Kokomo Tribune; Kokomo, Indiana

October 30, 2013

Oct. 30, 2013: Letters to the editor


Kokomo Tribune

---- — Seeking marriage clarity from editors

I am writing for clarification from the Kokomo Tribune editorial board, whose recent piece, “Amendment isn’t needed,” encouraged Indiana lawmakers to deny the people of Indiana their right to determine the constitutionality of un-defining marriage in the state.

The KT editors, one of whom has previously written that upholding marriage laws in Indiana is “codifying inequality,” write that, “Indiana law already bans same sex marriage … there is no need for a constitutional amendment.” Are the KT editors unaware that states like California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and New Jersey had similar laws before activist state courts struck them down as “unconstitutional”?

The whole purpose of the Indiana Marriage Amendment is to prevent gay activists from using Indiana courts to do the same. The KT editors pretend they don’t know that.

Secondly, the KT editors throw out the classic gay activist red herring of citing companies like Eli Lilly and Cummins Engine — both of whom have boards of directors dominated by radical, anti-family activists — who falsely suggest that a marriage amendment would hurt the business climate in the state. Kiplinger Financial Magazine reports that the top five states for job growth all have marriage protection amendments. Forbes Magazine reveals that 9 out of the top 10 large cities in America for job growth come from states with marriage protection amendments. The KT editors pretend they don’t know that.

Finally, the KT editors claim they simply want to call a truce on the issue. I’m calling their bluff. A truce must go both ways.

So will the KT editors write a similar editorial that tells homosexual activists to cease any and all court challenges to Indiana’s law regarding same sex marriage? Will they demand that homosexual activists respect marriage in the state and not seek to change it by judicial fiat? If not, readers should be aware the KT editors are deceiving them.

They aren’t wanting a truce, they are deceitfully angling for citizens to surrender to those who would undermine marriage and family in the state.

Peter Heck

Kokomo

Deficit spendingwill grab freedom

In 1966, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote, “Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.” Many pointed darts have been thrown at politicians following the federal government shutdown and debate over raising the debt ceiling once again. A lot of the heated criticism is directed toward those who oppose unabated deficit spending by attempting to delay the implementation of Obamacare. Yet, political favorites have already been granted a delay. There is even further talk of more delays because of the failed registration technology.

Obamacare is only a part of the issue America faces. Deficit spending with no end in sight is the issue. Increasing the power of the IRS is the issue. Creating the environment where freedom is replaced by tyranny is the issue. There is only one source to which our government can turn in order to fund its insatiable spending appetite. You can view that source by looking in a mirror.

In 1989, the New York Times reported that the IRS had a “breakdown of internal controls in some … district offices … agents accepted gratuities, misused Government travel funds, hired their relatives, invested in properties of companies under audit and sought at management levels to cover up their misdeeds.” Earlier this year, Reuters reported that the IRS inspector general said that IRS employees have difficulty managing travel cards — to the tune of $121 million. Yet, because of Obamacare and other deficit spending, the IRS and other government agencies are expanding in scope, funding and power.

Those who seek to at least slow down this process leading to serfdom are not your enemies. Wealthy or not, “Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.” We can accurately add that it is also a scheme for the confiscation of freedom.

Charles A. Layne

Bunker Hill