Small Talk About Big Issues

Touching Base with Common Sense


Is this birth certificate genuine or a government-manufactured product? (Photo captured from Yahoo News)

Frankly, I want to believe it.  As an American, I hate to think of President Obama not being a natural citizen of the United States.  Then again, I hate to think the President of the United States can be elected without showing verifiable proof that he or she was born in the USA.

Yet, I still have some questions about the authenticity of the released document…

1.  If this document is real, why didn’t Obama produce it from the beginning?

2.  Why is Obama now concerned with a matter that “vexed” the nation?

3.  Why did Obama object so strongly to producing the document in the beginning?

While I may hold a little conspiracy theory mentality, I KNOW the government’s ability to produce authentic-looking documents.  Has the White House manufactured this document to try to pacify the lingering fence-riders?  Considering Obama’s past refusal to make his birth certificate public, is this release simply an election ploy?

Seriously, does the White House expect this new revelation to put to rest the concerns of the American people?

I, for one, believe this document is real and genuine.  But then, I am given to hyperbole and sarcasm.


April 27, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , | Comments Off on IS IT REAL? IF SO, WHY NOW?

Investigate Indiana’s Walkout Democrats

In light of Democrat Representative Dave Cheatham’s comparison of his walking out of the Indiana General Assembly and fleeing to Illinois with that of the gallantry of the American Soldier going to Afghanistan, let’s examine the actions and repercussions of the Democrats to the laws concerning all soldiers, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Both the American Soldier and the elected officials of the State of Indiana take a solemn oath before God.

          A Soldier’s Oath

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God” (emphasis mine, jlm).

The Oath of an elected official in Indiana

“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge my duties as a member of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana to the best of my ability, so help me God” (emphasis mine, jlm).

In the event a soldier decides to leave his appointed position, it is called being Absent Without Leave (AWOL).  The following is Article 86 of the UCMJ:

“Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”


(1) Failure to go to appointed place of duty.

(a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;

(b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and

(c) That the accused, without authority, failed to go to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.

(2) Going from appointed place of duty.

(a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;

(b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and

(c) That the accused, without authority, went from the appointed place of duty after having reported at such place.

(3) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty.

(a) That the accused absented himself or her-self from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she was required to be;

(b) That the absence was without authority from anyone competent to give him or her leave; and

(c) That the absence was for a certain period of time. Note: if the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element

(d) That the absence was terminated by apprehension.

(4) Abandoning watch or guard.

(a) That the accused was a member of a guard, watch, or duty;

(b) That the accused absented himself or her-self from his or her guard, watch, or duty section;

(c) That absence of the accused was without authority; and Note: If the absence was with intent to abandon the accused’s guard, watch, or duty section, add the following element

(d) That the accused intended to abandon his or her guard, watch, or duty section.

(5) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises.

(a) That the accused absented himself or herself from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she was required to be;

(b) That the absence of the accused was with-out authority;

(c) That the absence was for a certain period of time;

(d) That the accused knew that the absence would occur during a part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises; and

(e) That the accused intended to avoid all or part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises.

Rep. Cheatham’s comparison then of himself to the American Soldier is convoluted and without credibility.  He compared himself not to the gallant fighting men and women of our nation’s military, but to the few cowardly soldiers that slip through the cracks and into the units.

Even a cursory reading of Article 86 clearly demonstrates the similarities of the spineless Democrats that broke their Oath before God and the faux-soldiers that break their Oath before God.  The difference, however, is the soldier is Court Marshaled and the Democrat politicians are walking free carrying their treasonous behavior like a badge of courage.

If Rep. Cheatham wants so badly to be compared with the American Soldier, then let his cowardice actions receive the same punishment as that of an American Soldier gone AWOL receives.  By the way Mr. Cheatham, I can find no record of your military service in any of the available biographical information concerning you.  Did you serve in the American military?  If not, why not?  You graduated from Madison Consolidated High School in 1969.  The country needed your bravery then.  Did you answer the call?

Indiana Democrats that tucked their tails and went AWOL to Illinois broke a sacred oath and trust before God and the people of Indiana.  Their actions are contrary to the Constitution of Indiana, the Constitution of the United States, and the moral constitution of the average American walking the streets.  Then to add insult to criminal activity, some (like Mr. Cheatham) are actually waving their illicit actions as flags of heroism.

The people of Indiana deserve better.  Yet, I have not heard of any special committees formed to investigate the legality of the Democrats walkout.  Why?

Although sometimes complex, the Constitution of the State of Indiana is ridiculously clear concerning the Governor’s duties when it comes to law.  It simply says,

“The Governor shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

(History: As Amended November 6, 1984)”.

Indiana Constitution, Article 5, Section 16:

Did the Democrats that walked out of the General Assembly and ran to Illinois to shun their elected duty break the law?  Yes!  Did these Democrats faithfully perform their duties as they swore to do?  No!  They should be tried, convicted and punished?

Let’s once again turn to the Indiana Constitution.

Article 4, Section 9:

“The sessions of the General Assembly shall be held at the capitol of the State, commencing on the Tuesday next after the second Monday in January of each year in which the General Assembly meets unless a different day or place shall have been appointed by law.  But if, in the opinion of the Governor, the public welfare shall require it, he may, at any time by proclamation, call a special session.  The length and frequency of the sessions of the General Assembly shall be fixed by law.  (History: As Amended November 3, 1970. The schedule adopted with the 1970 amendment to Article 4, Section 9 was stricken out by the November 6, 1984, amendment)” (emphasis mine, jlm).

Did the Democrats uphold Article 4, Section 9 by meeting separately in Illinois?  No!

Article 4, Section 10

“Each House, when assembled, shall choose its own officers, the President of the Senate excepted; judge the elections, qualifications, and returns of its own members; determine its rules of proceeding, and sit upon its own adjournment.  But neither House shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any place other than that in which it may be sitting. (emphasis mine, jlm)”

Did the Democrats adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other?  Yes!

Did the Democrats meet in a place other “than that in which it may be sitting”?  Yes!

Article 4, Section 13

The doors of each House, and of Committees of the Whole, shall be kept open, except in such cases, as, in the opinion of either House, may require secrecy” (emphasis mine, jlm).

Can any stretch of the imagination suggest the Democrats meeting in Illinois were in open view of the public?

Article 4, Section 21

“The General Assembly shall not pass local or special laws:

Providing for the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors;

Regulating the practice in courts of justice;

Providing for changing the venue in civil and criminal cases;

Granting divorces;

Changing the names of persons;

Providing for laying out, opening, and working on, highways, and for the election or appointment of supervisors;

Vacating roads, town plats, streets, alleys, and public squares;

Summoning and empaneling grand and petit juries, and providing for their compensation;

Regulating county and township business;

Regulating the election of county and township officers and their compensation;

Providing for the assessment and collection of taxes for State, county, township, or road purposes;

Providing for the support of common schools, or the preservation of school funds;

Relating to fees or salaries, except that the laws may be so made as to grade the compensation of officers in proportion to the population and the necessary services required;

Relating to interest on money;

Providing for opening and conducting elections of State, county, or township officers, and designating the places of voting;

Providing for the sale of real estate belonging to minors or other persons laboring under legal disabilities, by executors, administrators, guardians, or trustees.

(History: As Amended March 14, 1881; November 6, 1984)” (emphasis mine, jlm).

Isn’t this the reason the Democrats walked out?

I am publically calling on Gov. Daniels and Attorney General Greg Zoeller to launch a criminal investigation of the Democrats that walked out and fled to Illinois.  Unless, of course, breaking the law is all right for our elected officials.

What say ye…voters of Indiana?

April 6, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Indiana Democrat Insults Soldiers and Indiana Voters

Indiana Democrat Rep. Dave Cheatham

          Incompetent politicians, when backed into a corner of tough decisions, run and hide.  Such is the case with the Indiana Democrat’s walkout that lasted more than a month.  Not surprisingly, now that the Democrats have returned, they are scurrying about looking for some way to justify their cowardice and save their seats in the Indiana House of Representatives.

           Take Representative Dave Cheatham for example.  In the March 26th Third House Meeting in Madison, Indiana, Dave tried to justify his dereliction of duty by comparing his spineless retreat to Illinois to the bravery of an American Soldier going to Afghanistan.  Before reading further, watch this video.

          What you have just witnessed is an ancient “winning” technique called “Sophistry”.  The following are definitions of “Sophistry”:

2011 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

1. subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.

1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.

2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 1. (Philosophy)

a.  a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading

b.  the art of using such arguments

2. subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning

          Now notice these key phrases: “subtly deceptive”, “fallacious”, “misleading”, “invalid and misleading,” and “unsound”.

          Dave Cheatham’s little story has all the makings for a heart-wrenching, tearjerker of a tale.  The problem is, whether the story is fiction or non-fiction (and I am leaning toward fiction), it is an unsound argument that seems plausible at first but fails the test of reality.  Mr. Cheatham and his band of run-away Democrats are frantically reaching for anything that might make sense of their walkout to their constituents.  Unfortunately for Rep. Cheatham, his story is a barf bag worthy insult to American Soldiers and their bravery.

           I am a disabled American veteran.  Like so many others, I bear in my body and on my mind the scars of my service to my country.  I am not claiming bravery or heroism here.  I am simply trying to illustrate that I understand the difference between running to a fight and running from one.

Loyal American Soldiers carry the wounded to safety.


          The American Soldier to which Mr. Cheatham is referring is going off to war.  He will see things no human should have to see.  He will endure the harsh conditions of war.  He will suffer sleepless nights and hellatious days.  He will put his life in harm’s way everyday he is in Afghanistan.  He will feel the anxiety of patrolling the streets amid a hostile people.  He will feel the emptiness of being without his family.  He may even lose his life leaving his wife a widow and his son without a father.  Nevertheless, one thing is for certain, Mr. Cheatham, the American Soldier you reference will not desert his post.  He will not go AWOL.  He will stand and fight, and through his bravery and heroism, he will help secure freedom for all Americans.


Indiana Democrats relaxing at the Comfort Suites in Illinios.


          Now let’s see, Mr. Cheatham.  You and your rebel band of weak and fearful Democrats left Indianapolis and traveled in your luxury cars to the Comfort Suites in Illinois.  You slept in warm, soft beds.  When it got hot, you turned on the air conditioner.  When it got cold, you turned on the heater.  You safely traveled at will from your hideout to your home.  Hotel maids cleaned your room each day.  You sat in big comfortable chairs and played on your laptops.  Someone else prepared your meals…no C-Rations or MRE’s for you.  You abandoned your post, your place of duty.  You broke your sacred oath to not only all the voters in your district, but to all the voters of Indiana as well.  How can you possible equate your cowardice with the American Soldiers bravery?

          The truth be told, Mr. Cheatham, your words and actions on Saturday night, March 26, 2011, make you nothing more than an irritating pimple on that American Soldier’s behind.  It is such a tragedy that you have stooped so low.  Yes, Mr. Cheatham.  You have insulted a gallant American Soldier and all of our brave men and women serving in the Middle East.  You have insulted the people of Indiana by thinking them too stupid to see through your sophistry.

          So my question is this: If you have so little respect for the Indiana General Assembly, the American Soldier, and the people of Indiana, why don’t you and your fellow scamocrats resign and go home?

April 4, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Constituents Continue to Stand FOR Rep. Steven R. Stemler

          From the confused wake of the spineless walkout by Indiana Democrats and Patrick Bauer’s passive-aggressive comments toward the one and only Democrat to stand his ground by remaining in Indianapolis, comes a refreshing wave of unified and bi-partisan voices…thousands of them…supporting Rep. Steven R. Stemler.

           Below is yet another example of an American voicing his support.  Mr. Bodine and Mr. Moorer (highlighted yesterday in this blog) know holding a point-of-view isn’t enough.  If a viewpoint isn’t voiced, it isn’t heard, and if it isn’t heard, it’s worthless.  Below is the communication Mr. Bodine sent to Rep. Bauer.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 8:35 AM


Now that you and your band of societal misfits decided to once again earn your pay and return to work for the citizens of this great state, I know of no one who considers you “returning heroes.”

Your disgraceful coalition of mindless robots are firmly entrenched in the hip pockets of overpaid union members and underperforming educators.  I feel confident all of you will pay at the polls.  My representative, Steve Stemler, is the hero in this mess and NOT ONE of you is fit to carry his attaché case!

Tom Bodine

Jeffersonville, Indiana


All of us that trust and support Rep. Stemler should write, call, or e-mail Rep. Bauer and inform him of our stand.  Let him know he was right when he said “let Mr. Stemler’s constituents deal with him in his next election”.  We will deal with him, Mr. Bauer.  We will elect him over and over again because, unlike you, he is a man of principle and integrity.

April 1, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment