I am legitimately depressed that Donald Trump could be the Republican nominee for President. This isn't a flash in the pan or an infatuation - his support is real.
Perhaps Trump is what this nation deserves, though. A nation that would vote for him certainly deserves him.
A large portion of the Republican Party has left me behind - abandoning serious conservatism for loudmouthed celebrities. And not just any celebrity - a fundamentally un-serious fraudulent "conservative" with a long history of supporting gun control and abortion rights and who also enthusiastically supports having government steal people's homes and give them to private developers.
His popularity stems from not-so-subtle racism and xenophobia in addition to his bellicose, rude, arrogant personality. He plays to fear, hate and bigotry. I don't want anything to do with that mentality.
♣ - I saw a clip of Ronda Rousey's fight on Facebook, and seeing the brutality and bloody aftermath that fight made me VERY uncomfortable with women in mixed martial arts. The kick to the head was one thing, but watching a 28 year old woman get pounded on the ground while she's prone and unable to defend herself was very disturbing.
♣ - Is it time for us to consider Bashir Assad an ally is the fight against the Islamic State? Is Bashir Assad our best bet to eliminate ISIS? Idiots in both parties have enabled ISIS by weakening Assad, and it was only a couple years ago that some were advocating the incredibly stupid policy of arming ISIS so they could fight Assad. The Washington establishment clearly has not thought this though and removing Assad will probably only make things worse - something I could have told you three years ago.
♣ - It is completely absurd to force a teenager to register as a sex offender for having nude pictures of himself or herself. Obviously sexting should be discouraged, but let's not go completely overboard an ruin teenagers' lives! The fact that a "sex offender" would be both perpetrator and victim should be a sign as to how absurd this is.
♣ - One of the most frustrating things about driving on an interstate is when someone passes me and then slows down to slower than I was going when you passed me. If you want to go that speed, why did you not stay back there in the first place? That is just plain rude.
♣ - Here are some sobering numbers: There were 10,202 children murdered by abortion on Monroe County between 2001 and 2013. I doubt the vast majority of people have any idea that an average of fifteen babies are killed every week right here in Monroe County. It is time for the Christians in our community to wake up to the bloodshed and brutality that surrounds us, and stand up and say "no more."
♣ - Here is some free advice for candidates for office in 2016: Never put anything on a yard sign you can't read at 30 to 50 miles per hour. You have one second to deliver your message. Make the most of your signs.
♣ - When I read this article, I was reminded of the inmate at the Monroe County Jail who died after being shocked by a Taser. Police departments nationwide need to adopt better policies on the use of Tasers.
As we remembered and thanked all veterans a week ago, it was striking to think about the differences between veterans and the coddled, wimpy so-called "college students" who demand "safe spaces" to protect them from ideas they disagree with. While pathetic so-called "students" need a "safe space" young men of generations past left their safe spaces to run into the most dangerous place imaginable - the middle of a war zone. Veterans were too worried about surviving a hail of bullets and defeating the enemy to be "offended" by ideas they dislike.
To be fair to today's so-called "students," this politically correct insanity is nothing new. It is just more visible today than it was twenty years ago. Twelve years ago, so-called "students" at Indiana University were trying to get a professor fired for saying things on his personal blog the "students" found offensive, and other so-called "students" were trying to get the university to discipline a conservative group for protesting affirmative action. Fourteen years ago, so-called "students" demanded "diversity training" for Indiana Daily Student staff after the IDS agreed to run an advertisement from David Horowitz. There are many examples stretching back many years, just here in Bloomington.
The reason I am calling the politically correct crybabies "so-called 'students'" instead of just "students" is they are not "students" at all. Real students are dedicated to learning about facts, concepts, and even new ideas. The entire point of being a student is to learn. If you need to retreat to a "safe space" because someone is saying something you disagree with instead of learning about that idea, then you are not a student. Period.
As an example of how silly things are, consider a so-called "controversy" about an extremely deferential, tolerant and respectful e-mail sent by a Yale professor's wife. The hysterical reaction of so-called "students" to this e-mail has been the subject of nationwide scorn, mocking ridicule and derision. I shared a couplearticles about it on Twitter.
Do I even need to call this nonsense out as "ridiculous?" I see things that I disagree with all the time, both in pop culture and in the media. I see people mocking my faith, my Savior and me personally. I do not retreat to a "safe space" or demand that the Diversity Police censor those things - and I would not have thought to do that when I was twenty years old. I knew when I arrived in Bloomington to go to college that I was going to be in a minority and that I would disagree with a lot of what I saw and heard. I dealt with it and got my degree. It is called being an adult.
But what worries me the most is that the crybabies at Yale and elsewhere represent the future leaders of these United States of America. How are these so-called "students" going to handle it when they get into the real world and they do not have the Diversity Police to silence the opposition or provide a "safe space" when they encounter a new idea? If (God forbid!) some of them wind up shaping U.S. foreign policy, how will they handle disagreement? Will they cry and hide if a KGB thug like Vladimir Putin mocks them? Will they demand the United Nations do something about it?
It is true that political correctness and censorship is not new, but the hysteria seems worse than it has been in the past. I truly fear for the future of our nation when these crybabies start taking the levers of power. I just pray to God that these pathetic wimps manage to grow up before that happens.
The Herald-Times claims that their mission is to "strive for accuracy" but they frequently fail to live up to this standard. One recent example is their highly dishonest statement that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed last year "would mean people did not have to do business with gays and lesbians if they didn't want to, based on religious grounds."
This is what I like to call a "factually correct lie." It is factually correct that RFRA (before it was gutted) would have allowed Hoosiers to refuse to do business with homosexuals, but this was never intended to be a blanket allowance for discrimination. Instead, RFRA was a response to violations of religious freedom and would have had a very narrow impact: Florists, bakers and others would not be forced to participate in a homosexual wedding.
No one, including the strongest supporters of RFRA, ever wanted to see blanket discrimination against anyone. No one wanted to make it more difficult for homosexuals to buy groceries or gasoline, find a place to live, or find a bank to store their money. What RFRA supporters wanted to do was provide a narrow and limited set of protections to people who feared they would be forced to violate their consciences if government forced them to participate in a homosexual wedding.
Furthermore, the law did not explicitly allow discrimination of any kind. What the law actually did was direct the courts to apply strict scrutiny in a conflict over religious freedom. The law only allowed a law that applied generally to restrict religious freedom if there was a compelling state interest and there was no other way to meet those goals. The law could have easily been interpreted by the courts that businesses may not refuse service to homosexuals seeking to purchase groceries or gasoline but would allow a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.
Claiming that RFRA was intended to allow blanket discrimination is not just an exaggeration - it is a lie. Shame on the Herald-Times for lying to its readers in pursuit of a political agenda.
I have been falsely accused of being a single-issue candidate during my run for city council, focused only on the city's annual handout to Planned Parenthood. It is true that I made a lot of noise about corporate welfare to Planned Parenthood, and I did spend more time on that issue than I thought I would when I filed my paperwork to run for city council. However, I was far from a single issue candidate.
Following are some of the issues I addressed during the campaign:
I have been following city government for twenty years, attending city council meetings as far back as 1996. I have spent many hours in city council meetings, and spent many more reading about and studying city issues - and I have a paper trail to prove it. Saying I am only a single-issue candidate is not just ignorant, especially when someone who also closely follows local politics is saying that. It is dishonest.
I do not apologize for the time I spent and the statements I have made strenously objecting to the city council's annual handout to the local abortion mill. That needed to be done and I am glad I was one of the ones who has done it - even when i was the only person attending a meeting to say "no" to the corporate welfare. But dismissing me as a single issue candidate after all of the other things I have addressed is nothing more than a lie.
The Democrats will have a 9-0 majority on the city council again in January, with a Democratic mayor to go along with it. Of course, I was a candidate for city council at-large, getting 3.3% of all votes cast as a write-in candidate.
First, I found it interesting that Republican at-large candidate Jennifer Mickel got 500 more votes than Republican mayoral candidate John Turnbull, who was much more visible and spent a lot more money than Mickel did. A lot of Republicans had grumbled about Turnbull, thinking he was either a Democratic plant (he was not) or that he was not conservative enough. That discontent showed in the election results as a lot of folks skipped over Turnbull but voted for Mickel. I think Turnbull made an error focusing on being the "CEO" of the city without a clear policy agenda. John Hamilton gave his voters a reason to turn out and be excited, while Turnbull did not.
While I did not get as many votes as I hoped, 3.3% is not bad for someone who was not on the ballot. People had to remember my name and remember to write in my name, and that is a difficult obstacle. Nonetheless, I accomplished my two goals for the election: I gave the voters a choice in the election that they would not have had otherwise and I presented an alternative vision for the future of city government.
I presented a large number of policy proposals and influenced the debate over the public policy quite a bit, even as a write-in candidate. I brought up some issues that would not have been discussed at all if I was not running, including civil asset forfeiture, police militarization and government meeting times. I showed I could do this despite a limited time commitment and spending less than $20 on my campaign.
Who knows? Maybe I will run as a Republican in 2019. But that is three years away, and that is a very long time.
I am sure I am going to hear a lot about the fact that I only got 3.3% of all voters to write my name in for city council. But before we get into that, we should take a look at previous election results where I actually was on the ballot:
2004 primary election: 942 votes 15%, delegate to state convention (One seat elected countywide in a three way race.)
2006 primary election: 526 votes Bloomington Township Board. (That is 63.68% of the people who voted in the township trustee race)
2006 general election: 1985 votes, Bloomington Township Board. (That is 28% of the people who voted in the township trustee race)
2008 primary election: 490 votes, delegate to state convention.
2010 primary election: 1230 votes, delegate to state convention.
2012 primary election: 665 votes, delegate to state convention.
When all is said and done, 3.3% of all ballots cast is not bad for someone whose name was not on the ballot - especially since I spent less than $20 on my self-funded campaign. By running as a write-in I created extra work for voters who had to remember my name and write my name in. If I had it to do over again I would have filed to run in the Republican Party caucus, where I would have been nominated. Had I been on the ballot, I would have probably ran even with Republican at-large candidate Jennifer Mickel.
I am planning on running for both delegate to the 2016 state party convention and precinct committeeman in 2016, where I expect I will do a whole lot better than getting 3.3% of the vote since I will actually be on the ballot. More thoughts on the 2015 city election will be coming on Wednesday.
I want to express my sincere appreciation for everyone who supported me and voted for me. I cannot name everyone, but you know who you are. Thank you so much.
While I did not get as many votes as I would have liked, 3.3% of voters wrote in a name that was not on the ballot. Thank you.
I raised many issues throughout the campaign. One issue the next mayor and council should address is transparency. First, no government meeting should take place before 5:30 p.m. while most people are at work. While city government is far better than county government in this regard, this needs to change.
Second, the mayor should be completely open with how much money and property is confiscated annually via civil asset forfeiture, and the city council should demand it. We also need a full review to ensure no one who has not been convicted of a crime loses his money or property permanently.
Finally, the idea that financial records that were public record suddenly became "investigatory records" in 2014 is absurd. The nature of the records did not change because someone was suspected of theft. John Hamilton should reject Mark Kruzan's policy of secrecy.