Alan Winslow
“Indiana’s population is changing, and that’s good news.”
This is the title of an editorial from a Jeffersonville, Indiana, newspaper, The News and Tribune. Our Seymour Tribune reprinted the editorial on August 10th.
What is the good news?
- “More people of color are moving into the state’s metro areas.”
- In 2023 Marion County [Indianapolis] “became majority non-white.”
- The Louisville Metropolitan area, including Indiana counties, “saw an increase of almost 5% in its Hispanic population [in one year] from 2022-2023.”
Now why is all this “good news”?
Because, “ … without [Hispanic] immigration our economy would be in big trouble.”
And according to the Jeff paper, “Indiana has a poor history when it comes to race relations, but this shift in demographics signals a new day for the state.”
Finally, the editorial states, “It’s great news that Indiana, despite stereotypes and assumptions about the state, is a place where people of many different cultures and races are choosing to live their dreams.” …
Now, dear reader, this is a troubling editorial as it favors a race-based perspective in evaluating population changes. Such a viewpoint demonstrates a cancerous attitude that highlights and promotes racial division. As the editorial states, Marion County “became majority non-white,” and that is deemed a part of the “good news.” Heaven, help us!
Meanwhile, the editorialist, expressing delight in Hoosier racial transformation, ends up exalting illegal immigration. The writer might as well say it outright, “Three cheers for illegal immigration! Give us more! Save us from our racist past. Make us better!” And perhaps that is the real message.
And for my money, it sure didn’t take massive illegal immigration to make Indiana a grand home for “different cultures and different races.”
Mr. Hamilton:
The Honorable Lee Hamilton writes a column that regularly appears in The Tribune. A recent column on foreign policy requires a critical response.
But first, please note: never in Mr. Hamilton’s end-of-column profile does he reveal his Democratic Party partisanship. Rather, he presents himself as a detached statesman-observer. On the contrary, Mr. Hamilton should always be understood as a liberal-progressive ideologue.
And his August 28th column is a confirmation of this left-wing prejudice. In it he proclaims, regarding Biden’s foreign policy, “…we can say with confidence that his record is solid and history is likely to judge him positively.” And Trump? He judges his as all bad.
Now what was bad about Trump?
Mr. Hamilton writes that Trump’s years brought chaos. Trump “criticized our allies and cozied up to dictators. He pulled us out of the Paris climate agreement, the World Health Organization, and the Iran nuclear deal. He derided NATO, raising questions about America’s reliability.” (BTW, most of this true!)
What is good about Biden?
“Biden focused … once again to make America a leader of a rules-based international order.” … “He insisted that diplomacy was at the center of our foreign policy and set out to repair alliances and ‘engage the world again.’” He rallied international support for Ukraine after Russia invaded, the highlight of his Presidency.
Biden strengthened NATO and he has been a strong supporter of Israel since the October 7th Palestinian Hamas bloodbath.
“He’s tried to strike a balance between immigration’s benefits and its perceived costs. Early this year, he negotiated a major immigration reform bill” and Trump loyalists killed it.
Once again, dear reader, a needed reply:
First, we should acknowledge that Mr. Hamilton is without peer in foreign policy knowledge and experience, at least in Indiana.
Regardless, let’s allow recent History to have its say:
Biden ordered Afghanistan to be abandoned in August of 2021, against military advice. He bypassed the conditions Trump had set in place to manage the stages of a secure withdrawal. Not only did he desert a nation, but he stranded there nearly 9,000 American civilians and left behind 10 billion dollars of military equipment.
Russia invaded Ukraine twice, first under Obama (2014) and then under Biden (2022), six months after Biden deserted Afghanistan. Apparently unknown to Mr. Hamilton, no Putin wars were started during Trump’s Presidency.
Hamas terrorists from Gaza savagely invaded Israel and started a war of genocide in October 2023, during the Biden administration.
At the start of his administration, Biden lifted restrictions and allowed Iran to sell its oil, a reversal of Trump policy. A financially ascendant Iran began active funding and planning of terrorist activity directed at Israel. The Hamas savagery was a direct result of this Biden policy.
And meanwhile, Iran has provided the same aid to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, on Israel’s northern border. The result: increased Hezbollah-initiated fighting is under way.
Trump had placed restraints and other punishing financial restrictions on Iran, the world’s most active terrorist state. He cut off monies to that radical anti-American and anti-Israel nation. Iranian acts of terror subsided during the Trump years.
Also, with Trump mediating, four Arab nations signed accords with Israel starting in 2020 that normalized relations. Called the Abraham Accords, these treaties were historic and opened full diplomatic connections.
At home, Trump struggled to close the border and build a wall to secure that border. Biden’s Party resisted him at every turn. Trump succeeded in achieving a remain-in-Mexico policy which ended the catch-and-release-in-America policy of Obama. Illegal alien border crossings began to markedly subside in the latter period of his administration.
And Trump began building a protective border wall.
The Biden/Harris administration abolished all Trump’s border executive orders (including the remain-in-Mexico policy), and a flood of illegal aliens have violated our border ever since. In three-and-a-half years Biden and his chosen Border Boss, Vice-President Kamala Harris, have enabled a record 8 to 10 million illegal alien entries, such that all states are now, in effect, border states—with no end in sight!
Now, to which President shall we assign policies that induced chaos? Which President’s foreign policy results are likely to be judged positively?
Ms. Whitcomb:
As I see more and more yard signs for the Lewis/Whitcomb District 69 State House contest, I wonder how many local Hoosiers are aware of Ms. Whitcomb’s views on so-called gender ideology, specifically the fabricated concept of transgenderism.
In recent legislative sessions, Indiana Republicans passed laws that prohibited hormone treatments and sex-change surgery for 17-and-under boys and girls. Also, laws were passed preventing boys (who claim they are girls) from using girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms and competing in girls’ sports.
Every Hoosier Democratic legislator voted against those prohibitions, choosing to reject biological fact and defy common sense.
So, it would appear likely that when the state Democratic Party regains majority in the State Legislature, they will reverse these laws.
After all, where Democrats control other state legislatures, as in Presidential candidate Harris’s California and Vice-Presidential candidate Walz’s Minnesota, transgender laws authorize sex-change medical treatment for children.
Those same state laws also require that boys who have the normal complement of male sex organs and who claim to be female must have full use of girls’ dressing and bathroom facilities and full participation in girls’ sports in primary and secondary schools.
So, I say, wouldn’t it be good to know Democrat Whitcomb’s views on this extraordinary matter before we vote?