Thanks to Kerry Hubartt for the ink and the headline.

HEAD:  Pledging Allegiance to Higher Law Disqualifies Me from Practicing Law in Indiana

The utter hypocrisy of America’s left never ceases to amaze me. It was this hypocrisy that drove me to file a federal civil rights claim against the government bureaucrats who ran me through one heck of a gauntlet during my bid to be licensed as an Indiana attorney.

On Groundhog Day my search for justice suffered yet another setback. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Theresa Springmann’s decision that I had no federal case to bring. Not because I cannot make a claim under the First Amendment, but because any claim that I can make could be heard only by the Indiana Supreme Court — the very court that I allege to have conspired against me.

Article continued here

No related posts.

Blame it on JBloom, he encouraged me.  Here is a selection from my reply brief in the case of Brown v. Bowman, now pending oral argument before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  All of the briefing in the case is accessable at www.archangelinstitute.org  (look for gavel picture)

I.                  Oh how they love Big Brother:  Defendants’ plea for absolute immunity threatens to bring on tyranny  

The conflict at bar is a photo-shopped negative of the bar admission cases fought out on the docket of the United States Supreme Court between the late 50’s and early 70’s  Most of those cases involved bar applicants “who were denied admission to practice law solely because they refused to answer questions about their personal beliefs or their affiliations with organizations that advocate certain ideas about government” Baird v. State Bar of Ariz., 401 U.S. 1,2 (1971)  The Plaintiff, on the other hand, was denied admission after he fully answered numerous questions probing his personal beliefs about the relationship between governance and Divine Providence.

A.  Bar applicants of the world unite:  Defining the freedom to be both an attorney and a dissident 

 Toward the end of the post-war run of bar admission cases Justice Black summed all up by stating that

[s]harp conflicts and close divisions have arisen in this Court concerning the power of States to refuse to permit applicants to practice law in cases where bar examiners have been suspicious about applicants’ loyalties and their views on Communism and revolution.

Id., 401 U.S. at 3. Substitute “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” for “Communism” and substitute “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” for “revolution” and the result is the legal challenge of In Re Application 24128 (as to the IBLE) and Brown v. Bowman (as to JLAP and its parallel to Hessian mercenaries).

As set forth in the complaint, Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to discuss the constitutional ramifications of Defendants’ actions.  ECF 1:32,60-64,91-93,123-25.  It was evident that none of the Defendants appreciated the import of the Supreme Court cases defining the appropriate path to law licensure in such an ideologically-charged environment.

                        1.  But even a religiously-motivated political dissident?

Religion was front and center throughout the JLAP processing, culminating in Defendant Sudrovech’s use of the religious testing to construct what is dubbed a “pregnant syllogism” in Plaintiff’s petition for certiorari. ECF 52-1,p22-23.  The syllogism links Plaintiff’s Christian beliefs to his civil disobedience and from there to the admission-denying label “personality disorder, not otherwise specified.”  ECF 1:198-99; ECF 52-1,p.23.  

The religious focus began in the offices of Drs. Ross and Bowman, ripened into Sudrovech’s  reports  and then, based largely upon  Sudrovech’s non-recommendation, moved the IBLE to refuse to certify Brown. See  fn.2. 

At the headwaters of this inquisition stands Dr. Ross and his admittedly religious testing.  Since society seems desensitized to allegations of religious discrimination, Ross’ conclusions labeling Brown are herein presented in alternative prose:

 “I am not making these statements purely based upon the fervor of Mr. Brown’s [Republican] beliefs and convictions . . . .

“I am not making these statements purely based upon the fervor of Mr. Brown’s [pro-gay] beliefs and convictions . . . .

“I am not making these statements purely based upon the fervor of Mr. Brown’s [communist] beliefs and convictions . . . .

ECF1,¶52 (the word replaced is “religious”).

Dr. Ross should not weigh an applicant for the Indiana bar purely – or even almost purely – on any ideological basis.  (But most of all not on religion or politics.)  Many, most notably the United States Supreme Court, consider it  ideological corruption to do so.  Similarly, the following accusations should not be appearing in any report upon which JLAP, the IBLE and the Indiana Supreme Court decide bar worthiness:

“Like many people of faith of past millennia, he firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God’s laws above human laws.”  “He considers his [former protest activities] an integral part of his Roman Catholic Christian faith and considers his actions morally right.” “His conscience has been shaped by his Roman Catholic beliefs, to which he came in adulthood while seeking moral certainty.”“He showed a lack of empathy for women whose pregnancies may be the result of rape or incest.”  “He showed lack of empathy for … this evaluator whose profession and presumed religious beliefs he repeatedly devalued.”             

Dr. Bowman’s report, ECF1:¶¶140,153-54,158-60,170[1]

Dr. Bowman’s “empathy” theme struck a chord with the social worker Sudrovech.  He justified “flunking” Brown because a thorough probing of the applicant’s religious perspectives revealed a “lack of empathy” regarding “issues associated with his beliefs.”  ECF1:197.  This “no confidence” vote is key, for it advised the IBLE to fail Brown.  At bottom, the applicant just does not hold the desired opinions (as to Bowman’s anti-Catholic religious perspectives, among other topics de jure), and, even worse, did not seem to care that JLAP’s inquisitors discovered ideological impurity in him.  Thus Brown does not get JLAP’s approval to be licensed as an Indiana attorney since he was unable to demonstrate to the social worker Sudrovech’s satisfaction an ability to emphasize with the groupthink adjudged most valuable to the party.[2]  ECF52-1,pp.19-26

This alleged lack of belief-based empathy caused the Board of Law Examiners to rule against Brown. ECF 52-1,pp.27-28.   (See note 2, supra.)[3]

                        2.  Yes, even a religiously-motivated political dissident.

All Defendants rejected the ideological détente set by the Highest Court in the land in 1971, when it mandated that “views and beliefs are immune from bar association inquisitions designed to lay a foundation for barring an applicant from the practice of law.”  Baird, 401 U.S. at 8.  The IBLE, JLAC, JLAP and their assigns (other than Dr. William Alexy) all ended up rejecting the philosophical root of this applied détente. That root is an all-American admonition that can be traced back to the Founders, and was applied to the facts at bar thusly: “Mere unorthodoxy (in the field of political and social ideas) does not as a matter of fair and logical inference, negate ‘good moral character.“ Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 244 (1957). 

No related posts.

Next week I argue my own case before the esteemed Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Yes, I know,”fool for a client.” I’ll take that chance, but it gets worse. I am not only the plaintiff-on-appeal and the attorney, I am also Exhibit A. Which, at least in my tortured logic, is why it makes perfect sense for this fool to be both client and attorney.

I am Exhibit A because my case asks the federal court if the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) violated the United States Constitution when that august committee refused to recommend me for a law license. I am Exhibit A because JLAP’s first hired gun labeled me “almost” bipolar due to my religious zeal. I am Exhibit A because JLAP’s second hired gun labeled me “personality disordered, not otherwise specified” due, primarily, to my views regarding the termination of nascent human life. (That is, abortion). That second JLAP hired gun rejected the “bipolar” label. I am Exhibit A because JLAP’s third hired gun found me to suffer from no mental illness at all. (But his report was misreported to the Indiana Supreme Court by JLAP to support the finding of the second hired gun.)

I am Exhibit A because Fort Wayne’s own Dr. Bryan Flueckiger and Dr. Thomas Sass spent hours with me and reported to JLAP that I suffered from no mental illness at all.

I am Exhibit A because I was licensed to practice law by the state of Kansas in 1996 and passed moral character and mental fitness analysis in Montana in the same year and again in Missouri 10 years after that. I am Exhibit A because I was found sufficiently sane and moral to join the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001. I am Exhibit A because the National College of Bar Examiners approved me in general as to character and fitness the year before I applied to Indiana. (Their professional, apolitical conclusions are accepted in 48 states.)

I am Exhibit A because I have never been disciplined by any state bar. I am Exhibit A because I served the state of Kansas for four years as a deputy attorney general, supervising a staff of 20 and heading up more than 20,000 cases and 400 litigation filings during that tenure. I am Exhibit A because I held unsupervised subpoena power that entire four years and never misused it.

I am Exhibit A because I am a fine example of the power of political correctness in the Indiana legal community. You see, I am an outspoken conservative. I was a pro-life activist in this community long before attending law school. I attended Regent University School of Law, a religious and conservative law school. I litigated – arguing cases before half the federal appellate courts in our nation – for the ultra-conservative American Family Association. My service to the state of Kansas was at the right hand of Phill Kline, the most pro-life attorney general in the nation – he went after both Planned Parenthood and the late, late-term child killer George Tiller. And then I had the audacity to come home to the Fort, after a 17-year absence, and establish a culture of life institute in the very building that had served as Fort Wayne’s child-killing station since 1978.

My politics, my religion, my worldview and my past associations with conservatives were all referenced in the JLAP reports used to scuttle my admission to the Indiana bar. In the final analysis, after more than two years of unwarranted delay and maddening frustration, a government social worker by the name of Sudrovech (you should have been expecting O’Brien) determined that I failed to pass review due to my ostensible “lack of empathy” regarding “issues associated with [my] beliefs.” Get it? I was not ready enough to abandon my political and religious beliefs on demand.

In other words, I have religious and political opinions that are not negotiable.

JLAP damned my bar application despite the 1957 admonition by the U.S. Supreme Court (in the context of Marxist bar applicants) that “mere unorthodoxy in the field of political and social ideas does not as a matter of fair and logical inference, negative ‘good moral character“ and the same high court’s stern warning – again in the context of a Marxist bar applicant — that “views and beliefs are immune from bar association inquisitions designed to lay a foundation for barring an applicant from the practice of law.”

Rest assured that ACLU-types remain well-protected from religious inquisitions in Indiana. It is just religious conservatives who have to fear the deep probing of their beliefs by radical secularists.

Of that, this fool for Jesus is Exhibit A.

More at www.archangelinstitute.org

Bryan J. Brown is executive director of ArchAngel Institute.

THE ABOVE WAS INITIALLY PRINTED IN THE NEWS-SENTINEL HERE

No related posts.

No, it’s not that so many realized they failed-in fact not one student of mine left failing. Was the problem me? No, not by the appearance of every classroom I peered into and those I continue to gauge. No, not by the comments made by other professors. “It’s just what happens at this point,” stated a colleague.

Of course, I know this, having been through it for years, but for some reason it really struck me as tragic. Perhaps its the consecutive semesters that it has happened with no solution in sight.

What has happened is something I wrote about as the Indianapolis Colt’s football team approached the playoffs last season.

There were countless reasons why the students I had stopped showing up. They sometimes would tell me what happened–car problems, jail, too much on their plate. Sometimes they were just there to collect the financial-aid refund check and never come back. They didn’t play to win. Something in their management team said it wasn’t important to pass the class–to win.

While some safeguards have been put in place, I cannot say it’s enough. Many of my students brag when their financial aid refund checks are deposited that they are getting $7-8 THOUSAND dollars, mostly in Pell and other grants, and know they don’t need to show up for the rest of the semester. They get their check and they are gone. This has to be, by far, the worst semester I have ever seen.

The cost of not only college tuition and books is considered when financial aid is determined, but also the cost of living. Students are not required to show receipts for any expense. Once the money is deposited to them, they have no accountability. Students brag about the $4,000 laptop they bought and Disney vacations.

Study upon study and article and blog post talk about retention rates. They discuss ‘drop-outs’ but don’t want to talk about Higher Education’s dirty-little-secret. They don’t want to discuss going to school just for the money. College Boards and focus groups discuss merits of ‘opportunity for all’ and the all-time ‘high’ numbers of college degree awardees. There is a stark difference between students who don’t come back for their sophomore year, and those who show up for the first day of class to collect their check. And what college wants to release that information?

I could go into details, show you the statistics along racial and poverty lines, but (heaven forbid) I appear to be politically incorrect. I am sure union thugs would show up at my doorstep demanding a retraction.

Yes, in the long run, it may cost students–but it is ultimately affecting us, the taxpaying citizen, who foots the bill for the ‘opportunity’. I would like to see the statistics on student loan repayment. I tend to believe it is nearly as large as the mortgage foreclosure crisis. Collecting that debt is costly and not nearly as successful as the former.

Not only is public education policy at the state and local level bankrupting America, but the higher education level as well.

No related posts.

The next few months will provide some great organizing opportunities as we work together to help create jobs, reach out to small businesses, and protect our progress on health reform.

In order to be successful, we need to make sure we’re all on the same page. That’s why this Sunday, March 13th, OFA Indiana is holding a Camp OFA volunteer training in Fort Wayne — and you’re invited.

Staff and volunteers will be gathering to discuss effective grassroots organizing tactics, creating and running events, recruiting more volunteers, and other ways to stay involved throughout 2011.

Can you make it? Here are the details:

What: Camp OFA

Where: Allen County Democratic Headquarters
7301 Old Decatur Road
Fort Wayne, IN 46816

When: Sunday, March 13th
2:30 pm

RSVP here:

http://in.barackobama.com/Camp-OFA-Indiana

Thanks,
John
John Spears
Indiana State Director
Organizing for America

What you want to bet this is nothing more than a training camp for Tea Party or polling place intimidators?  Or maybe it’s boot camp training for the Civilian Defense Corps that Obama wants to create?

If any of you want to go as an AWB undercover agent, let me know. I wouldn’t make it past the front door. I’m certain I could get you a union t-shirt to wear.

Definition of Ofay from the Urban Dictionary:

A word of unspecified West African origin that refers to “white” people. It’s commonly used in the American South but has fallen out of favor as “White Devil” has assumed prominence.

No related posts.

No related posts.

First, a couple of reminders.

From SF Gate:

(04-04) 19:06 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — A group of homeless people and housing activists took over a privately owned Mission District duplex on Sunday in what served as the climax of a protest designed to promote use of San Francisco’s vacant buildings as shelters for the needy.

But the owner of the property – who was targeted over his eviction of a tenant – said the demonstration was nothing more than breaking and entering.

So now it’s come to this? I have a very good friend who came here from then Communist Romania. He managed to escape while it was ruled under the iron hand of Nicolae Ceausescu. During his reign over 250,000 Romanian homes were seized by the government. Are we heading in that direction?

In this case, what did the police do? Nothing.

…more than fifty people marched in the rain through the Mission District, hoisting picket signs that read “House keys not handcuffs” and chanting “Whose city? Our city.” The action was organized by Homes Not Jails, a 20-year-old group affiliated with the San Francisco Tenants Union.

By the time the tail of the procession reached the duplex on the 500 block of San Jose Street, at least eight people were inside, holding banners from second-story windows. It wasn’t clear how they gained entry, and Ted Gullicksen, leader of the tenant organization, declined to provide details.

More than a dozen police officers were on hand, most standing on the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Asked earlier whether they would take action if protesters occupied the property, officers declined to comment. One said, “We’ll see.”

By 3 p.m., all had left but one, who stayed to ensure that “nobody is out of hand,” said a police official, Sgt. William Escobar. No arrests had been made.

[...]

About 5 p.m. Sunday, he said, police knocked on the door of the building and asked protesters how long they planned to stay. According to Gullicksen, they responded that they had no immediate plans to leave.

They have a tenants union? I checked them out. Here’s their logo. Remind you of anything?

From their web site:

YES on F

Renters Economic Relief Ballot Measure Will Stop New Rent Increases For Tenants Who Are Unemployed or Have Had Wages Cut

Last year Mayor Newsom vetoed Sup. Chris Daly’s Renters Economic Relief Package and the Supervisors were unable to override the veto. On June 8, the main piece of that package will be on the ballot as Proposition F. The measure will let tenants get any rent increases postponed of they are unemployed, have had wages cut by 20% or more or if they did not get a cost of living increase in their government benefits. Tenants must also be paying at least 33% of their income to rent to qualify to get rent increases stopped.

This is telling, “or if they did not get a cost of living increase in their government benefits.“

And now they want to take the personal property of someone and give it to the shiftless.

H/T: Fingers Malloy

No related posts.

During a class earlier last month at Brown Mackie, one student was discussing the AWB blog with another student. Here’s an email I received from the student that had initiated the conversation.

I’m not sure if your aware that the writer of the berrystreetbeacon blog a Miss Charlotte Weybright who is a professor currently at Brown Mackie College off of Coliseum interrupted a conversation I was having with a fellow student regarding your blog to tell the whole class that you are a racist. I was in shock that after giving us a speech last Monday on respect for your fellow man that she was now calling someone she doesn’t know from Adam a racist. Then again, she is the cliché flaming liberal professor with her own blog concerning the evils of big pharmacy. Thankfully for me starting on November 2 she will advance to the position of Dean at ITT Tech. and she will no longer be my concern. Only 2 more weeks then they’ll find my predominantly republican class a new nut job. I have had her for 3 months now and my brain is beginning to mold over.

It really doesn’t surprise me. She’s quite the moonbat.

I was later sent a transcript from Weybright’s online course of an exchange with the same student. UPDATE: You can view the original document here .

Weybright: The country has been experiencing many pains and the economy is struggling. One struggle that the country is going through is that many homes are in foreclosure. What do you think that the government can do to correct this problem? What role should private citizens take? What do you think made this problem occur in the first place and what would you do to solve it?

Student’s reply: If any government involvement is deemed necessary it should be local and not federal. That said, there is a process already in place to handle foreclosed homes. Until that process is deemed to be broken I see no reason for interference from either the private citizen or the federal government. Federal government backing of Fannie and Freddie in forcing the hands of banks to lend to people incapable of supporting those loans (in the name of fairness) with no true oversight is what led to this problem in the first place. The free market if left alone will correct itself. If there is any role for the private citizen to take in this matter it would be to vote people like Barney Frank out of office. There is a video on youtube under the terms Barney Frank and either Fannie or Freddie that shows our good senator in about 2004 lobbying against the need for oversight of Fannie and Freddie. I would step back tell the government to do the same and let the free markets adjust themselves in order to right the wrong in the housing market.

My kind of kid.

Weybright’s reply: Is your theory, then, that the giant corporations will do what is in the best interests of the average, middle-class citizen?

The “free” market has never existed. Regulation in some form or another has existed for centuries. The only thing the free market adjusts is the amount of money earned by the huge corporate interests at the expense of everyday citizens.

Do I need to even give commentary? Yes sir, it’s the big evil corporations

Student’s reply: Yes the free market does exist but has been dying a painful death in this country of the free. Many democrats and republicans alike over this last century have done everything in their power to turn this country from a democracy to an oligarchy. Do those same politicians who run our government while taking money from those big, bad corporations to look the other way have our best interests at heart?

The free market does not just include big bad pharmaceutical, financiers, and insurance companies. No, free markets also include private citizens called consumers, small business owners (which some want to overly protect from failure and moving with the times) and all sizes of businesses in between the large and small. Had the government under President Johnson never gotten into the housing market business by creating Fannie and Freddie in the first place then we would not be in the mess we are currently in. Later in time those same style bureaucrats hid the defects of those same companies.

The “free markets” left alone would be able to do their job and only raise those of us worth raising in standard of living to that higher standard. Free markets get rid of the weak and irrelevant and create a place where everyone must give their 100% to the job of life. There would be no ‘fairness standard’ created for the purpose of trying to uplift the businesses that need to fail. To ensure our survival free markets should be allowed to do their jobs. Yes a certain percentage of big dollar businesses do pay off senators in order to not have regulations jammed down their throats but again if the government would only intervene when necessary we would not have such terrible social ideas like, welfare, medic-aid, social security, Amtrak, Fannie, Freddie, No Child Left Behind and the list goes on and on.

Yes, I admit that regulations do exist and have throughout history but our laws should and have in past always allowed for social Darwinism to be the course of things with regards to business. My theory is not what you believe rather my theory is that big government is not my be-all-end-all solution to every problem out there and less government would be my first step to correcting the problems that have plagued our free market system. I understand some people take a very narrow interpretation of a free market system in which there cannot be a truly free market system while rules and regulations are in effect. My definition is much broader in that while rules and regulations do exist the term ‘free’ means free to excel and free to fail, my philosophy encompasses the ‘sink or swim’ and ‘trial by error’ theories. Those theories are what our founders sought to protect by creating the opportunity to ‘sink or swim.’ Their approach came through not only regulation of business and law, but regulation of government as well. This approach and not a lack of regulation altogether is what created our country and gave us that opportunity which we today refer to as a ‘free market’.

I think the student should be teaching this course, instead of a former lawyer who no longer practices because her license was yanked by the Indiana Supreme Court.

No related posts.

One of the 20 finalists in health care video contest run by Barack Obama’s campaign arm features a mural of an America flag splattered with health care graffiti until it’s covered completely by black paint.

According to the Organizing for American Web site, the 20 finalists in the “Health Reform Video Challenge” were chosen by a panel of “qualified” Democratic National Committee “employee judges.”

Translation: America Haters

Now that Obama is in office, desecrating the American flag is once again nouveau.

Related posts:

1. Statement from Indiana Republican Chairman Murray Clark on Obama’s health care press conference Indiana Republican Party Chairman Murray Clark issued the following statement...
2. Obama to seniors: Drop dead, take a pill Fscking amazing....

No related posts.

Spivack was first contacted about his lease after a letter to the editor appeared in the Charlotte Observer from a snotty college kid named Jennifer Ibanez.

“Free Market Warrior, a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it’s difficult not to believe that something just isn’t quite right here.

“I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can’t imagine how the outside visitors’ perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment.

“It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end.”

Simon didn’t even extend the courtesy of a phone call, instead sending an e-mail notifying him his lease will be allowed to expire July 31, 2009 without an option to renew. The items they found offensive were shirt and bumper sticker slogans that contained “Impeach Obama”, “Al Qaeda’s two favorite days: 9/11/01 & 11/4/08″ and “My parents chose life, Thanks Mom and Dad!”

Simon and his wife Bren are well known contributors to liberal democrats. Here’s a partial list.

• $1,000,000 donation to the William J. Clinton Foundation http://www.indy.com/posts/simons-gave-to-clinton-foundation
• $100,000 worth of donations by Bren Simon to political candidates including a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid and contribution to Obama’s inaugural committee.
• $50,0000 donation to Barack Obama’s Inaugural Committee.
• $5,000 donation to National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inc. PAC
• $5,000 donation to National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inc. PAC
• $4,600 donation to Hillary Clinton (2007)
• $2,300 donation to Al Franken for Senate (2007)
• $2,300 donation to Friends of Hillary (2008)
• $2,300 donation to Hoosiers for Hill (2007)
• $28,600 donation to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (2007)
• $25,000 donation to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (2007)
• $3,000 donation to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (2008)

What’s more amazing is some of the items sold at the same mall that Simon apparently does not have any objection over. (photo credits: Loren Spivack)

Simon Properties are obviously ran by a bunch of hypocrites.

Simon operates the following Indiana properties, (partial list). A complet listing can be found here.

Northwood Plaza
6100 Stellhorn Road
Ft Wayne, IN 46815

Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets
601 Wabash Street
Michigan City, IN 46360

Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets
601 Wabash Street
Michigan City, IN 46360

Tippecanoe Plaza
2323 South US 52
Lafayette, IN 47905
(765) 448-6177

Teal Plaza
2121 Sagamore Parkway South
Lafayette, IN 47905
(765) 448-6177

Tippecanoe Mall
2415 Sagamore Parkway South
Lafayette, IN 47905
(765) 448-6176

Markland Mall
1114 17th St
Kokomo, IN 46902
(765) 452-5651

Markland Plaza
1400 Reed Road
Kokomo, IN 46902
(765) 454-6940

Muncie Towne Plaza
1190 E. Princeton Road
Muncie, IN 47303
(765) 282-1276

Muncie Mall
3501 North Granville Avenue
Muncie, IN 47303
(765) 282-2121

Village Park Plaza
1950-2000 E. Greyhound Pass
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 574-4002

The Fashion Mall at Keystone
8702 Keystone Crossing
Indianapolis, IN 46240
(317) 574-4000

Edinburgh Premium Outlets
11622 N.E. Executive Drive
Edinburgh, IN 46124
(812) 526-9764

Related posts:

1. Obama’s stimulus plan: Pass the pork Obama and the democrats are bragging about the $825 billion...
2. Chrysler dealer franchise cuts were mostly Republicans Conservative blogger Doug Ross has been doing some homework, and...
3. ACORN may soon be knocking on your door ACORN, the biased, left-wing publicly subsidized organizing arm of the...

PRINCETON, NJ — A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party’s views as being “too liberal,” from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party’s losses in that year’s midterm elections.

[...]

Notably, there has been no change over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say the Republican Party is “too conservative,” though the 43% who say the party leans too far to the right matches the historical high mark set last year.

Charts and more details [here].

No related posts.

No related posts.

In case you forgot, Barbara Boxer is a senator.

The feisty California lawmaker felt the need to remind an Army brigadier general of that fact Tuesday during a hearing before her Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where the military officer testifying had the apparent gall to call Boxer “ma’am.”

[...]

However, Walsh surely meant no disrespect, as military protocol advises that officers may use “sir” or “ma’am” when addressing anybody higher than them on the chain of command.

“We would call them ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’ or ‘senator such-and-such’,” Army spokesman Lt. Col. Nathan Banks said. Banks said any of those terms would be “appropriate” when addressing a senator.

According to one guide, the Navy and Coast Guard typically use “mister” or “miss” to address officers below the rank of commander, and “sir” or “ma’am,” or a specific title, to address anyone at that rank or higher.

“You can never go wrong by using ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am,’ but it is a nice touch if you can properly address a senior officer,” says the guide, Military Protocol: Uniformed Services.

Tuesday’s hearing was hardly the first time a military officer used those terms during sworn testimony.

The same day at a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing, two Navy officials repeatedly referred to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., with the title, “sir.”

“Yes, sir,” Navy Vice Adm. Bernard McCullough said when answering questions.

No related posts.