Elitists will never understand why Donald Trump won

Leftist: “Donald Trump’s voters are a bunch of ignorant, racist, redneck, white trash, uneducated, xenophobic, trailer trash, whining victims. Now that I have explained this to them, why do Trump voters continue to ignore my wisdom and brilliant analysis?”

Well golly gee goodness guys, do you think maybe that your approach alienates them?

A few weeks ago, I explained how not to convert anti-Trump conservatives. Insulting voters who oppose Trump will not work and will backfire. The same is true, of course, for supporters of Trump. Insulting people and calling them names because they support a candidate and/or elected official you despise will not convince them they are wrong. This applies in spades to Trump voters, who have long felt that the coastal elites and power brokers look down on them with contempt.

That’s something folks like Charles M. Blow do not get. Trump voters saw him as their vessel to rebel against the elitists that look down on them, so when a columnist for the New York Times calls Trump voters a bunch of aggrieved whiners, their beliefs about the elite are reinforced. The most effective thing a New York Times opinion writer can do to shore up support for President Trump is to attack his base. As I said on Twitter, this is why you lost the election. This is also why you will lose in 2020.

Do you really not understand how human nature works? Have you never heard the expression that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? Yes, there are times when we have to be harsh in our words. But when you repeatedly insult a group of tens of millions of people with broad and sweeping generalizations, you are not going to convert them. Until you understand this, you will never win.

Trump sycophants take the coward’s way out

It is utterly absurd to whine that conservatives who have substantive criticisms of President Trump “wanted Hillary.”

First, allow me to let you in on a dirty little secret: Politically speaking, Hillary Clinton is dead. She will never be President. Using her for fear-mongering is not just intellectually dishonest, it is political necrophilia. Leave the corpse of her political career in the ground to rot, instead of repeatedly digging it back up. Let her fade into irrelevance where she belongs.

Whining that someone “wanted Hillary” is the coward’s way out. It does not address substantive criticisms of the President. It is a way to avoid a discussion someone deems inconvenient by putting Trump’s conservative critics on the defensive with a fraudulent attack. Using that line of attack demonstrates that one either cannot defend Trump’s antics or is afraid of a legitimate discussion of policy or behavior.

The 2016 election is over. The “binary choice” meme has expired. It is logically and factually invalid to continue to respond to substantive criticisms of the President by bringing up the choice between Trump and Hillary. There is no choice, because Hillary Clinton’s political career is over.

I have criticized President Trump since he took office, and I will continue to criticize Trump, because I want him to be better. I want him to succeed. Because his childish antics and Twitter tantrums get in the way of that, I want him to stop. There are many things in the Trump agenda that I support, and I do not want him to be in the way of those things getting passed and implemented.

It does not help President Trump when his sycophants mindlessly defend everything he does. If you truly support the President, you would want him to be the best President he can be. We have a unique opportunity to get a conservative agenda passed over the next four years. We must not waste it.

Stop funding a wicked, bloodthirsty abortion mill

Printed in the Bloomington Herald-Times, August 11, 2017

To the Editor:

Abortion is not a “small part” of what Planned Parenthood in Bloomington does. We need to put that myth to rest once and for all.

We have heard a lot about how abortions in Indiana are down, and how the “good” things Planned Parenthood does reduce the need for abortions. But the statistics from the Indiana Department of Health tell the truth.

There were 822 babies killed by abortion in Monroe County in 2015. There were 1,016 babies killed by abortion in Monroe County in 2016. This is a 23.6% increase, at a time when abortions statewide decreased by 8.5%. Less than a quarter of those abortions were done on Monroe County women.

This is why it is an abomination for the Monroe County Council to force us at gunpoint to subsidize this wicked, bloodthirsty organization. No, “at gunpoint” is not hyperbole. What do you think will happen if you do not pay your property taxes?

It is time for this farce to end. The council distributed $115,000.00 to social service agencies, but the total amount requested was $319,961.89. Of over $200,000 of requests denied, surely there was a more deserving organization, instead of an obscenely wealthy multinational corporation.

You do not have the right to follow the President on Twitter

I have been blocked by both Twitter accounts maintained by Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. Despite the fact that PPINK is awash in tax dollars, my First Amendment rights are not violated by being blocked. The fact that I am blocked does not prevent me from following them on Twitter, of course, since I can use private browsing to follow both of PPINK’s accounts.

In the same way, President Trump’s critics are in no way deprived of their First Amendment rights when he blocks them on Twitter. They can still easily read his tweets through private browsing or setting up an alternate account – and it is a simple matter to switch between accounts on a phone, a tablet or even a desktop computer by using things like Twitter for Windows or Tweetdeck.

So why the lawsuit? Someone on Twitter made an excellent point. The people suing Trump are not bothered by being “unable” to follow him, because they can follow him easily. What they want is the prime real estate below Trump’s tweets to make their own profiles more visible. They are not denied access to Twitter and can still criticize the President to their heart’s content – provided they follow Twitter’s Terms of Service Agreement. No one is being denied the ability to read what they want, or the freedom to write what they want.

It is absurd to argue that a private social network is subject to the First Amendment. This is a fake controversy that only exists because so much of our culture is consumed with a victim mentality. The courts need to dismiss this lawsuit for the frivolous nonsense it is.

No one is saying we should eliminate all regulations

If you want to be taken seriously, then present your arguments in an honest and honorable manner. Do not make caricatures of your opponents’ arguments so you can refute the most extreme position possible. Not only is that deceitful, it is a logical fallacy known as the Straw Man. You do not accomplish anything by lying about your opponents’ arguments and then refuting your fantasies about what they said.

I said in my letter to the editor last month that I am pleased with President Donald Trump for removing some burdensome environmental regulations implemented administratively by President Barack Obama. People were claiming in the comments section that we need regulations to protect the environment, protect children from being exploited, to ensure workplace and food safety, and many other things. How could anyone be against having regulations to protect people?

Of course, no one is opposed to such regulations, and my critics know it.

The issue is not whether we should have regulations. The issue is how many regulations we should have, what those regulations should be, and what policy tools can be used alongside or instead of regulations. The very same Leftists who decried my praise for Trump are appalled at regulations of abortion clinics that allegedly infringe on the “right to choose” to murder your own child. This is not a lack of understanding about nuance, as opposed to taking an absolutist position. This is a dishonest smear.

If we are going to have any kind of bipartisanship, then we need to end these idiotic tactics and actually address what our opponents are saying. Fraudulent straw man arguments only deepen the divide and make it more difficult to cooperate and compromise when cooperation and compromise are possible. And yes, conservatives do it too. This kind of dishonorable behavior is wrong no matter who is doing it.

A lack of intellectual curiosity at the New York Times

I am not a single-issue voter, but I am not one to dismiss single-issue voters. Singe-issue voters are helpful in holding a political party’s feet to the fire and represent a core constituency. My issue with Lindy West’s column in the New York Times is not that she is a single-issue voter as much as the complete lack of intellectual curiosity about the anti-abortion position as well as her utterly deranged rhetoric.

It is absurd to argue that banning abortions results in women “stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives.” There are methods to prevent conception in the first place, and there are alternatives to murdering a child in the womb. A woman who has a baby certainly has more responsibilities, as does the father of that baby. It is an absurd overreaction, though, to argue women are completely stripped of their bodily autonomy because one procedure is illegal. That does not convince anyone other than your own cheering partisans.

West is completely ignorant of the pro-life movement. People who oppose abortion are “indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and possibly even the death of women?” Then why is it that a large number of anti-abortion activists are themselves women? Why is it that a large percentage of women say they want more restrictions on abortion in poll after poll? Are they indifferent to their own disenfranchisement, suffering and death? Does West really believe that men who oppose abortion are indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and death of their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters?

Come on, now.

West argues that opposition to abortion is indefensible – that there are no valid arguments for that position. Has West ever seen the pictures of aborted babies shown by organizations like Created Equal and the Center for BioEthical reform? Even if one believes abortion must be legal, how can anyone look at those pictures and not at least understand why many people oppose abortion? Does West, as a so-called “journalist,” have any intellectual curiosity to understand why people think abortion must be restricted?

West goes even further, saying that the debate over abortion “puts people’s fundamental humanity up for debate.” Yes, because the men who oppose abortion do not believe their wives, daughters, sisters, nieces and mothers are not human. Women who oppose abortion do not believe they themselves are human. Right. I know when I walked into a Students for Life meeting filled with 95% women I was astonished that they all thought of themselves as less than human. Does West realize how utterly silly she sounds when she uses such extreme rhetoric?

In the past, Democratic politicians (even the staunchly pro-choice ones) recognized that abortion is a troubling issue and why so many people are opposed to it. There is a reason Bill Clinton said he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.” Even if he did not believe in the third part, Clinton at least understood why he needed to use that word. He understood the reasoning for opposing abortion, though he did not agree. West has no time for that, because she is far too lazy and far too bigoted to actually understand why people disagree with her. Is this what the nation’s newspaper of record sees as a serious argument?

Socialized medicine, death panels and ObamaCare

It is incredibly dishonest to equate the Charlie Gard case, and the Death Panels that murdered that precious little baby made in the image of Almighty God, with the American health care system.

Imagine this scenario: Bubba and his wife have a child, and that child is born with a genetic disease that is almost always fatal. Bubba learns of an experimental treatment that might save his baby’s life, but his insurance company denies coverage, and the hospital refuses to treat his son. Bubba raises $1.5 million dollars, and takes his baby to a different hospital for treatment, where he pays in cash. Because we seceded from the British Empire, Bubba has the freedom to do that.

In the United Kingdom, Charlie’s parents did not have that freedom. They had the money to pay for Charlie’s treatment, but the so-called “hospital” was bloodthirsty and determined to murder a baby. They kidnapped Charlie, held him hostage, and murdered him. The government’s evil Death Panels endorsed this decision, and the so-called “human rights” courts agreed that a helpless baby must be murdered. His parents would not be allowed to seek medical treatment elsewhere and pay for it themselves.

Our health care system has many flaws, and there are reforms that need to be made to bring market forces into health care, lower prices, expand coverage and encourage innovation, among other things. But we do not (yet!) have government-run Death Panels that decide whether someone’s life is worth living, regardless of the wishes of the patient or his parents. If someone has the money to pay for treatment in cash, there is nothing (yet!) that the insurance companies can do about it.

But we know where this is going, and the ultimate goal of ObamaCare. Sarah Palin was right when she warned of Death Panels in 2009. Consider the man who could have surgery to repair his injured back, and that ObamaCare will not cover it – but ObamaCare will pay for opioid painkillers. This should not be a surprise, since Barack Obama himself advocated this “treatment.”

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Obviously, Barack Obama is a very wicked man, enamored with slaughtering the innocent. Socialized medicine is wicked. Allowing government to control who does and does not get treatment – allowing government to control who does and does not get to live – is terribly wicked. If the Charlie Gard scandal proves anything, it is that socialized medicine must be avoided at all costs. That starts with ripping ObamaCare out of our laws, root and branch. No government should have this kind of power.

County Council endorses a drastic increase in abortions

Despite the fact that abortions in the state of Indiana declined by 8.5% statewide from 2015 to 2016, the Planned Parenthood “clinic” in Bloomington performed 23.6% more abortions last year than the year before. Planned Parenthood murdered 822 babies in 2015, and then murdered 1,016 babies in 2016. The Monroe County Council is perfectly fine with this, again giving thousands of dollars forcibly confiscated from taxpayers to a wicked and bloodthirsty organization that is killing far more babies than before.

We knew that the corporate welfare scheme was always going to pass by a 6-1 margin, so it was overkill for Planned Parenthood volunteers in their pink shirts to fill the council meeting room. I arrived early, and was quickly surrounded on all sides by PP volunteers. Why the show of force for a grant Planned Parenthood does not need, when the outcome was always a foregone conclusion? Because this is and always has been about a political endorsement for Planned Parenthood. This has never been about serving women.

What makes this even more loathsome is that $115,000.00 was distributed to social service agencies, but the total amount requested by social service agencies was $319,961.89. Does the county council really expect us to believe that of the $204,961.89 worth of requests that were denied, they could not find a more deserving organization to fund instead of an ultra-wealthy multinational corporation? Does the county council really think the people of Monroe County are that gullible?

The meeting took place at 5:30 p.m. Obviously, This is a problem. It is very difficult for most working people to get to a county council meeting within a half hour of getting out of work, and if they do they will find that the room is already packed with Planned Parenthood activists who have monopolized the seating. While the county council’s 5:30 p.m. meeting time is an improvement over the 4:30 p.m. meeting time of years past, it still excludes too many taxpayers who pay the council’s salary and health care benefits.

The process this year actually was predictable, which was shocking. (Think of how sad that is.) The county council has moved the vote all over the calendar in years past to hide it from the public. The most shameful vote was in 2012, when the council voted to fund Planned Parenthood two days after Christmas and the day after a blizzard. Say what you will about the city, but there is never any question what the timeline for the process will be. Hopefully this predictability will continue, but I have absolutely no trust that it will.

It is long past time for the county council to stop wasting taxpayer money to make a political endorsement of the local abortion mill, and insulting all of the organizations denied funding. If they must continue this wicked abuse of power, they need to be honest and honorable in the way they handle the grant process. At the very least, a predictable and transparent process should be expected.