of the last six elections.  That concern was dismissed and quickly forgotten after she was chosen by two-thirds of the delegates.  Many in the Republican Party seemed to care more about winning an election than the policy implications after the election.

This is potentially a serious threat to freedom in Indiana.  Our nationally recognized school choice program, which helps low-income families, is very popular with parents and voucher students.  However, one of the problems of liberals and many big government Republicans is that they really do not trust parent’s ability to pick a good school without the government’s “help.”   Others in this category simply despise Christianity. They do not like the idea of a few more parents being able to choose religious education for their child.  They have this intense opposition to vouchers, even though nine out of ten Hoosier K12 students still attend a public school.

I believe that many of these types of politicians and education leaders understand that one way to undermine school choice in Indiana is through more state regulations.  They know that if the state gets heavy-handed with school vouchers, many private schools will stop taking them in order to avoid becoming a mirror image of the public schools or to avoid becoming a subordinate of the state.  Many families will lose out on the kind of education that they want for their children if private schools have to protect their autonomy this way.   It is a concern some pro-family groups are watching very closely.

An Educational Opportunity for Students and Families

We are less than one month away from our evening with historian and author David Barton of Wallbuilders.   David is in very high demand as a speaker across the nation.  It has been many years since he has spoken in Indiana.   With history under attack today, there’s not a better opportunity to hear some positive things about America’s foundations.   Mark your calendars and make plans to attend this free event on Wednesday, October 4th at Grace Assembly of God Church at 6822 US 31 in Greenwood at 7pm.

I’d also like to mention that we are looking for an Indianapolis area church to host AFA national President Tim Wildmon with us on Thursday evening, November 30th.   If you are interested in this, contact us for details and our needs for this evening.

 In Their Own Words:

“We have, for those that have eyes to see, an object lesson in what the quest for ‘quality of life’ without reference to ‘sanctity of life’ can involve. The origins of the Holocaust lay, not in Nazi terrorism, but in Germany’s acceptance of euthanasia and mercy-killing as humane and estimable.”   – British Journalist Malcolm Muggeridge

Billboard Truth about Muhammad: Even the Left and Alt Left cannot dispute this …

Indianapolis makes the internet…..

FW: Even the Left and AltLeft cannot dispute this …

…interesting…you can’t have it both ways…free speech is a two way street.
Muslims Demand Infidel Owner Remove ‘Perfect Man’ Sign — He Has Brilliant Counter-Offer
After Muslims demanded the removal of a billboard criticizing the Islamic prophet Muhammad (left), owner Don Woodsmall (right) had a brilliant response. (Photo Source: The Indiana NewsPBS)
Just days ago, leftists and Muslim groups across the U.S. loudly condemned a billboard along Interstate 465 in Indianapolis, Indiana. 
The sign contains a simple message which reads, “The Perfect Man,” with check-marked bullet points including “Rapist,” “13 wives, 11 at one time,” and “Tortured & killed unbelievers” Instantly, Muslims knew the billboard was calling out their prophet.
When Muslims noticed a billboard calling their prophet Muhammad a “rapist” who “married a 6-year-old” and “beheaded Jews,” they immediately demanded the removal of the “racist and Islamophobic” message. However, the uproar forced the billboard’s owner to come forward — and he has just one thing to say to them.
Although Islam was never mentioned, instantly, Muslims knew the billboard was calling out their prophet Muhammad, prompting them to demand the sign’s removal in accordance with Sharia blasphemy laws. This national outcry has already prompted the sign’s owner to relinquish his personal safety by coming forward to not only take credit for the billboard’s construction but issue yet another daring message to “truthophobes” who deny its credibility.
WTHR reports that Don Woodsmall, who is a Duke law school graduate, has proudly taken responsibility for the billboard but says that while he is unafraid to show his face to the dangerous Muslim community, he’ll protect his clients’ identities. 
Woodsmall came forward to local media to slam free speech objectors, confidently declaring that he would gladly remove the sign himself — all they have to do is prove the statement wrong.
In his statement, Woodsmall says, “It is interesting to note… the Muslim community knew exactly who it was referring to. The truth is a powerful weapon.”
Woodsmall explained that he only agreed to erect the sign after thoroughly researching each claim and finding proof directly in the passages of the Quran and hadith. In addition, he spoke to at least half a dozen Islamic scholars who confirmed the scriptures in question.
“I was convinced that each point listed on the billboard was historically and factually true. I would encourage others to do their own research to verify the veracity of each and every point,” Woodsmall wrote. He also noted that he would remove the billboards if the statements are proven to be false.
Despite Muslims demanding that Woodsmall names his clients, undoubtedly for nefarious purposes, the billboard owner refuses to endanger their lives. The unwavering owner slammed the sign’s critics, reminding them that it is the very definition of free speech to question and tear apart lies and toxic ideologies.
“My clients want this national conversation to happen if we are ever to overcome the violence that plagues Islam,” he wrote to 13 Investigates. “This is not only pro-American, but beneficial to Muslims who came to America to escape the Sharia.”
Disturbingly, designated terrorist group CAIR and lying Muslims are declaring the message “racist” and “Islamophobic,” although none can provide any scripture or historical text to back up their claims. On the other hand, each one of the bullet points has a direct correlation to the Quran and hadith.
§  “Married 6 year old” — Sahih Muslim (8:3309), Sahih Bukhari (58:234, 3896, 5158, and 3311)
§  “Beheaded 600 Jews in one day” — Quran (33:26), Ibn Ishaq/Hisham (674), Abu Dawud (4390)
§  “Slave owner & dealer” — Sahih Muslim (3901), Sahih Bukhari (47:743), Quran (4:2433:52)
§  “13 wives, 11 at one time” — Sahih Bukhari (62:6), Sahih Bukhari (5:268)
§  “Rapist” — Abu Dawud (2150), Sahih Muslim (3433), Quran (4:2433:50), Sahih Bukhari (34:432), Sahih Muslim (3371)
§  “Tortured & killed unbelievers” — Quran (8:67), Sahih Muslim (4322), Sahih Bukhari (52:25611:626), (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819, Ibn Kathir v.3 p.403), 109 verses of violence
If the Muslim critics were honest, they’d point out that the only flaw in Woodsmall’s message is that Muhammad didn’t necessarily behead 600 Jews in one day — historical records suggest it a number between 500 and 900 Jews and likely over a period of several days. 
If the left considers it “hate speech” to summarize these violent and bigoted Islamic passages, it’s time for them to admit that the Quran and hadith are hate speech. It’s not racist to denounce Muhammad’s ownership of dozens of black slaves as racist. In fact, it’s racist of Muslims and leftist to defend Muhammad’s slave ownership and attempt to censor it.
The truth is that the prophet Muhammad boasted of his own racist slave ownership, sex slavery, marriage to a child, and mass slaughter of unbelieving men, women, and children. These are not fear-mongering allegations but direct quotations from the prophet, his closest companions, and even his favorite child bride, Aisha
It is inexcusable for Muslims to demand we shut up or apologize for pointing out the sadistic behavior of their prophet. Instead, they are the ones who should be apologizing for calling a slave-owning, murdering, pedophile rapist the “perfect man” and denounce his actions immediately.