Menu Close

Senator Mike Braun: An Embarrassment To The State Of Indiana

In 2018, Mike Braun won the nomination to take on Joe Donnelly for the U.S. Senate seat from Indiana. In the primary, two very strong conservatives duked it out and ended up splitting the vote, leaving Braun with enough votes to become the nominee with only 41% of the vote. It was pretty unexpected. Most of us reluctantly voted for Braun in the general election even though he ran an awful campaign and had to have Trump come support him, in Indiana against a Democrat, late in the race.

He has been mostly a non-entity in the Senate and when he does speak, he sounds like a buffoon. But then he decided what the people of one of the most conservative states in the Union really want is for their Senator to announce he supports the anti-White Marxist front known by the risible name “black Lives Matter”. Oh and also to make it easier to sue cops. That is what Hoosiers want. Then to really cap it off, he decided to go mix it up with Tucker Carlson. What could go wrong?

This might be the most embarrassing thing to ever come out of Indiana….

What the hell was Braun thinking, going on Tucker with apparently no preparation? Has he never seen the show and is he unaware that Carlson doesn’t accept empty slogans at face value? Thanks to Tucker for tearing Braun apart and humiliating him on national TV. Senator Braun deserved it and more.

We sent in this letter to Senator Braun and if anything I had to tone down what I really wanted to say:

Senator Braun

As Hoosiers who voted for you in 2018, we watched with what can only be described as humiliation at your appearance with Tucker Carlson. That someone who ran as a conservative and was elected by the votes of Indiana conservatives, someone President Trump made a special trip to endorse right before the election, could state his support for an openly Marxist, anti-American, anti-family, anti-police and anti-White racialist organization like “Black Lives Matter” is an embarrassment to the good people of Indiana. Either you have not taken the time to investigate what the “Black Lives Matter” movement actually stands for before endorsing it, a complete dereliction of your responsibilities as an elected representative of the people of Indiana, or you do know that “Black Lives Matter” is a far left racialist organization pushing things like the elimination of the traditional family and you still voiced your support. Either way, your statement is outrageous.

Then you go on Tucker Carlson and he rightly took you apart on camera for your statements. Do you think that the cops on the streets in Indianapolis, Fort Wayne and Gary are supportive of your endorsement of “Black Lives Matter” and making it easier to sue them for doing the difficult work that they risk their lives for every day? Do you really think that the right way to deal with a criminal who assaulted police officers and fired a weapon at them is to just let him go, in the hopes of catching him later? Is that the sort of policing you want for Indiana, because we can tell you with absolute certainty that it isn’t the sort of policing the people that voted for you want. We support our police, and we support the rule of law, not a country where criminals can assault cops, steal weapons from them, fire those weapons at a cop and when the cop defends himself, the cop gets fired and faces the death penalty.

As our Senator, you represent the people of Indiana and as the man we voted for in 2018, you represent us even more specifically. This isn’t what we voted for. This isn’t what we will vote for again in 2024. You need to stay off TV and spend some time back in your state, listening to the people who voted for you, and then rethink your support of a Marxist race-based, anti-police terror group.

Saying we are disappointed in your statement isn’t nearly strong enough. We are ashamed to have voted for you and ashamed to have you representing Indiana in the United States Senate.

You better be sure Braun will face a primary challenge in 2024 and we will enthusiastically support them if they are reasonably competent because Mike Braun clearly is an idiot.

This isn’t the first time Braun has betrayed his base, he is quite enthusiastic about “red flag laws” as he expressed to me in a letter last August: Senator Mike Braun Betrays His Base.

I hope Todd Rokita or pretty much anyone else in Indiana will run against Braun in 2024 but no matter what I won’t cast another vote for him.


  1. Arthur Sido

    In general I don't censor comments for content, but in the world we live in allowing a comment that can be construed as a threat of violence is the sort of thing someone would use to get me deplatformed so I can't permit those. Sorry.

  2. Jim Wetzel

    Before I quibble a bit, I'll certainly agree that Braun was a buffoon on Carlson's show last night. His piety toward the bLM thugs is truly disgusting. At first glance, I would attribute that to a combination of stupidity and cowardice, the exact proportions of which I don't care about. For reasons that I explained here, a decade ago, I didn't vote for Braun, nor am I in danger of doing so in the future.

    Now, for the quibbling. About Tucker Carlson: I do indeed DVR his show each night and watch it the next morning (I do this because, while I'm sure that My Pillow is the very best one on the market, and I'm certain that selling my life insurance policy to Coventry Direct would be the smartest thing I could do, I've pretty much got that stuff memorized.) However, as with all TV, the time is too short to permit an honest and considered exchange of views between host and guest. And, like most or all hosts, Tucker's a bit of a bully. When he wants to reduce an opponent to babbling incoherence (and, with Braun, that's a pretty easy task), his favored method seems to be to bark out a question, then cut off the answer, after a few words, with another question, then a third, and so on. If the opponent has any manners, he basically shuts up and looks stupid (there again, Braun pretty much came in that way); if the opponent is someone like that Clinton campaign hack who's on there frequently, whose name blessedly escapes me at the moment, who has no manners, he and Carlson shout over each other until the segment mercifully ends. Either way, I do not enjoy seeing him do hostile interviews.

    And then, concerning "qualified immunity:" I don't know the details of Braun's bill (and I doubt he does either). So I won't try to comment on its merits. However, even though we all know some individual decent policemen, I think we all have to recognize that the police, in general, are not our friends. I'm thinking here of the tendency of the cops being unwilling to serve routine warrants without getting out the SWAT war wagon and doing a 3 am dynamic entry, screaming, cursing obscenely, throwing flash-bangs … all of which is covered by "qualified immunity." If a cop bursts into your home, all in black, with a dozen or so of his best friends dressed the same way, and decides to shoot your Chihuahua as a way to further intimidate you, you can't sue him, period: "qualified immunity." If his employers want to charge him criminally, they can, but that has nothing to do with you. You might sue the city or the county. Good luck, unless your legal war chest is considerably deeper than most. An ordinary, average person has no recourse at all. I really do think that "qualified immunity" needs to go away.

    And then there's "civil asset forfeiture." But this comment is already ridiculously long, so that's one for another day, maybe. For now, I'd like to close by acknowledging that regular people who generally avoid wrongdoing and have reasonable manners have little contact with the police, and what contact we do have is generally fairly pleasant. That's as it should be. But any one of us is just one wrong-address, middle-of-the-night SWAT raid away from having a very different experience, and that's not as it should be. And if any of us is suddenly awakened at some ridiculous hour by the sound of his front door hitting the floor, followed by some black-clad, obscenity-screaming home invaders bursting into his bedroom, let's hope he doesn't do anything with one of his hands that looks like a "furtive movement" to Officer Friendly. Because, you know … qualified immunity.

  3. Anonymous

    You may not censor, Arthur, but your spam filter sure is touchy. I lost yet another one to it last Wednesday, replying to your race driver post. Sorry, but life is too short to be chasing after my missing comments. Moving on, therefore.


  4. Arthur Sido

    Certainly Tucker is not without his faults but it is a testament to the cesspool of modern "journalism" that he is the only person worth watching on TV. Yes his shtick gets a little old. but people keep walking right into it. But the greater issue is that the state of our society is such that someone like me, who not long ago was highly critical of police militarization, finds himself frequently defending the police because the alternative is a Stasi made up of armed gender studies majors arresting people for misgendering trannies. I still oppose things like civil forfeiture and having the police armed with grenade launchers but that has taken a back seat to the outright Marxists rampaging in our cities.

    All a matter of perspective.

  5. Jim Wetzel

    Your point about the likely alternative to the police-as-we-know-them is well taken; and, if not a matter of perspective, it's certainly a matter of priorities. So I'll back up and say that summer 2020 is not the time for a reasoned consideration of qualified immunity; the first priority has to be putting down the mob. After control of the streets is re-established and things are cleaned up (and I would certainly enjoy seeing the cleanup work done by bunches of young nihilists in chain gangs, getting what would likely be the first work experience in their little lives), we can consider police abuse, which I think we agree is a real thing.

    On one of the podcasts I listen to — I forget which — I heard a cop being interviewed, and he said something that struck me as a very good idea. He said that society needs to decide and define what the task of the police is. When we know what our job is, he said, that tells us what the structure, and practices, of a police force should be. Which made me think about the engineering world from which I'm retired: the most important, and often the most difficult, task is setting the requirements. With a proper set of requirements, the subsequent engineering work is usually pretty straightforward.

  6. Arthur Sido

    Our definition of the role of the police is situational. The same people screaming "Eff da po-leese!" are screaming "Call 911!" when one of them is shot. Everyone is grumpy when they get pulled over for speeding but are quick to complain about the lack of cops when someone else is driving like a maniac. It is an impossible situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *