First there was the Indiana Censorship Bill that requires any seller of sexually explicit material to register with the Secretary of State. You know, like bookstores that sell romances and such.
Now the Republicans have the opportunity to vote for Tony Zirkle who is in a primary race for a House seat in Northwest Indiana. Apparently, Mr. Zirkle is either none to bright or totally disingenuous. If it’s the former, I don’t think he should be making laws that affect the rest of this country. If it’s the latter, ditto plus ten.
What did Zirkle do? A white supremacist group decides to hold a party commemorating the birthday of Adolf Hitler. Zirkle is one of the speakers. When questioned about this, Zirkle claimed that “”I’ll speak before any group that invites me. . .I’ve spoken on an African-American radio station in Atlanta.” When asked his thoughts about the group, he said “he didn’t know enough about the group to either favor it or oppose it.”
He also told WIMS radio in Michigan City that he didn’t believe the event he attended included people necessarily of the Nazi mindset, pointing out the name isn’t Nazi, but Nationalist Socialist Workers Party.
Nevermind the visual clues like the big picture of Hitler or the swastikas. If Zirkle wins, I’ll have to wonder if his opponent was Bill Napoli. Who’s worse?
Edited to add: Have decided that Zirkle is a dangerous kook. South Bend newspaper reported his views on segregation. Sounds like after a congressional study, Zirkle would like to herd us all into different communal camps.
He went on to tell the Kokomo Perspective, "While we are brainwashed with respect to integration and forcing everyone to be together and basically all arguments to the contrary are silenced, historically it’s very often been the case that you have to segregate and apartheid people to stop the continual war."
"I don’t have enough facts to support it," Zirkle said of his proposal, speaking with The Tribune. "I think it would need a congressional study to see if I support it. It may mean the cost of transferring people is too high."
On the other hand, he said, maybe it could also save the costs of the crime rate -‘ and reduce claims of racial profiling. Granted, he said, it could take a century for the move to really fall in place.
So how would you divvy up Hispanics?
You can pretty much lump them in with whites, he says.
What about black Latinos whose black roots go back several generations in Latin America? And what about the ever-growing number of mixed races?
"You’d have to let people declare what culture they want to be living in," Zirkle said.
I’d like to live in whatever culture that Zirkle has denounced and rejected.