I took some heat on Twitter last week when I denounced Steve King, from supposedly “anti-racist” Leftists. I said King does not belong in Congress or the Republican Party, and I said that his defense white nationalism and white supremacist ideology was evil. Why were they angry? Because I also said that unless Democrats also denounce Louis Farrakhan, I cannot take them seriously when they denounce King. Farrakhan, of course, has had a long association with Democrats. (See here and here and here and here.)
Leftists were furious that I tied Farrakhan to King, accusing me of “whataboutism” and changing the subject. One particularly dishonest troll accused me of supporting white supremacist ideology after I explicitly described it as “evil.” This, of course, is yet another example of why conservatives are complete idiots when they try to appease the Left. The Left cannot and will never be appeased. When we take out someone on our own side, it must be on principle, not because the Left hates him. No matter what we do, and no matter what we say, they will damn us. The only thing they will ever accept is total surrender.
Forty-six years ago today, seven men condemned over 60,000,000 innocent unborn babies to death by making abortion a “constitutional right” that never existed from the time the Constitution was ratified until until the Supreme Court invented it. After a decade where this nation made immense progress ensuring that everyone has equal rights under the law regardless of skin color, the 1970’s saw our nation abandon equal protection under the law for unborn babies.
It is difficult to comprehend the scope of this national tragedy, the worst mass murder campaign in human history. This is because we hide behind euphemisms like “reproductive choice,” with some even going so far as to describe abortion as “women’s health care.” We do not want to think about the bloody reality, and even many pro-life people become irrationally angry when someone exposes the reality of abortion through photographs. People do not want to think about the fact that over one thousand babies are murdered in Bloomington, Indiana every year.
We do not need to pretend that Donald Trump is a man of good personal character (he very clearly is not) in order to support him as a political leader. It does not have to be all or nothing. There is no reason to make it all or nothing. We damage our credibility by advancing obviously hypocritical arguments. We need to think about where we want our movement to be in ten or twenty years, not just how we can support Trump in 2019.
Before I go further: Democrats lost the moral high ground on Trump’s character in 1998 with the the Clinton impeachment and again by nominating a woman very rightly called “Crooked Hillary.” The Democrats are the ones who decided that character does not matter, and Donald Trump’s political success in the Republican Party is in large part a reaction to that.
If you sneer with disdain at the President serving fast food, you are the reason Donald Trump is the President in the first place.
Your snobbery is killing you politically.
This is an open letter to Governor Eric Holcomb.
A man vandalizes a church with a swastika because he is upset that Donald Trump won the 2016 election. Another man paints a swastika on a Jewish place of worship because he is an anti-Semite. Two virtually identical actions, both designed to spread fear and inflame passions, would be punished differently under Indiana’s law if you get your way. This is because state government deems one man more worthy of punishment because he holds opinions that state government does not like.
The hate crime case that proves we do not need hate crime laws is the murder of James Byrd in Texas. One of the men who murdered Byrd has been executed and one is sitting on death row. What exactly do you and other proponents of “hate crime” laws propose in terms of enhanced penalties? Should the killers be tortured before they are executed? Should we find a slower and more painful method of execution?
So as the race for the Democratic nomination in 2020 starts to heat up, I have a very simple question: What on Earth is Elizabeth Warren doing?
She rose to prominence as a financial reform and consumer protection advocate. She was denied a position in the Obama administration and used that as a platform to run for U.S. Senate in 2012. She became one of the Democrats’ smarter and more serious voices on policy. Financial reform and consumer protection is where Warren is good. That is her bread and butter and a policy platform to run on.
The story of Jonah and the whale is one that all Christian children learn, and it is certainly a tale of high drama and fantasy. How could a man possibly survive being eaten by a whale and live in the beast’s stomach for three days? Clearly, there was something supernatural going on. But the lesson we should learn from the book of Jonah is much deeper and more profound than the miracle of God intervening to stop Jonah from fleeing and then supernaturally preserving his life to send him to Ninevah.
You see, Ninevah was the capital of the brutal Assyrian Empire. The Assyrians had brutally repressed the people of Israel, and were known for their horrific treatment of cities they captured. People were tortured is savage ways and women were raped. Jonah was a patriot who had no desire to bring God’s message of forgiveness to the people of Ninevah. He wanted God do destroy the city.
As Christians, we need to be able to read the stitches on the fastball. Not every Christian will have the same level of discernment, but we all should have some level of discernment. We should pray for more discernment and we should cultivate what we already have. We certainly should not despise those who have extra discernment and can see where the culture is going before we get there, and warn us about it.
There are both good and bad things about the #MeToo movement, and the emphasis on consent is good. Too many men (especially rich and powerful men) feel they have a “right” to take what they want, and women’s wishes are overridden. Women should never be forced to do anything against their will.
But while consent is necessary, consent is not enough.
If someone wrote a letter to the editor and I called the author a “terrorist” in Herald-Times comments, I expect my comment would be deleted, as it should be. Calling someone a “terrorist” is a defamatory statement, because terrorists commit acts of violence, destruction and mayhem to advance a political agenda. So why should a Leftist be permitted to fraudulently call me a “terrorist” in the comments for my letter to the editor?
The Herald-Times has long had a policy against libelous and defamatory comments. The so-called “newspaper” deleted several comments in 2011 when a Democratic activist accused a former Republican elected official of felony voter fraud for voting in the Democratic primary. (Indiana has closed primaries.) After that, the H-T said people were not allowed to use the word “murder” to describe abortion, even if no specific person was accused of a felony. I strongly disagree with prohibiting the word “murder,” but at least I can respect the reasoning for that rule – provided it is evenly enforced. (Spoiler! That policy is not evenly enforced.)
I originally wrote this in April 2001, but it is worth re-posting.
“Hate crime” laws are a dangerous step toward totalitarianism.