And now for something really bad.

Having once run for Congress as a Republican, I thought that I had become numb to the politically disgusting and immoral.  I had assumed that since I had met so many vile and despicable people (the money men, the party leaders, and other apparatchiks of evil) I could no longer be surprised by the wicked, sneaky and woeful incompetence of our political subspecies.

Well, I was wrong. 

I knew about the IRS’s Whistleblower-Informant Award; a bounty system whereby the worst people of society spiff each other.  Extremely evil, of course, but well-within what I know to be the character of Satan’s minions.  But there seems to be an aspect to this that I’d never heard of before.  One that makes me think that Satan himself must shield his face from the IRS.

I’d recently been sent an email and read a few corroborations on the internet about a scheme by which whistleblowers are encouraged to cheat, break laws or lay a trap such that an innocent person can be “found guilty” under IRS “law.”  The IRS web link I’d seen as “proof” was no good; either the page was taken down (for obvious reasons) or it never existed.  But a friend of freedom (I’ll not mention his name since it could tend to get him audited) sent me another page link that seems to have been retooled.  Yet on it I still found things like this:

If the whistleblower planned and initiated the actions that led to the underpayment of tax, or the violation of the internal revenue laws, the award may be reduced.

…The award may be reduced?!?! 

Here is the scenario as culled from both the page I read, and the one apparently deleted/changed:

You’re an accountant for a large company, and you’d like to make some big money the easy way.  So you cook the books against your employer, and then tell the IRS about it.  You don’t go to jail or get fined…your employer does!  And you get up to 30 percent of the tax/penalty money!

What a deal!

Oh wait…I forgot.  You don’t get the full 30 percent if you’re the one who “planned and initiated the actions that led to the underpayment of tax.  You may get only 15 percent, the minimum payment for LYING, CHEATING and STEALING FOR THE IRS!

Why isn’t this in the news?

Why are we so worried about Ted Stevens and other corrupt politicians while we let this one slip through the slime of politics?

My friends, we have work to do.  And we must work fast.

Our servants have become our tyrants, and there’s only bad history in that.


Oh, and before I forget (or because I forgot), pease note the following:

The Horning-Kelly ’08 Campaign Committee Meeting/ Pitch In is this coming weekend, Saturday August 2 at 10am  at Sahm Park under the shelter.

If you’d like to become part of the force for liberty and justice, if you’d like to defend Rule of Law and oppose Rule of Tyrants, then join us!


Real ID is Illegal!

These states have come to their senses regarding Real ID, and have enacted law/resolutions to say so:
















New Hampshire

North Dakota


South Carolina





Unfortunately, Indiana is not on this list.  Now, legally, it’s not necessary for a state to say anything about Real ID, because “disobedience” to such crime as Real ID is the duty of every state.  States own federalism, after all.  They are the only enforcers of it.  

…What, did you think that the Supreme Court can police its own powers?  That’d be akin to a dog holding its own leash.  A very bad dog.

Anyway, a vote for me is a vote for governed government.  I would demand Rule of Law as opposed to Rule of Tyrants.  I’d restore the law, not flout and destroy it.

Isn’t it about time?

Illegal nannies

Here is an excellent example of good thinking wasted on a bad premise.  This policy statement from the usually on-target Cato Institute makes a fine moral argument against “The Nanny State.”  However, it begins with the statement “Policymakers should…”, when it’s wrong to think that there is legally any such thing as a “policymaker” as we now conceive that term, and/or that legally, there can be any nannying anywhere from the realm of politics.

All civilized people, including politicians, should not do what they are not legally allowed to do.  And according the constitutions (which I understand most politicians have not read), politicians are not allowed to do very much. 

Citizens, on the other hand, and according to the same federal and state constitutions, are authorized (by authority of the constitutions that grant politicians their station) to do practically anything they choose as long as they don’t impinge upon others’ rights and powers.

Citizens have many and undefined rights and powers, while politicians have few and tightly defined rights and powers.  Such an arrangement works better than anything else ever tried.  And it’s the law.

Politicians have no legal authority at all in what we buy, eat, smoke or drive.  They have no authority at all in what we say, who we hire, who we fire, who we meet or who we love.  They have no authority at all over our property unless they buy it at a fair price (there can, legally, be none of today’s popular “asset forfeiture”).  

Powers not specifically granted are specifically denied (see amendment 10 of the USA Constitution and Article 1 Section 25 of the Indiana Constitution).  And all other rights and powers are reserved to the states and the people (ultimately, the people).

The fact that politicians act like they have other legal powers is due to the fact that we, as a nation, act like fools in the voting booth.

So it’s wrong to think that “policymakers should” be moral about the way they regulate our eating, smoking, shooting, speech, hiring/firing, etc.  They have no authority to do those things at all.

It’s not just that they’re doing it badly, or that they don’t have the proper frame of mind.  They have no legal authority.

In other words, you have just as much right to regulate politicians’ consumption as they do to regulate yours.  In fact, you have much more power than they do.  You can fire them. 

Doggone it, you should.


Must we die before this stops?

It only takes about twenty minutes (maybe an hour if you’ve never read a constitution before) to read the whole USA Constitution, archaic syntax and all.  It’s pretty short.  The Indiana Constitution is much longer.  With my (not so brief) comments, a Table of Contents and an Index, it comes out to 42 pages.   It’s not like reading a novel, but it’s still readable in a single sitting.

HR 3221, or the deceitfully named “the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008,” which passed through the House of Traitors yesterday, and is on the way to the Traitors’ Senate for a vote tomorrow, is about 600 pages long. 

In six hundred pages, you could easily fit the USA Constitution, the Indiana Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and my favorite Robert Heinlein novel.

What’s in all those pages that will be signed into law?

Well, a lot; and none of it is good.

For instance, all credit card transactions will thenceforth be reported to the IRS.  Why?  Because nobody will stop this.

The national debt ceiling will be increased up to 10.6 trillion dollars.  Why?  Because nobody will stop this.
The bill’s “Foreclosure Prevention” title is ironic, because federal policy has been pressuring lenders to not only make loans to people who can’t pay them back, but also encourage leveraged trades on such bad loans, which will certainly explode into a massive banking an foreclosure conflagration very soon.

Of course those quasi-government-agency/bad-ideas-badly-executed-by-corrupt-millionaires, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, get bailout provisions, of course; but the bill contains no help at all for the millions of Americans actually harmed by all this crazy spending, debt, bureaucratic tomfoolery and economic collapse.  Why?  Because nobody will stop this, and nobody but liberty zealots like me will even read it.

What really cuts to the quick is that, chances are good, after all this madness slams home, most voters will still trudge (their cars will be out of gas) in tattered clothes, unemployed but still loyal to the party machines, into voting booths in November and do what they have always done…vote for the people and parties that pick our pockets, steal our rights and then stab us in the back.  Why?

I haven’t the foggiest idea.

Another “I told you so”

I know.  Nobody likes to hear “I told you so.”  But I’m a candidate for public office, and I’m supposed to toot my horn about such things as, well, being right.

The price of gas is more in the news now than it was four years ago when I wrote this press release (that never made the news, of course):

Price Gouging, or Bad Planning?

It wasn’t so long ago that Democrats wanted European-like prices for gasoline.  They reasoned that if gasoline were more expensive, then more people would ride bicycles, walk, or use public transportation and, in general, conserve this energy resource as if it were finite.  Expensive gas would promote the development of alternative fuels and energy sources, and probably fuel a new wave of technological breakthroughs.  While we may not like the idea of expensive gas, the long-term reasoning is actually pretty sound.

Sadly, Democratic politicians abandoned this reasoning when they lifted gasoline taxes before an election (the late Governor O’Bannon in 2000), suggested that we tap into our Strategic Oil Reserves (several Democrats on state and federal levels), or (as Rep. Julia Carson had done this past June) call for an investigation of the oil industry at the first hint of rising gasoline prices.

Ms. Carson has voted for federal price controls, though this policy has proven disastrous every time, and in every country, and every market that it has been tried.  Ironically, she’s also voted against fuel alternative incentives and raising CAFE standards, two common liberal rallying points.

Ms. Carson isn’t a policy wonk, to be sure.  But her ideas on energy consumption are inconsistent, illogical and counterproductive.  Without better representation in this key policy area, and soon, our future looks grim.

There hasn’t been a new oil refinery built in the USA since 1976.  So instead of doing the math of supply and demand with our own resources, we turned to global markets that have their own agenda in global politics.   This has made us dependent upon foreign intervention as an energy policy, and raises the possibility that third-world nations may soon pass us in terms of energy efficiency and robust delivery/point of use generation…and this could mean even further erosion of USA industry and technological prowess.

We’ve built our cities for cars and cheap gas; so we have seas of parking lots and miles and miles of ugly boxes we call buildings.  Such unsightly, inefficient building lowers our quality of life, steals our leisure time, and makes us a nation of red-faced road-ragers.  Oh, and of course, like most federal policies of the last forty years, this lack of clear-sighted policy has cost us tens of thousands of jobs.

We must do better.  We’re past-due for some forward-thinking in energy and transportation policy, and I will make free-market investment, innovation and infrastructure development a high priority on day one.


Indiana Greenbacks? Liberty Dollars? …Why not?

I almost always agree with Ron Paul.  Excepting his commitment to the GOP (I tried it once), I could be his understudy.  His travails against central banking, in keen particular, are right on the …er …money. 

Article 11, Section 3 of the Indiana Constitution says this:

If the General Assembly shall enact a general banking law, such law shall provide for the registry and countersigning, by an officer of State, of all paper credit designed to be circulated as money; and ample collateral security, readily convertible into specie, for the redemption of the same in gold or silver, shall be required; which collateral security shall be under the control of the proper officer or officers of State.

I’d love to see a debt-free currency issued in competition/ replacement of Federal Reserve Notes.  …Did you notice our constitution’s gold/silver valuation requirement?  Very nice. 

As Governor I would insist upon citizens’ right to barter using whatever unit of barter it chooses (such as the “Liberty Dollar” which, in 2007, was illegally stolen in Indiana by our “federal” government agents).

What’s the choice here?

A good part of any “major” party (meaning “entrenched and corrupt”) campaign is hurling and repulsing the attack that “corporate money” or “out of state contributors” have bought off the candidate.  Fair enough; we all know the problem of money in politics.  Yet politicians know that’s what we vote for, so they take the money and run anyway.  And sure enough, we vote for them anyway.

OK, that’s what we want, apparently.  We do vote for it over and over and over and over….

But especially irritating to me personally, is when journalists hurl the “not enough money to be competitive” grenade.  So a good part of any “third party” campaign is wasted trying to gain the imprimatur of legitimacy offered by all that we hate about politics. 

We try to tell voters we “mean to win” when elections aren’t even about candidates; they’re about voters.  We try to raise money in order to get the “free media” exposure obtained by attaching corrupting strings to the candidate.  We try to become, in other words, just like the fancy pants parties so that we’ll be treated to the same respect and electoral success as those evil monstrosities.

What in the world is that all about?  Are we to feign upset about the obscene, corrupting money in campaigns, and then wallow in it, and point to the pathetic challengers who “can’t raise enough money?”  Are we to demand a truly level playing field …in which all campaigns are corrupt from the start?

Or, could we perhaps undergo the long-due epiphany that the playing field is not at all level, and that the candidates who should enjoy the greatest advantage are those without strings attached, who stand for something, and who are actually candidates for public service, not Caesars in waiting.

Remember, the corporate giants who contribute to Big Party campaigns expect, and get, special deals for their investments.  Ordinary folks who contribute to Big Party campaigns probably don’t know how much of their tax money already goes to these parties, and have believed what they’ve been told about “reality,” “pragmatism” and their “wasted vote.”

Who, on the other hand, is willing to pay for a level playing field?  Who will reach into their own wallets and/or time to do what is right, as opposed to “playing the game?”

In all the years I’ve been watching, I’ve seen only one candidate who is worth more than a puddle of spit raise “enough money to be competitive,” and that is Ron Paul.  In my lifetime (50 years and counting), he’s the first guy to actually stand for something and raise huge stacks of cash.

It could be that others, like me, are just lousy at fundraising.  OK, that’s a distinct possibility.

But if people who stand for constitutions possess an unfortunate, perhaps genetic inability to raise money, what would you rather have?  An evil dictator who knows how to campaign, or a great public servant who just can’t put on a show like that?  Would you prefer a great politician/ bad candidate, or a great candidate/ deadly politician? 

Well, think about an analog in any other area of life.  If you need a delicate, life-saving surgery, would you prefer a skilled surgeon who may have a speech impediment, but has a brilliant surgucal success record; or would you choose a handsome actor who can’t hold a scalpel, but delivers inspiring lines with poise and pathos?

Is this really that hard?

Once again, the choice is yours.



Huxley Only Imagined…

Well now.  Here’s something interesting

Not only is the Orwellian title attention-grabbing in its own right (and absurd, since experience hath shewn that governments by their nature do the opposite of “save lives.”), but just read this perversity and see if you don’t get cold chills.  Just think about the ramifications – our corrupt, foolish and selfish politicians collecting and owning all DNA data from everybody born in the USA:

  • Our politicians’ record with data security (from both hacking and plain old screwups) is just awful.  Mistakes will be madeHuge ones.  The United Kingdom, our apparent role model, already screwed up with DNA samples, among other things.
  • You think “pre-existing condition” exclusions are bad now!
  • What little good could come out of such a thing is certainly outweighed by sci-fi mischief and Keystone Cops incompetence.

Oh, but it sounds so well-intended and helpful, doesn’t it?  What’s the history of that as applied to politicians?

Anyway, it’s scheduled for debate in the House of Representatives.  Nearly all reps will vote on this without having read a word of it.  They may tell a 20-something legislative aid to read it for them, but most of those starry-eyed future congresscritters haven’t lived long enough to get through a history book and they’ve never heard about such a thing as constitutional limitation of powers.

It’s up to you to tell your reps what’s what and just who they work for.  Brave New World?  It’s still your choice.

Choose wisely.


…Stimulated ENOUGH?

coming-money-trustPoliticians have told us that giving tax money to multimillionaire athletes stimulates the economy and our otherwise lacking sense of pride.  Giving tax money to enormous multinational corporations stimulates the economy and promotes innovation.  Giving tax money to third-world dictators, erotic artists and apologetic criminals stimulates the economy, peace, art and justice.  Of course, giving tax money back to taxpayers stimulates the economy too, just as taking it in the first place did.  It’s all good, right?

With all this stimulation going on, you’d expect that our economy, technology and pride would have been stimulated past Pluto by now.

Actually, the USA has never equaled the vigor and innovation we’d experienced before the invention of Income Tax and the so-called \”Federal Programs;\” and now we’re in a downward spiral of litigation, complexity, corruption, lost liberties and economic meltdown.

Why?  Because freedom works, politics doesn’t; politicians lie, it is their nature to gobble up power; and it is our nature to think that we have to just grin and bear it all.

Why in the world do we think that political campaigns are about candidates and their promises?  We act (and vote and pay taxes) as if Election Day is for politicians.  But it’s not.

Political candidates often refuse unscripted public debates and direct questions, and instead control “the message” through tightly-scripted marketing and staged events.

I ask because “winning” campaigns cost lots of money, and you know very well where some of that money comes from.

I ask because negative campaigning usually works.

I ask because those stupid yard signs work (think about that!).

I ask because the good candidates would love to have ten seconds of your time, and almost surely won’t get it.

I am one of three candidates for the important job of Indiana Governor.

cropped-youYou are the boss.  I respectfully suggest that this time around you interview us at least to the degree that you’d interview a burger-flipper in a fast-food restaurant.  Ask real questions and expect real answers.  Don’t take no for an answer, and watch for lies and bunk.  Watch, attend, or even host a candidates’ debate.  And when you’ve gathered your facts (yes, facts really do exist) and made your decision, tell others what you’ve found.

This is a pivotal time.  In light of what’s happening to us now, in the most fearful and rapidly collapsing culture on earth, it’s time we wake up and take our roles seriously.

And no role is more important on Election Day than that of the voter.

…That’s you.

In Politicians We Do NOT Trust

If you’re not a Christian, turn back now.  This blog isn’t for you.  The following is for my brothers and sisters in Christ:


I do not pretend to be a good Christian.  I try, and I fail badly, frequently.  If you expect a Christian to be free of doubts or missteps, then I don’t qualify.

Even so, I’d love to speak to church groups all over the state because I’ve got more than just a nit to pick with my Christian family. 

I believe that my “govern government” message is, essentially, to give back to God what is God’s.  American churches have given waaaay too much to Caesar.

There was a time in this state and nation when moral instruction, health, education and welfare were the domain of the church and/or other local voluntary associations.  Politicians had nothing to do with these critical social functions, and Americans were the better for it.

If your barn burnt down, the congregation would build it back up.  If you needed healthcare, chances are you’d get it in a church-run hospital.  Churches founded colleges, ran local schools, built parks, doled out charity (to those that actually needed it!), and cared for the elderly and alone. 

And, critically, the church was a powerful social regulator in that their physical, social relevance also meant that excommunication was a big deal; not just a meaningless dismissal.

Well, we’ve delegated all this to Caesar, his bread and circuses, and his corruptions.  See the results around you?  Not so pretty.

I’m just about done with many Christians’ politician-friendly “interpretation” of the tribute penny story found in three books of the New Testament: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” (Luke 20: 26)

Some Christians think this means that the money isn’t all that important, or that, as in Luke 18:25, you’re much better off without it anyway.  It’s true that you can’t serve two masters.

But Christ himself pointed us in an entirely more incisive and active direction through Matthew 17:24-27.  The key phrases are, ““Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him,” and “…so that we may not offend them…give it to them for my tax and yours.”

Why do I think that’s the key?

Because, first of all, Christ Himself says that the children of God are exempt from Caesar’s tax.  Second, because they’re paying taxes in this case just for appearances sake.
according to just about everywhere in the Bible, human Kings represent our turn from god and toward human idols (see I Samuel: 8, Acts 12: 21-23), and…most significantly and powerfully … everything and everyone, belongs to God!

Including Caesar.

So what belongs to Caesar if EVERYTHING belongs to God?
I’ll not write up a long description of proof texts, but if you get curious, consider Deut. 8:17-18, Deuteronomy 10:14, 1 Chronicles 29:11, 1 Chronicles 29: 14,  Psalm 24:1, Job 41:11,  Haggai 2:8, Psalm 50:10-12 and Psalm 100:3.

And with all the talk of money, we mustn’t forget what’s more important:

“You are not your own. You were bought at a price” – 1 Cor. 6:19-20 NIV.

And did we Christians somehow miss that the early Christians were killed in droves and in horrible ways for defying Caesar and spreading the Word of God? 

I don’t believe Christians are called to be garnishes on Caesar’s dinner plate.  We are to be beacons to God’s Covenant and Kingdom.  We’re supposed to exemplify and point to the truth, not act like doormats.
Yes, some might say, but what about Romans 13?
Yes; about that.
I think we’ve been badly misinterpreting that one too.
The rest of Romans is obviously written to Jews living in Rome who (apparently) needed reminders about Temple discipline (remember, not only was the Word sharper than a two-edged sword, but there was also Temple Tax and punishment like lashings, stonings and such).  Jews had a theocratic government, and Paul was exhorting them to remember that.
I understand people think that  Paul suddenly interrupts the chapter to discuss civil government when the rest was about church/Temple/faith.  And depending upon the translation, it sure does seem like he’s contradicting Christ’s own statements about tax and proper authority.  Maybe there’s a lot to think about here, like there is in the rest of the Bible.  It’s easy to take things out of context, or mistake purpose.
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers… ”
But is that Nero …really?  

The Roman ruler who burned Christians in his garden like tiki torches and killed all but one of the Apostles (who died opposing Caesar, remember) was not who who Paul referred to as “…the minister of God to thee for good!”
I think it’s a stretch to take this as more important that the very many other clear exhortations against human kings.
What about I Samuel 8:6-20?
Did God really intend for us to bow to human kings?  Where in the Bible are the examples of Good Kings?

Anyway, today, this is the sovereign state of Indiana (Article 4, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution), a member state of the United States of America, where we have the authority to choose our leaders, and by extension, our way of life.  Christians have, like the ever-stiff-necked ancient Israelites, rejected God’s Word, His laws, His example and His Blessings.  Do I need to remind you how nations are judged for such things?

There is a corollary to “In God We Trust.”  It’s “In Politicians We Do NOT Trust.” 

If I get my way, churches will stop fussing over their precious tax status, and start doing here in the USA what they know they must do in missions abroad: Spread the Good News, while rolling up shirt sleeves and serving their fellow sinners in ways that matter in everyday life.

One way or another, by wise pre-planning, or by grim necessity with our economy slowly but probably inexorably collapsing around us, you’d better get ready…