Mayor Goodnight vs. the moral law of land
In a recent KT story, we were treated to the contradictory and inconsistent ramblings of Mayor Goodnight as he attempted to paste together a coherent argument against allowing the citizens of his city, as well as all Hoosiers, the right to vote on something as significant and important to society as the institution of family.
We are told the Mayor thinks Indiana faces more “pressing matters” than marriage and family. And what would those be? Goodnight says our focus should be on “reducing the number of vacant foreclosed homes,” as well as “how to get Hoosiers back to work.” Apparently the man elected to lead Indiana’s 13th largest city is blissfully unaware that the dissolution of family stability is at the root of both of those problems. That’s tremendously sad.
Further, think about the inconsistency in Goodnight’s silly position. He claims that the General Assembly has more important things to do than take a 2-minute vote to allow Hoosiers the ability to voice their views on marriage. Yet he as a city mayor with no constitutional jurisdiction or authority over the issue, takes time away from his responsibilities to sign a petition and issue press releases about his personal views on the matter. If the General Assembly shouldn’t waste their time discussing it Mayor Goodnight, why are you so willing to?
Unsurprisingly, Mayor Goodnight also regurgitates the tired and anti-intellectual argument that the Indiana Marriage Amendment will hurt job growth in the state. From Forbes to Kiplinger, the job experts continue to reveal that 9 out of the top 10 states for job growth in the country have marriage amendments, and 4 of the top 5 large cities in the country for job growth come from states that have marriage amendments. According to the evidence, if you want to improve job growth in your state, you enact an amendment protecting marriage from the radicals who would undo it. The willingness of the anti-family forces, with which Mayor Goodnight has aligned himself, to continue to perpetuate this lie about job growth reveals their desperation to deny Hoosiers their right to defend God’s natural law and moral order in our society.
And perhaps that is the most disturbing thing about Goodnight’s position. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it best when he said that “There are two types of laws: just and unjust…A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” It’s one thing that the mayor fundamentally disagrees with the great MLK, Jr. But it is contemptible that Goodnight declares the moral law of God to be immoral and “unwelcoming.”
It is the mayor’s choice if he wants to personally take on the moral authority of the creator. But he has no right to invoke the name of our city in such an arrogant and warped crusade.
Peter Heck, Kokomo
Casting more doubt on lone gunman idea
The recent observance of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy brought back some thoughts of the event.
Popular wisdom on the event has President Kennedy shot by Lee Harvey Oswald from behind, specifically from the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository then later shooting Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit to death with a handgun. That is only some of the “information” put forth post-assassination.
Time is long overdue for that information to be challenged. I have in my possession a paperbook copy of “JFK: Conspiracy of Silence,” by Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D. Dr. Crenshaw was one of the physicians who vainly attempted to save President Kennedy’s life.
In his book, Dr. Crenshaw states that following JFK’s assassination, Oswald was stopped by Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit for a “field interview,” at which point Oswald allegedly shoots Tippit. Or so the story goes.
Now there is one problem with that scenario. Oswald was armed with a .38 caliber revolver; Tippit was shot with a semiautomatic pistol. The ammo is not even close to being interchangeable.
Back at Parkland Hospital, according to Dr. Crenshaw, a medical student, Evalea Glages, recounted a most peculiar story. According to Ms. Glanges, while the medical team was fighting to save the president, she was outside in the E.R. parking lot, standing beside the president’s limousine, where she pointed out to another student a bullet hole in the upper area of the windshield.
At the time that Ms. Glanges called attention to the bullet hole, a Secret Service agent nearby overheard her comment, “nervously” jumped into the limo and sped away.
The president was shot from in front, not from behind, the evidence supports this fact. I am a recreational shooter who has spent a lot of time “plinking.” I, and friends, would go out to a safe shooting area, armed with small-bore rifles and handguns and shoot at pop cans and small boxes. In ALL cases, the target item would move in the direction of bullet travel, not toward the shooter.
If you will examine the Zapruder footage, you will clearly see that the impact of the bullets, at the instant they hit JFK, clearly caused the president’s head to move to the left and rear, indicative of a frontal approach.
This casts doubt about the president being shot from behind, as does the fact that Oswald, armed with a revolver, shot Officer Tippit, who was shot with a semiautomatic pistol and not a revolver.
Kenneth Crockett, Kokomo