Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS OBSOLETE, SAYS CONGRESSMAN WHO WANTS TO NUKE OMAHA
And everybody was like, wait, what?
Of course the congressman is now saying that using nuclear weapons on American gun owners was an exaggeration, he just wanted to rhetorically demonstrate that the all-powerful government could crush us peasants like bugs, they hold our pathetic lives in their iron hand, and he’d never ever advocate for the use of nuclear weapons on American soil (that would be bad for the environment!), and instead he merely wants to send a SWAT team to your house to shoot you in the face if you don’t comply.
See? That’s way better.
But this post isn’t about that particular line from one foolish congressman. It’s about all of the silly left wing memes that have popped up since, trying to justify the congressman’s basic premise that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete for resisting tyranny, and the government would obliterate anyone who failed to comply. Like this one:
I’ve seen a slew of these over the last few days. Nukes kicked it off, but I’ve seen it before with drones, or tanks, or cruise missiles. Sadly, this is one of the better ones, but that’s because the left can’t meme. Basically they all boil down to the same fundamental premise. The federal government has access to advanced weapon systems, and thus anyone who resisted gun confiscation would be effortlessly destroyed by these advanced weapon systems, ergo gun control has already won, forgone conclusion, and they declare victory.
Like most political memes, they’re taking an extremely complex situation, and providing a cartoonish, simplistic answer, which makes them look like complete dipshits to anybody with a clue, but scores them lots of Virtue Signal Points to their likewise ignorant but posturing friends. To my people, this is really goofy stuff. I mean, if you have even a basic knowledge of this topic these memes are about as clever as the ones from the vaccines cause autism morons and the flat earth society.
We are so divided it’s like we are speaking two different languages. Hell, on this topic we are on two different planets. And it is usually framed with a sanctimonious left versus right, enlightened being versus racist hillbilly, unfailing arrow of history versus the knuckle dragging past sort of vibe.
But basically it boils down to one side making the argument: The idea of the 2nd Amendment resisting a tyrannical government is obsolete, because the federal government is too overwhelmingly powerful, and has too many advanced technologies.
So today I’m writing this for my left leaning friends and readers, in the hopes that I can break down the flaws in this argument. I’m going to try not to be too insulting. Accent on try… But I’ll probably fail because this is a really stupid argument.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a novelist now, but I retired from the Evil Military Industrial Complex, where I helped maintain those various advanced weapon systems you expect to bomb me with. Before that I was a gun dealer and firearms instructor. So basically I sold guns to the people you expect the people I trained to take them from.
On that note, I don’t think you fully comprehend the nature of the individuals you expect to do your dirty work, but I’ll come back around to that later.
First, let’s talk about the basic premise that an irregular force primarily armed with rifles would be helpless against a powerful army that has things like drones and attack helicopters.
This is a deeply ironic argument to make, considering that the most technologically advanced military coalition in history has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, it’s like you guys only pay attention to American casualties when there’s a republican in office and an election coming up.
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama launched over five hundred drone strikes during his eight years in office. We’ve used Apaches (that’s the scary looking helicopter in the picture for my peacenik liberal friends), smart bombs, tanks, I don’t know how many thousand s of raids on houses and compounds, all the stuff that the lefty memes say they’re willing to do to crush the gun nut right, and we’ve spent something like 6 trillion dollars on the global war on terror so far.
And yet they’re still fighting.
So yes, groups of irregular locals can be a real pain in the ass to a technologically superior military force. That’s pretty obvious.
Now here is the interesting part. Best estimates are that any given time in Iraq we’ve been fighting about 20,000 insurgents at most. Keep that number in mind, because now we’re going to talk about the scope of this hypothetical fight over gun control.
Nobody really knows how many people in America own guns, or how many guns are here. The estimates range wildly. I’ve noticed a trend over recent years of the news media trying to minimize that number, to make it seem like it’s actually a very low percentage of Americans who own firearms, a fading cultural anomaly if you will, and to explain the one to two million new backgrounds checks done every month for new purchases, a handful of us just own a few hundred guns each.
Uh huh…. Sure.
While trying to make gun ownership seem like an oddball thing, I’ve seen the media come up with some truly silly estimates about the total number of guns in this country. The one that was going around earlier this year was really easy to debunk, because they used the number of NICS checks… Problem is, it didn’t take into account the millions guns sold before that (and they never really wear out), the fact that one NICS check can be used to buy multiples at a time, and that many US states (including the gun nuttiest) use their own state background check system, and don’t report to that federal number. Oh yeah, with advances in cheap machining, making your own guns at home has become increasingly popular.
When pollsters call to ask us if and how many guns we own—we think about things like a congressmen talking about nuking us—and immediately lie our asses off. The biggest recurring joke in the gun community is that I don’t own any guns, because I lost them all in a freak canoe accident.
So nobody really knows how many guns there are here, or how many of us own them. But the answer is A LOT.
Recently the WaPo ran an article called Americans Vastly Overestimate the Number of Gun Owners. As with most WaPo articles, it was about 90% bullshit, but they are claiming that only 20 to 30 percent of Americans own guns. That may sound plausible if you live in Manhattan, but out here in flyover country, that’s downright laughable, but anyways, to make the idea of mass gun confiscation as plausible as possible, let’s run with that rosy figure. We’ll even take the lower one of 20%. (snort)
Too bad America has over a third of a billion people, because even the unrealistic figure of 20% of 325 million is still a whopping 65 MILLION people. That’s about the same as the entire population of France. That’s about the same as the population of Great Britain, only with 500 times the firepower. Good thing we didn’t go with that 30%, because now the number is way bigger than the population of Germany (and you know what a pain beating them last time was!). Or ironically, about three times the population of Iraq.
It’s kind of funny, when it comes to us adopting social or economic programs, the left is always comparing the US to Denmark, which has the population of LA county, and that’s totally not apples and oranges, but declaring war on a percentage of the American population bigger than most nation states? That’s no biggie.
But I digress…
Okay, so let’s say Congressman Swalwell gets his wish, and the government says turn them in or else. And even though the government has become tyrannical enough to send SWAT teams door to door and threaten citizens with drones and attack helicopters, rather than half the states saying fuck you, this means Civil War 2, instead we’ll stick to the rosiest of all possible outcomes, and say that most gun owners comply.
In fact, let’s be super kind. Rather than a realistic number, like half or a third of those people getting really, really pissed off and hoisting the black flag, let’s say that 99% of them decide to totally put all their faith into the government, and that the all-powerful entity which just threatened to kill their entire family will never ever turn tyrannical from now on, pinky swear, so what do they have to lose? And a whopping 90% of gun owners go along peacefully.
That means you are only dealing with six and a half MILLION insurgents. The entire active US military is about 1.3 million, with about 800,000 reserve. Which is also assuming that those two Venn diagrams don’t overlap, which is just plain idiotic, but I’ll get to that too.
Let’s be super generous. I’m talking absurdly generous, and say that a full 99% of US gun owners say won’t somebody think of the children and all hold hands and sing kumbaya, so that then you are only dealing with the angriest, listless malcontents who hate progress… These are those crazy, knuckle dragging bastards who you will have to put in the ground.
And there are 650,000 of them.
To put that into perspective, we were fighting 22,000 insurgents in Iraq, a country which would fit comfortably inside Texas with plenty of room to spare. This would be almost 30 times as many fighters, spread across 22 times the area.
And that estimated number is pathetically, laughably low.
In one of the bluest states in America, the New York SAFE Act only has like a 4% compliance rate. And that’s mostly just people choosing to ignore an onerous law. Because the further you get away from the major cities, the more people just don’t give a crap about your utopian foolishness. Its benign neglect, and most Americans are happy to ignore you until you mess with them. You start dropping Hellfire missiles on Indiana? Fuck you, its game on. And that 1% is going to turn into 50% damn quick.
So just by the numbers, it’s an insurmountable problem, but we’re just getting started with how stupid this idea is.
Let’s talk about the logistical challenges of this holy crusade to free the country of icky guns and murder everybody who thinks differently than you do.
In Iraq, our troops operated out of a few secure bases. Those were the big areas where we could do things like store supplies, airlift things in or out, repair vehicles, have field hospitals, a Burger King, etc. And then there were Forward Operating Bases. These are the little camps troops could stage out of to operate in a given area. The hard part was keeping those places supplied, and I believe most of America’s causalities came from convoys getting hit while trying to supply things like ammo, food, and fuel, because when you’re moving around, you’re a big target. All of these places were secured, and if you got too close, or they thought you were going to try and drive a car bomb through the gate, they’d light you up.
Now, imagine trying to conduct operations in a place with twenty times the bad guys, and there are no “safe zones”. Most of our military bases aren’t out in the desert by themselves. They’ve had a town grow up around them, and the only thing separating the jets from the people you expect them to be bombing is a chain link fence.
The confiscators don’t live on base. They live in apartment complexes and houses in the suburbs next door to the people you expect them to murder. Every time they go out to kick in some redneck’s door, their convoy is moving through an area with lots of angry people who shoot small animals from far away for fun, and the only thing they remember about chemistry is the formula for Tannerite.
In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because “we kept the gloves on”, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas.
You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns? But I don’t think unrelenting total war against everyone who has ever disagreed with you on Facebook is going to be quite as clean as you expect.
There will be no secure delivery of ammo, food, and fuel, because the guys who build that, grow that, and ship that, well, you just dropped a Hellfire on his cousin Bill because he wouldn’t turn over his SKS. Fuck you. Starve. And that’s assuming they don’t still make the delivery but the gas is tainted and food is poisoned.
Oh wait… Poison? That would be unsportsmanlike! Really? Because your guy just brought up nuclear weapons. What? You think that you’re going to declare war on half of America, with rules of engagement that would make Genghis Khan blush, and my side would keep using Marquis of Queensbury rules?
Oh hell no.
A friend of mine who is a political activist said something interesting the other day, and that was for most people on the left political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests, and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder… But for the vast majority of folks on the right, it’s an off and on switch. And the settings are Vote or Shoot Fucking Everybody. And believe me, you really don’t want that switch to get flipped, because Civil War 2.0 would make Bosnia look like a trip to Disneyworld.
Speaking of ugly, do you really honestly think that you’re going to be able to kill people because they disagree with you, and they won’t hit you back where it hurts? While you’re drone striking Omaha Nebraska you really think that the people who live where all the food is grown, the electricity is generated, and all the freeways and rail lines run through, that some of them aren’t going to take it personal? And that they’re not going to use their location and access to make life extremely uncomfortable for you?
The scariest single conversation I’ve ever heard in my life was five Special Forces guys having a fun thought exercise about how they would bring a major American city to its knees. They picked Chicago, because it was a place they’d all been. It was fascinating, and utterly terrifying. And I’ll never ever put any of it in a book, because I don’t want to give crazy people any ideas. Give it about a week and people would be eating each other (and gee whiz, take one wild guess what the political leanings of most Green Berets are?).
Similar dinner conversation once, with a bunch of SWAT cops from a major American city, talking about how incredibly easy it would be to entirely shut down and utterly ruin their city, with only a small crew of dedicated individuals and about forty eight hours of mayhem and fuckery. (And guess what their political leanings were? Hint, most of them were eager to retire because they’d been treated like shit by their liberal mayors, and take their pension to someplace like Arkansas)
So yeah, let’s talk about those people you think are going to be unfeeling automatons who will have no problem killing their friends and neighbors on your behalf…
They are us.
Above I mentioned a Venn diagram of obstinate gun owners and the military, but you can change that to cops and it’s going to be pretty similar. Those diagrams overlap a lot, and depending on the particular department or unit, they make one big happy circle.
Back when I owned a gun store, we were located one block from Utah Army National Guard Headquarters. Every drill weekend my building was a sea of ACU (and the fact that very few of my liberal readers know what that abbreviation means just shows goes to show how incredibly out of touch they are, but I mean that ugly sage grey digital camouflage). It was just a bunch of guys hanging out, talking shit, and BUYING GUNS.
Lots and lots of guns. And I know most of my left wing readers can’t tell them apart, but they were specifically buying the scary ones that you want to ban the most. Thousands of them. And cops… Holy moly I sold a lot of guns to cops. Not department guns, though we supplied a few of those, but personal guns.
Having worked with a lot of police departments, guess what? The guys who actually know how to shoot? The ones who run the training programs? Usually they’re my people too. The gun nuts gravitate toward that position because A. more taxpayer funded ammo, and B. they actually give a shit about the subject, so they learn on their own, and then try to pass those skills onto their coworkers to better keep them alive.
Whenever I see one of these dipshit memes produced by some Gender Studies Major, it just demonstrates how incredibly sheltered and out of touch they are. They don’t know fuck all about these people. Usually if they’re talking about soldiers, it’s about how they’re evil baby killers, or time bombs of PTSD rage, or poor deluded fools who joined the military because they couldn’t get a real job…. And cops, it’s about how they’re just a bunch of trigger happy racists just itching for an excuse to execute everybody who looks different than they do.
But don’t worry, despite all those years of abuse, when you ask them to go door to door in their hometown to systematically attack people they’ve known their whole lives, friends and family who’ve done nothing wrong, and maybe get shot or blown up, and when it’s over then turn in their own personal guns, all because some moron in a big city a thousand miles away said so, I’m sure they’ll hop right to it.
See, one of the things you guys on the left don’t realize is that there’s that whole “Othering” thing. You do it all the time without thinking about it. Where you just ascribe increasingly terrible things to people, like all gun owners are murderous, racist, kill crazy, redneck, dumb ass peckerwoods who want children to die, to the point that to you, we’re this unimaginable, evil, Other, so it’s okay to threaten to murder us, and feel good about yourself. Because we’re bad, and you’re the good guy, and thus totally justified in all you do.
Yet you assume that the people who gravitate toward the career fields you’ll need to wage war on us will feel the same way you do. When in reality most of them think you’re posturing, elitist, ignoramuses who don’t know the first thing about guns, crime, violence, or America.
Now this is where I’ll part ways with most of my libertarian brethren, because they are quick to point out that there are plenty of places where cops enforce existing gun or drug laws. The part they’re missing is that most people are complicated, and they’ve got lines they won’t cross.
In this case, the target isn’t some Other, it’s not just their people, it’s them. And an active shooting war between the government and half the population? That’s a pretty big fucking line. And we’re not talking about people they are already inclined not to like, but rather they’re supposed to go shoot their doctor and their mechanic for doing something that up until a few days ago was legal and they were doing themselves. A small percentage will be happy to put on the jack boots and start loading people into cattle cars. But a larger percentage will say nope, I’m calling in sick, don’t feel like getting blown up today.
And another big chunk will actively help the insurgents, because they fucking hate you and everything you stand for. Like seriously, out of touch liberals, how many small town sheriff’s deputies do you think would describe themselves as “progressive”?
Now this will vary wildly depending on jurisdiction. Some places, no problem. People will comply. Others because of the culture, they won’t. Yet, in the places where they are the least likely to comply, those are the places where you are the most likely to have the local authorities be actively on the side of the insurgents. (this is kind of a no brainer to anybody who has ever looked at any guerilla war ever in history). Which means that the occupiers then have to import outsiders to do the deed, but then the presence of outsiders piss off the rest of the local fence sitters, and now everybody is getting blown up.
The problem with all those advanced weapons systems you don’t understand, but keep sticking onto memes, is guess who builds them, maintains them, and drives them? When I first saw this idiotic Apache meme my comment was that sadly Freedom Eagle’s day job was as a contractor doing helicopter engine maintenance.
Those drones you guys like to go on about, and barely understand? One of the contracts I worked on was maintaining the servers for them. Guess which way most military contractors vote? Duh. Though honestly, if I was still in my Evil Military Industrial Complex job when this went down, I’d just quietly embezzle and funnel millions of DOD dollars to the rebels. Because fuck you is why.
So you’ve got an insurmountable challenge, that’s logistically impossible, and a big chunk of the people you expect to fight on your behalf being actively against you. Your side would need an incredible amount of will, especially after they turned off your electricity and water, and there’s no more food on the shelves.
This is why smart progressives prefer to boil the frog slowly.
To pull off confiscation now you’d have to be willing to kill millions of people. The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once. In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.
Poor Washington State Gun Lovers! (And I thought California was crazy!)
U.S.A. – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of the midterms, it is time to take a sober assessment of what the major threats to our Second Amendment rights will be. Legislative threats at the federal level are off the table through 2020, and quite possibly through 2022. But that doesn’t mean the Second Amendment is out of the woods.
The fact is, the threat to the Second Amendment has become more and more multi-faceted over the last 25 years. Recently, the threats are multiplying. Here’s a rundown.
State Legislation
In deep blue states, more anti-Second Amendment legislation is coming. You can bet on it. Exact details will be determined and may shift depending on events. But this is a threat faced before and it is one that is non-existential.
Initiatives
These have been used – most recently with I-1639 in Washington State – to enact legislation that was defeated in the legislature by the grass-roots advocacy of Second Amendment supporters. This threat holds the potential to negate the usual grass-roots advocacy – and this type of battle is tailor-made for Bloomberg’s billions to blanket the airwaves with the usual lies.
Silicon Valley Censorship
Legislation and initiatives (as well as court rulings) can be devastating, but they are not existential threats to the Second Amendment. Silicon Valley’s increasing thumbs on the scale, though double standards in enforcing terms of service, as well as their juggling of search results, and the potential to carry out de-platforming against Second Amendment supporters (just wait – that will be a demand soon) could knock us off the field.
When Second Amendment supporters make their arguments and can spread facts and logic to counter mis-reporting by the media, they generally win these fights. Mobilizing voters and volunteer support for candidates also gets done online. If Silicon Valley can shut that off, Second Amendment supporters will be in a huge bind.
Cutting off Financial Services
Another existential threat is taking place in the boardrooms of big banks and payment processors. When anti-Second Amendment legislation has been defeated (or pro-Second Amendment legislative leaders don’t even bring it up for a vote), some banks and payment processors have begun to decline financial services to gun companies who don’t accept the Bloomberg agenda.
While at the present time, it is only some banks, and limited to manufacturers, the threat could very well be expanded. Indeed, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who won re-election this Tuesday, has been waging a campaign to get banks and insurance companies to drop the NRA. The goal: To bankrupt the largest organization defending our right to keep and bear arms.
Boycotts and Stigmatization
This is a slow-burning threat that could become existential. Companies have, in the past, offered affinity discounts to the NRA (and many other groups). Most people who join the NRA don’t do it for those, but for their commitment. Those became news as many companies ended them in the wake of the Parkland shooting.
Eric Holder once famously declared that they needed to brainwash people against guns. That’s not exactly true. What they are doing is brainwashing people to falsely equate the NRA with domestic terrorists and as child killers. An outed NRA member working at a company could soon find himself ostracized – or terminated. References would dry up. Sadly, only California, D.C., and New York state forbid discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint. Passage of these laws across the country may be necessary.
These threats will not go away just by wishing, it will take a long, sustained effort. The battle for our Second Amendment rights is ongoing – so get ready to pitch in. Join the NRA, support NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF, and show your fellow Americans who we as Second Amendment supporters really are.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
Sad but true!
Just so you know what the Weasels record really is & not what they say! Grumpy
2018 CANDIDATE RATING SCORECARD
If an incumbent or challenger has not established a voting record or demonstrated his or her position in some other way, that candidate is evaluated on his or her responses to the GOA 2018 Federal Candidate Questionnaire or public statements.
Every candidate, whether an incumbent or challenger, begins with an “A” and is then downgraded for each antigun position or vote.
– Pro-Gun Voter: philosophically sound.
– Pro-Gun Compromiser: generally leans our way.
– Leans Our Way: occasionally.
Anti-Gun Voter: a philosophically committed anti-gunner.
Anti-Gun Leader: outspoken anti-gun advocate who carries anti-gun legislation.
Not rated: Refused to answer his or her questionnaire; no track record.
But do liberals still want to count to ten?
By Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA/Creative Commons
The more ambitious liberalism has become in its efforts to transform the United States, the more it has run up against one intransigent circumstance after another.
For eight years, the idol worship of Barack Obama gave liberals confidence that they could remediate society and reeducate the citizens. But reality isn’t political. It doesn’t obey the principles of progressives. Some facts aren’t pliable.
1. The economy is roaring under the Trump tenure. It’s no surprise that this fact lands on the list. GDP and the stock market are up and unemployment and food stamp claims are down.
If those trends happened under Hillary Clinton, journalists would gush and bow, but instead we get quibbles and warnings of what the future may hold.
Ezra Klein even argued that with such a low unemployment rate (3.8%), Trump’s economy should be performing much better than it is. In other words, even good news is bad news in the liberal mind.
2. People like walls. Progressives want open borders and limitless migration, and that may please the renowned professor who grew up in one city, went to school 1,000 miles away, took a job in yet another state, and lectures and does research in Europe each year.
But most people want a home and they want security. They believe that good fences make good neighbors, that a country without walls isn’t a country. Walls reinforce the pride of ownership, too. When liberals decry walls, they belittle the sense of place that people find comforting and meaningful.
3. Men and women are different. You wouldn’t think this obvious fact would be controversial, especially one backed by vast biological and social science findings. (See here and here.)
But liberals are now committed to the elimination of sexual difference. That’s why they have lionized the trans- individual. Difference leads to unequal outcomes, they believe, and so it must be attributed to patriarchy, not to nature.
They can’t accept scientific evidence that women tend to prefer working with people, men with things. They must, instead, insist that the population of engineers must be 50 percent female.
4. The LGBT population is tiny. This is an inconvenient fact in that liberals wish to remove any implication of abnormality from non-heterosexual individuals.
But the Centers for Disease Control count the LGBT group less than four percent. If we subtract bisexuals from the cohort (liberals rarely highlight them), the rate falls under three percent.
When 24 out of 25 people act in one way, we can’t help judging them normal and the other one abnormal.
5. Different groups have different abilities, on average. This proposition makes liberals very nervous, as shown in their response to IQ discussions.
We don’t have to enter the nature vs. nurture debate, however, to find evidence of average differences between racial groups. Whether they are biological or social/cultural, those differences are in some areas significant and steady, and the liberal demand that they disappear has been repeatedly frustrated.
On the crucial yardstick of academic achievement, for instance, gap between blacks and whites hasn’t closed for many years (see scores for 12th graders here), and the standard answer given by progressives (“systemic racism”) has no solid science to support it.
The more liberals refuse to consider other causes of achievement gaps such as single-parentage and cultural differences between races, the more obtuse and ideological they sound.
6. The traditional family is best. Just this week a study came out showing that being a child of divorce cuts in half the likelihood of that child earning a college degree. That’s just one of hundreds of studies demonstrating worse outcomes for children from broken homes.
The infamous “Life of Julia” ad for the Obama 2012 campaign peddled a feminist myth contrary to this mountain of evidence, showing that a woman needn’t worry about finding a man to help raise her child. She can do it just fine all by herself. See here, though, for a list of ills suffered by children in fatherless households.
7. Women are outdoing men. The “War-on-Women” motif worked well for Democrats for a time, but it collapses as soon as we look at educational trends. In 2015, women earned 55 percent of all bachelor’s degrees.
In 2016, more women went to law school than men, and one year later women surpassed men going to medical school. In nursing school, too, they still outnumber men nearly ten to one. Furthermore, at the doctoral level, women have earned more PhDs than men for many years now, and there are 135 of them for every 100 men in graduate programs.
8. The “deplorables” have good reason to mistrust their betters. It’s not just that politicians, economists and financiers, artists and entertainers, academics and intellectuals have failed so often in the 21st century to act as good stewards of their respective domains.
It’s also that the men and women of the street now know exactly what the elite think of them. You can’t trust people who despise you.
9. Religious people lead better lives. It’s been a long time since Hollywood presented faith in God and regular churchgoing as the basis of happiness.
But in measures of well-being, believers keep coming up stronger than non-believers. They are also more charitable. The findings run against the left’s determination to chase staunch believers out of the public square because, supposedly, they are nasty and biased.
10. Donald Trump is not racist. The charge won’t go away because it has intimidated conservatives and Republicans for so long.
But more Hispanics voted for Mr. Trump than for Mitt Romney, and a recent poll put the president’s approval rating among African Americans at an astounding 36 percent.
Trump has been in the public eye, too, for 30 years, and he’s worked with thousands of people of all different kinds in different ventures. Racists can’t hide under that kind of exposure. If Jim Brown doesn’t think Donald Trump is a racist, nobody else should, either.
__________________________________
I posted this one just to piss some Folks off! Grumpy