Township Board Tells Voters Where To Go and What to Do With Themselves When They Get There!!!
The Washington Township Board tonight told its citizens to go have sex with themselves and by a 4-3 vote gave itself a near 60 percent raise. The board took no public input and raised its pay from $2200 a year to more than $3600. Who still wants township government?
I am now more than ever convinced that the only difference between a township board member and a Somali pirate are jet skis and a rocket launcher.
UPDATE:
I spoke to Washington Township Board President Ray Baker this morning. He told me the raises were necessary because the township has a lot of work to do, even though it doesn’t have a fire department anymore. He says says the township has to sell land, cell phone towers and consolidate office space. He also says the public doesn’t understand township government and it would take too long to educate them.
Really? Here’s your opportunity to get educated from the people who voted “yes”.
- Ray Baker, 327-4819, 327-4827 or 257-5677, rbclimited@att.net
- Joe Simpson, 283-4096, jesimp@earthlink.net
- Mary Orea, 925-0079, mary.orea@centergov.org
- David Smith, 796-5069, dfsinvol09@yahoo.com
November 20th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Well, to be perfectly fair:
Their rules didn’t require public input tonight…it didn’t disallow it, either. Township boards are antiques00the only statutory duty they have all year is to pass the budget. The trustees, most of whom are jokes, have the real power. The word “Advisory” used to be part of the term “Township Board.” I’ll give out advice for half this amount.
They’re just driving nails in the coffin of township government. The patient is on life support…and many of us have already signed-off on the DNA order.
They gave themselves a pay cut last year, after they lost the fire department to the merger. That seemed about right. No new duties are prescribed for 2009, yet they want more money.
In the private sector, these clowns would crash and burn. Voters overwhelmingly rejected this same argument, vis-a-vis assessors, three weeks ago.
The “Save Townmships” Argument is put forth by the Center Gulag, and one of your buddies, Becky. Their arguments (“government closer to the people”) fell on deaf ears.
They’re gone in four years or less. Hopefully less.
(Where do I sign up for that board thing? It’s a great gig…and no, they don’t work all that hard)
November 20th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Clearly a case of ‘grab what you can, while you can.’ Perhaps they were looking to cover their property tax make-up bill that’s out coming next week.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
So, the next question would concern the other benefits. Do they have and insurance gig like the folks in Perry?
November 20th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I was there with a sign “Stop your raises. RESIGN”. Abdul, check out the racial verbal altercation.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:07 am
Abdul, don’t hold back tell us what you really think.
Keep up the good work.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:26 am
No, Mike, the Township Board does not have health or PERF benefits — THANK GOODNESS.
Without the fire department, the township budget dropped from a proposed 2007 budget of $20 million to an actual (after fire department merger with IFD) $1.67 million. They did cut their Board salaries to about $2250/yr because they didn’t have nearly as much responsibility. No additional duties have been added this year and they are not having monthly meetings.
Why, then, did they feel that they suddenly deserve a raise to $3800?
OH, YEAH… it was “Cost of Living”! Since when do we have a 60%+ inflation rate? Last time I checked it was about 3%…
November 21st, 2008 at 12:40 am
“…the only difference between Obama and a Somali pirate are jet skis and a rocket launcher.”
FIXED.
Sorry, I’ll be here all four years.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:53 am
http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/18028850/detail.html
According to WRTV (link provided): “In a 4 to 3 vote, the Democratic majority of the board succeeded in approving a measure to boost board member salaries from $2,250 to $3,600 a year, 6News’ Norman Cox reported.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the 4 Democrats to be: Simpson, O’Rea, Baker (pres), Smith (secretary). Also, I believe they are all at the beginning of a four year term having only just won election to office.
You just gotta wonder if any of these individuals has been keeping abreast of local news? Or has ever bothered to have a cup of coffee some morning with their (former) township assessor?
One wonders the fine line between arrogance and ignorance.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:28 am
Any nail in the township government coffin is fine with me.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:51 am
I have been saying for 10 years township is outdated and useless. Breeds cronyism and ol’ boy politics.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:49 am
Thes people, in past years, had the ability to engender the trust (note: not trustee) of the pesons in the township. Theym didn’t and they didn’t do anything to maqke us believe that they should continue to exist.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:15 am
Swell. “Government closer to the People” crapped all over the People, and there is nothing we can do but wait until they are up for reelection, or their positions are abolished?
-
If government is created by We the People, then how did We the People lose the power to fire them on the spot?
-
“WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.” (History: As Amended November 6, 1984).
-
“WE DECLARE, That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the PEOPLE; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well being. For the advancement of these ends, the PEOPLE have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.” — Original Text, 1851 Constitution
-
Now, look and the changes in the text, and wonder what they were up to when they amended Section 1 in 1984.
-
CHANGE 1: MEN replaced with people (lower case).
-
CHANGE 2: UNalienable rights changed to INalienable rights. UNalienable rights cannot be taken away. INalienable rights can be given away.
-
CHANGE 3: “that all power is inherent in the PEOPLE” (upper case) changed to “that all power is inherent in the people” (lower case).
-
CHANGE 4: “well being” changed to “well-being”
-
CHANGE 5: “For the advancement of these ends, the PEOPLE have” (upper case) changed to “For the advancement of these ends, the people have” (lower case).
-
Politicians, lawmakers and lawyers do nothing without motive. WHAT was the motive to make the above changes in 1984?
-
Current dictionaries make no real distinction between ‘unalienable’ versus ‘inalienable’. However, the older dictionaries did, as did case law.
-
The reason for the change of ‘men’ to ‘people’ is clearly evident — political correctness.
-
Yet, we always hear people (and legislators) bemoan ‘tinkering with the Constitution’. There is currently much debate on amending our Constitution concerning homosexual marriage, or Constitutional property tax caps.
-
Many say that we have ‘laws on the books’ to thwart any chance of ‘homosexual marriage’ or violation of ‘this or that’.
-
That is, until some lawyer in a robe mumbles a conflicting opinion. Hence the desire to amend a Constitution.
-
So, political correctness was the motivation to change ‘men’ to ‘people’. But, what about the OTHER changes made in Section 1. What was the ‘evil to be corrected’??
-
Why change ‘PEOPLE’ to ‘people’? Why change ‘unalienable’ to ‘inalienable’? Why introduce a hyphen in ‘well being’ as they did?
-
THEY (government) always have a reason. Sometimes that reason is frivolous, often it is not.
-
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/unalienable
UNALIENABLE: Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.
-
Inalienable rights. Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.— Black’s Law Dictionary, 1979
-
So, how can We the PEOPLE remove these four scumbags from the Washington Township Board?
November 21st, 2008 at 8:28 am
To: Robert nw side.
Your outline of adjustments is excellent. You should write more of this.
ps; If there was a poster child of Township Board self indulgence, it was last night in a vote to give themselves a 60% salary increase, based on 4 democrats who wanted it and 4 Republicans who didn’t. The standing room only crowd hated what they saw and channel 6 got it on tape. 2 thumbs up for tax reformist Penny Bigelow who acquired the signatures last night for petitioning the DLGF.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:31 am
correction: 3 republicans (not 4) who didn’t want to raise salaries.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Please be sure to reserve your wrath for the DEMOCRAT members of the Board who voted themselves a raise. Not one Republican vote yes. Also, let’s discuss the lack of leadership by trustee Frank Short. Why wasn’t he advising his Dem board members that this was not the moral nor politically savvy decision to make.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:57 am
“TAX AND SPEND” -the official motto of the Dems!
November 21st, 2008 at 9:08 am
Hey at least they didn’t fly in on private jets.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:28 am
http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/18028850/detail.html
check out the video
November 21st, 2008 at 9:42 am
Let’s not any of us underestimate the powerful hold that the trustees have on the “nation’s worst state legislature”. Township offices provide a landing spot for ex-legislators and party cronies, as well as a ladder up for township officials who run for the state legislature. Mitch, though armed with the facts of the Kernan-Shepard report will have a devil of a time getting any real progress in streamlining government. Just like with unigov there will be so many compromises that the original intent and effectiveness of elimination will be lost.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:05 am
But … I’m sure that all of these fine public servants were the same ones trying to convince me to retain township assessors because government that was closer to the people was “more responsive and accountable”
Note to all of the fools that still believe that this is somehow a R vs D issue. Just look back – if the R’s were in the majority they would have voted themselves a raise and the D’s would have screamed in moral outrage (as they gladly cashed the check) – at the end of the day there may be individual officials that still have morals or honor, but to ascribe these traits to either party en mass is folly.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am
I thought we paid the Trustee, Mr. Frank Short, to sell land, manage cell phone towers, consolidate office space, and keep our residents informed. Why is Mr. Baker taking the time to do the Trustee’s job?
I am offended by his comment that we the public do not understand township government and it would take too long to educate us.
His job should be educating us.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Criminals never want to be interviewed or videotaped. That’s why they told Norman Cox ‘no comment’ and bolted toward the door amid cries of ‘shame’. These people have no conscience and is simply a microcosim of our Gen. Assembly and Wash.D.C. It doesn’t take long for self absorbtion to set in. It’s all about me me me me me.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
An added thought, if Mr. Baker does Mr. Short’s job, maybe we can justify the pay increase to 3800.00 and then eliminate the Trustee’s job which gives our township a savings over 50,000.00.
By the way, Mr. Short’s job of Trustee is only parttime. Having a parttime job with benefits of over 50,000.00 is not bad.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
IMHO, the reason the Yes-Vote Board members refuse to comment or defend their votes is because THEY CAN’T give a rational reason for their 60% raise.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
RE: Comment 22
Each member of the Board was elected to REPRESENT the community and work for the best interests of the community. Each also has a fiducial responsibility to the citizens of WT.
How does this vote serve the public in a responsible manner?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
http://www.theindychannel.com/watchblog/index.html
WOW!
November 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
My advice for the township officials: If the people don’t want to pay you the salary that you demand, leave the job. If they find that they can’t find someone else to replace you at the going rate, let the people deal with it.
.
Until then, your faith and duty is to the will of those who elected you. If you refuse to meet their demands, please go home.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Finally something about which I have first hand knowledge. I know two of these people. They are avowed socialists. I know that this word gets thrown around. But they could not get and keep a real job. They are not all that well educated, but are foot soldiers for the local democrats. They seek any form of power, and then use it to feather their own nests. This unfortunately looks at the local level much as politics look at the most senior levels. It just looks cheap when you sell yourself for such a small amount. It also is telling about intelligence, or arrogance, when they would allow themselves to pass a 60% amount of anything in todays climate. Maybe they are just stupid. I would rather think this, as everything else scares the crap out of me. No different that what we have seen at the CCC with the center township mob. I also fear that such actions will eventually lead to revolts and nasty actions as maybe the only options left to citizens.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I saw Norm Cox’s report on the noon news. I was shocked. Now I’ve just read the watchblog and I’m numb.
This board ought to be removed immediately. Clearly their arrogance shows they do not know the meaning of ‘public servant.’
November 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP MELTDOWN – Norman Cox
I don’t know where to start. I’m rarely at a loss for words. But I’m close to that point after experiencing the travesty that now passes for government in Washington Township.
Last night the township board’s Democratic majority rammed through a 60% pay raise for board members. They did so without speaking one word at the public meeting to justify it. They then refused to answer questions from the media or the public after the meeting. And to cap things off, one of the board members, Joe Simpson, engaged in a post-meeting tirade against a 6News photographer that ended with Simpson, who is African-American, dropping the N-bomb.
It all started Wednesday when I attempted to call board members to ask them about the pay raise. Two of them, Board President Ray Baker and Simpson, hung up on me, with Simpson demanding angrily to know how I’d gotten his number before slamming down the phone. It then continued at the meeting when my photographer, Eldon Wheeler, attempted to place a microphone on the table. Simpson angrily told him he couldn’t do it, because there wouldn’t be enough room for his papers. Actually, there was plenty of room, to say nothing of Simpson’s apparent ignorance of things like Open Meetings laws and the media’s right to record the board’s sessions. But Eldon complied peaceably and moved the mike away from Simpson.
When the meeting was over Eldon went up to pick up his equipment and asked Simpson what his problem was with having a microphone at the table. Simpson then started yelling at him, saying, among other things, “You can’t talk to me that way!” It finally escalated to the point where Simpson screamed, “You might as well just called me a n*****!” At that point, Simpson started moving forward threateningly. Fortunately, the table was between them and two board members grabbed Simpson to restrain him. Trustee Frank Short came over to separate everyone and things somewhat calmed down.
But the problem extended beyond Simpson. When I tried to ask Baker on camera why the raise was justified, he replied, “No comment.” (watch the exchange below) He later castigated me for calling him at work the day before. Imagine! A reporter calling a public official for comment on an issue before his body! He asked how I got his work number and said I should have called him at home. Well, guess what, Mr. Baker. The fact I got you at work shows you wouldn’t have been home to answer my call. So your obvious intent was simply to avoid talking to me. But beyond that, I’m astounded by the man’s gall. I have spent decades calling far more important public officials at their day jobs. People like Pat Bauer, Brian Bosma, Luke Kenley, and Bob Garton. No one has ever objected or challenged the propriety of doing so. But some two-bit township board member thinks he’s too good to answer questions. And it isn’t even like he works in the private sector and has an employer who would object. For crying out loud, he works in the Washington Township Assessor’s office.
Maybe Baker is sensitive that residents in Washington Township voted to eliminate the assessor’s office, which does away with one of his jobs, and the legislature will consider consolidating local government, which will put his greatly expanded paycheck number two in jeopardy. I don’t know. What I do know is that when this issue comes up at the Statehouse, Baker and Simpson should be the poster children for getting rid of township government.
http://www.theindychannel.com:80/watchblog/index.html
November 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
All of us in the room and in Washington Township are owed an apology by both the Board as a Body, and individually for the behavior exhibited in the room for a racially charged confrontation I was in the back of the room and I heard the ‘N Bomb’ in a loud voice, which drew several of us to see what was going on up front. Can this be further evidence that people who vote for themselves a 60% raise, are out of control on a personal level as well. The behavior is despicable and is unworthy to represent other people and deserves santioned in some way. But at the very least, the public has been insulted and deserves better and deserves an apology.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
HFFT wrote a few words about Simpson’s racist behavior on our blog and emailed Simpson a copy of the blog post with the subject: YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!
November 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I would VOLUNTEER to do that job without pay if it only required 4 meetings per year. The job should be volunteer. That way we would get people into the position who are there because they are passionate about good government, not to get an undeserved paycheck.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
The 2009 Budget was presented Oct. 20; the Public Hearing was Nov. 10. The meeting for the Adoption of the Budget was Nov. 20.
But at the Nov. 10 Hearing, AFTER THE ELECTION, two resolutions were presented by Ray Baker, Board President:
1. a 4% increase in WT employees, including the Trustee and Chief of Staff (at the Oct 20 meeting only 3% was proposed).
2. increasing the Board member compensation from the proposed 3% to over 60%!
These two resolutions were not advertised in advance, no public hearing about them was scheduled before the Budget Adoption meeting –and 3 of the Board Members were not notified about them before the Nov 10 meeting!
These resolutions were passed 4-3 at the Nov. 10 meeting and adopted at the Nov. 20 meeting.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Huey Long and Richard Dailey Sr. should rise from their tombs to take notes from this bunch. Wish I’d thought to put my wallet and car keys on their table to save the trouble of robbing me later. I don’t remember seeing a more open, obnoxious abuse of political power in my life. I don’t give a damn if it’s “a few thousand dollars”. It’s even worse than banks that take billions and then refuse to make loans, because THEY LEGALLY ROB YOU WHILE YOU’RE LOOKING AT THEM. We know their names! What they lack in any earthly notion of political timing they make-up for in big, big stones. I’m on my street with the petition, Saturday. See you next meeting.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Not only should we sign the petition for reversing their pay raise decision but we should get one going for getting the ones that voted for the raise OFF THE BOARD IMMDEIATLEY! They should be run out of town on a rail (ala Oh Brother Where Art Thou). Surely there is some provision in their deal for gross negligence or dereliction of duty.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:10 pm
As was said, it is not the amount in actual dollars, but the gall that they could push a 60% increase on anything, let alone into their own pockets. What value does this group offer the citizens? This is exactly what is wrong with government today. Self-serving, detached. And above all this, a public servant says; “no comment”. I would hate to see my boss’s reaction to my “no comment” comeback. Talk about lack of reality.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Unfortunately, these scumbags cannot be removed very easily.
-
I speak, of course, of the Indiana Constitution at Article 6 Section 8:
-
“All State, county, township, and town officers, may be impeached, or removed from office, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.”
-
Alas, our Indiana General ASSembly has not “prescribed by law” a mechanism to remove scumbags such as the WTB.
-
Of course, this is a matter of self-preservation! If we had a law to remove the WTB scumbags, then we might also have a law to remove OTHER scumbags — like those that infest our beloved Statehouse.
-
I’m quite certain that the WTB scumbags are quite aware of their so-called ‘immunity’.
-
Another violation of theirs was in denying We the People the RIGHT to “instruct our representatives”. See Article 1 Section 31 of our Indiana Constitution.
-
I’m certain that any of We the People that engaged in ‘political speech’ while “instructing our representatives” would have been ejected or arrested for doing so.
-
Another wonderful example of government being closer to the people. I can feel them right in my azz. At least they should give me the courtesy of a reach-around!
November 21st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
[...] Township Board Tells Voters Where To Go and What to Do With Themselves When They Get There!!!Make the Right ChoiceColour By Numbers [...]
November 21st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I, too, know some of these board members, Greg. On both sides of the aisle. There was a time when I believed they tried to do the best thing for all of us. There isn’t a socialist in the group.
For a long, long time, the township wa smismanaged by Republicans. During Trustee Horth’s last re-election campaign, I believe in 2002, the fire chief she appointed was at polling places in uniform, driving a township car, politicking for her.
So neither party owns the “Stupid Practices” mantle.
This board has lost their moral high ground. There was simply no defense of this pay raise, but they did it anyway.
There’s also no defense of a $3.5 million fund balance, and raising more money from all of us next year. In other words, they raised money in 2008 they didn’t need. They’re building a kitty to bestow some construction project or freebies on someone whom they favor.
They don’t need a dime from us next year, if their budget can be believed: they need about $1.6 million for 2009. They’s got more than twice that in reserve.
Uh, memo to the WT Board: you’re not a for-profit enterprise.
As for Mr. Short: this is not unusual behavior for him. He got a raise, too, and we pay for his health insurance, don’t we? He’s got a staff person whose duties and hours worked cannot seem to be located.
This is bad politics AND bad government. Off with their heads.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Sorry TA. I only know two of these people and I can tell you they profess socialist ideology.
They believe in central control, and believe in strong government programs vs. free market.
They believe you take from those that have and give to those that do not. Now these are their private views, but clearly some are showing support for the belief in central control. This latest action speaks to this.
As for which party is better or worse, it is tough for me to differentiate. I agree with you regarding the sharing of the “stupid practices” mantle. I believe, seeing what I have seen, that most are only interested in preserving their spot at the public trough, with good public policy being an afterthought.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
To Think Again, I so agree with you. Our Township does not need to raise any more money. We have enough money to keep us going for 3 or 4 years without any increase in the levy or increase in property taxes. So, why is it that Mr. Frank Short, Trustee, and Mr. Ray Baker want to build a new fire station for the City of Indianapolis? If this happens, then guess what! – Our reserves are gone and Washington Township will have to increase our taxes once again to rebuild their funds.
Both sides have done things that elected positions should not be doing. And I as a resident am applauded! It is time to get someone in office who really cares. And I know just the person. But we will have to suffer for 2 years before this can be done.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Concerned Taxpayer.
First. these idiots on the town board would not spend a dime of fire station, ambulance or apparatus maintenance.
IFD inherited a huge amount of garbage with the merger and our 1998 budget was nearly depleted bringing the fire stations, ambulances and fire apparatus up to a safe standard. Go visit IFD Station 6 and look at the living conditions for yourself. Now with that said. Where did all the tax money go? It sure as hell didn’t go to the fire department.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Concerned: no reserves are needed at all, beyond a modest cushion, maybe 3-4% of total budgeted expenditures.
The problem with a gift from WashTwp to IFD is: the money was raised entirely from WashTwp residents. The IFD fire district is over twice that large, spread over parts of five townships.
It’s not WashTwp’s job to raise funds for a fire station. That’s the point of consolidation–someone else controls that now, and it’s a bigger taxing district.
These guys can’t let go of their fire department. Boys and their toys. Ridiculous.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I understand your observations, Greg, and might even agree. But can we stay away from the broad generalities, please? We just finished a national cmapaign where a nincompoop vice presidential nominee threw around labels like candy, and it wasn’t helpful, nor true.
Let’s just say some of this board is blatantly self-serving and void of shame. I can remember the prior trustee, who was pitiful, and the same party ruled forever in WashTwp. It wasn’t pretty.
Doesn’t make these new actions right, but a little perspective never hurts.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Two-way street on labels, TA. The national campaign also brought us the specter of “economic justice”, but I’m waiting to see how our President governs. Roger that Palin’s not on you Christmas card list. I’ve found some people happy to sign a petition against a board that’s “blatantly self-serving and void of shame”. Hopefully, I’ll find some more.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Labels are inconsequential if they aren’t true, Taxpayer.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Well, Think Again, for someone who takes every opportunity to disparage Gov. Palin’s command of the English language, you really blew it in your last post.
Also, you have stated in the past that I was wrong about your gender, yet you called me ‘honey’ recently. Maybe I am wrong about your orientation(‘not that there’s anything wrong with that’, for Seinfeld fans).
I only reference your gender as it pertains to your visceral hatred for Sarah Palin. Other than from the hacks in the McCain camp, I did not see that kind of hatred from men. Is it because she’s an attractive, likable person? Probably. But, ironically, that is also the same reason angry women like you hate her.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
So, Abdul, what influence, if any, do you have in the posting of youtube videos on this site? Just curious. Today, they are all equally laughable–even the ones that look professionally done.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I’m sorry. I really am oblivious to how this all works.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“Tax and Spend – official moto of the Dems.” Hmmm… last 8 years of historical spending wasn’t done by the Dems.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I called in to Abdul’s show Friday morning. I spoke of those scumsuckers on the WTB. I also opined that they (the Board) violated Article 1 Section 31 of our Constitution in not ‘permitting’ the public a voice in the vote.
-
Abdul told me that the Constitution was more ‘complicated’ than that.
-
More complicated? It was written to be understood by the common man of 1851. It takes a politician, or an attorney, to make something simple to be complicated.
-
Following is the text from Section 31. How complicated is it to comprehend?
-
“No law shall restrain any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their representatives; nor from applying to the General Assembly for redress of grievances.” — http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art1.html
-
“Instructing their representatives”. Wasn’t a lot of that happening Thursday evening, huh??
-
It does NOT say “Beseeching their representatives’, nor does it say “begging their representatives”, nor does it say “pandering to their representatives”.
-
Our Constitution at 1-31 is NOT complicated. What part of “instructing their representatives” doesn’t Abdul, or other politicians and lawyers understand?
-
From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/instructing
INSTRUCT’ING, ppr. Teaching; informing the mind; directing.
-
Cambridge Dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=instruct*1+0&dict=A
instruct (ORDER)
verb [T]
to order or tell (someone) to do something, esp. in a formal way
The police have been instructed not to let anyone leave the area.
-
instruction
[Show phonetics]
noun [C usually pl]
The general received instructions to attack at dawn.
-
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/instruct
INSTRUCT’, v.t. [L. instruo, instructum; in and struo, to set or to put on, to furnish. The L. struo is contracted from struco or strugo. See Destroy.]
1. To teach; to inform the mind; to educate; to impart knowledge to one who was destitute of it. The first duty of parents is to instruct their children in the principles of religion and morality.
-
2. To direct; to enjoin; to persuade or admonish.
She being before instructed by her mother, said, give me here the head of John the Baptist in a charger. Matt.14.
-
3. To direct or command; to furnish with orders. The president instructed his envoy to insist on the restitution of the property.
-
4. To inform; to advise or give notice to. On this question the court is not instructed.
-
Bottom line: Abdul is wrong. 1-31 is NOT complicated. The WTB violated our federal 1st Amendment right to political speech, and violated our Indiana Constitution at 1-31.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
T.A., with sincere respect, I am not opting for a broad generalization in this case. I am merely stated what I think I know about the social and political belief’s of these two particular individuals. My personal conversations with them in the past would leave no other conclusion. In the broadest sense, they are professed socialists vs. capitalists. They believe in entitlement and not earnings. They believe in the notion of the now popular words of “income redistribution”. They believe in absolute control by government and have little regard for individual accountability. Not bad people, but just possess beliefs that fall outside what I believe represent traditional America. They own and drive a change agenda that I feel weakens us rather than strengthens us. Since we are a country that allows freedom of ideas and beliefs, I have no problem. However, when I see folks like this in positions provided by local level partisian politics, it troubles me. Again, this can be said as well for folks on the far, far right.
Extreme ideology knows no particular party.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 am
Rico, HONEY, I dn’t hate Sarah Palin! She’s the product of a five-tiems-tried public university system, she butchers the language, she’s an airhead and somehow she became one of only 50 governors. I pity her.
After all it’s the state that gave us Uncle Ted Stevens.
Thanks again, Greg. I do appreciate your broader definition. I don’t know these clowns well, but I’;ve bene to a couple of meetings and watched them. They obviously bloviate very well, and they think this township board thing is a couple notches above the Supreme Court in importance.
I watched closely, in person, while the fire department consolidation debate raged. Honestly, I thought they behaved well then. They were watching out for efficiencies.
They loved to talk and act important, but that decision seemed in-line with our best fiscal and security interests.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
T.A. Peace. I agree that given your last sentence, credit should be given where credit is due. I belong to the team that wants to reinforce every good behavior driven to find balanced outcomes.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Not counting typos, Think Again, your last post was worse than the one before–at least, for someone who places such importance on one’s command of the language. If we were to debate grammar, I may lose. However, it is you who continues to call Gov. Palin stupid(in different words, perhaps). Therefore, you deserve to be challenged, with respect to your grasp of English.
I still say that your visceral hatred(yeah, hatred) of Sarah Palin goes far deeper than how intelligent you perceive her to be. Why don’t you call Dr. 90210 if you need that to feel better about yourself?