As much as the media would like to cast what’s going on during the GOP presidential nomination process as a “crisis for the GOP”, the Dems have their own establishment crisis problem. And it is getting very little media coverage. But Kim Strassel talks about it today in her WSJ piece. As much as the Democrats (and media) would like voters to believe the right is melting down and heading toward Tea Party land, it seems clear the left is getting ready to “Move On.”
On both sides, frustration with the establishment is the most evident feature:
Some of Mrs. Clinton’s struggles are self-imposed. She’s a real-world, political version of Pig-Pen, trailing along her own cloud of scandal dust. Even Democrats who like her don’t trust her. And a lot of voters are weary or unimpressed by the Clinton name. For all the Democratic establishment’s attempts to anoint Mrs. Clinton—to shield her from debates and ignore her liabilities—the rank and file aren’t content to have their nominee dictated.
Especially because many of those rank and file belong to a rising progressive movement that has no time or interest in the old Clinton mold. Barack Obama’s biggest legacy may prove his dismantling of the Democratic center. He ran as a uniter, but he governed as a divisive ideologue and as a liberal, feeding new fervor in the progressive wing.
These progressives proved more eager than even the Republicans to steadily pick off Democratic moderates—and helped the GOP to decimate their ranks. The Democratic congressional contingent is now at its smallest size since before FDR. But boy is it pure, and it retains an unwavering belief that its path to re-election is to double down on the Obama agenda.
I have to admit loving the characterization of Hillary as “Pig Pen”. That notwithstanding, you’d think Hillary, who has prepared for this since Bill first stepped into the White House, would be a natural choice of the left. But then how does one explain the rise of someone who uses the term “socialist” to describe himself because communist would likely be a bridge too far? It’s because the left and right have drifted further apart over the years and the “establishment” of both parties has been set adrift. It’s because to more and more Americans (who didn’t live during the Cold War and didn’t see the wreck the Soviet Union was when it imploded) are enamored with the idea of “equality” as the left now describes it. Equal income, high minimum wage, free this and free that. When you’re an economic illiterate, those things are appealing. And when you further believe the government is the instrument of all things good, well, you’re on the road to serfdom.
Just as Donald Trump is busy calling out the GOP pretenders to the throne, the lefty heroes are undermining the chances of the anointed one:
The president insists that financial institutions were entirely to blame for the 2008 crisis, and that government’s role is to transfer more from those greedy capitalist owners to poor Americans. Out of this class warfare came the likes of Occupy Wall Street, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and today a Sanders campaign that describes “wealth and income equality” as the great “moral issue” of our time.
Mrs. Warren, a progressive hero, went out of her way last week to praise the Sanders Wall Street “reform” plan. Even Joe Biden wanted in on the action, lauding Mr. Sanders and suggesting that Mrs. Clinton was still “relatively new” to the income-inequality debate. Hillary is stuck trying to explain why her campaign donations from bankers aren’t a disqualifier.
The usual subjects have also rallied around the Clinton opposition:
These movements and activists (who also embrace the gun debate, and the women’s-rights debate, and socialized health-care debate) are now the beating heart of the Democratic Party. And they are rallying around Mr. Sanders. MoveOn.org has endorsed Bernie. The liberal Nation magazine has endorsed him. Bill McKibben, the head of 350.org, has endorsed him. Jodie Evans, the co-founder of the antiwar group Codepink has endorsed him. Celebrity activists like Susan Sarandon and Mark Ruffalo are feeling the Bern.
Now no one is saying that all that is enough. But for both parties, if ever they figured out they had missed their wake up call, this is the season that drills that home. For too long, both establishment parties have taken their voters for granted, essentially merged into a tax and spend entity that no one is satisfied with, and have missed the proverbial boat for government reform. Of course, reform is defined differently by the right and left, but you get my point.
The party that is in trouble this year isn’t the GOP or the Democrats, per se. It is the party of establishment politicians who’ve ignored the restless and frustrated voters one election too many. People are tired of the Obamafication of politics – talk, talk, talk and then do what the hell you want to do.
We’ll see how it all turns out, but it is one of the more interesting political periods of my lifetime – and I’ve been around since Truman.
So yesterday was one of those days with a million things to do and not enough time to do them … such as blogging. Anyway, today, we see a college pushing back against the tyranny of the ignorant:
Oxford University installed its first female vice-chancellor this week, Louise Richardson, who boldly stressed the importance of free speech and critical thinking at university amid roiling student protests.
Addressing students for the first time in her new role, Richardson urged them to be open-minded and tolerant; and to engage in debate rather than censorship, alluding to countless calls from students at Oxford and other universities across the U.K. to ban potentially offensive speakers and rename or remove historical monuments.
“How do we ensure that we educate our students both to embrace complexity and retain conviction?” she asked. “How do we ensure that they appreciate the value of engaging with ideas they find objectionable, trying through reason to change another’s mind, while always being open to changing their own? How do we ensure that our students understand the true nature of freedom of inquiry and expression?”
Richardson’s installment comes as students at Oxford’s Oriel College campaign to dismantle a statue of Cecil Rhodes, the British colonialist who endowed the Rhodes Scholarship.
They claim the monument glorifies a man who was “the Hitler of South Africa” and speaks to “the size and strength of Britain’s imperial blind spot.”
Uh, that’s history, and that’s precisely the message that was conveyed by Ms Richardson to those who would take down Rhode’s statue:
Richardson stood by the university’s chancellor, Lord Patten of Barnes, as he referenced the statue debate, reminding students that history cannot be rewritten “according to our contemporary views and prejudices.” He, too, was forthright in his criticism of speech codes and calls for “no-platforming” controversial speakers.
The point Richardson makes seems to be a difficult one for the SJWs to grasp. Obviously none of them are Rhodes Scholars. Good for Louise Richardson.
The “melting pot” makes a comeback:
A generation ago the Europeans, who had bled themselves white in war after war, usually in the service of chauvinistic nationalism, decided they could save the day with a new concept called multiculturalism. The concept was vague but expansive, which celebrated ethnic and other cultural differences and sprinkling them with holy water. “Multi-culti” became fashionable.
Soon Europe’s native minorities were joined by vast new numbers of arrivals from places far from Europe, many from former colonial appendages. By cultivating their differences, rather inviting them to join a melting pot that had worked so well for so long in North America, tolerance and “cultural enrichment” became the norm.
But there’s a growing realization that maybe “multi-culti” hasn’t worked so well, after all. Prominent Europeans are turning their backs on the idea. Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have called the scheme, however well meant, into serious question.
Segregating by culture, claiming all cultures are as viable as the next and “tolerating” what is intolerable in the native culture do not lead to a harmonious or united nation. You’d think smart people could have figured that out before going all in on this sort of experiment that had “bad idea” written all over it when it began. And that’s been proven now, with the wrecked lives of a number of British girls (Rotherham):
The British Home Secretary, Theresa May, told Parliament that “institutionalized political correctness” was responsible for the lack of attention given to the mass rape.
In other words, between protecting over a thousand girls from repeated gang rape and protecting Muslims from being identified as the rapists, British authorities chose to protect multiculturalism and “diversity.” In the competition between multiculturalism and one of the most elementary instincts and obligations of higher civilization — the protection of girls and women from sexual violence — higher civilization lost.
And look what their choice got them. The authorities need to be in jail for their refusal to do what was right and, by the way, their job. Oh, and feminists? Where are you?
How bad a candidate is Hillary Clinton? This is just an indicator:
Bernie Sanders has a 19-point lead over Hillary Clinton among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34, according to a USA Today/Rock the Vote poll.
The Vermont senator, who has been surging in the polls in the last two weeks, won 50 percent compared to Clinton’s 31 percent among millennial women.
However, I have to say, if your choice on that side of the political spectrum is narrowed down to these two, you’re stuck with two bad candidates anyway.
A poll out Thursday from the Pew Research Center shows more Americans distrust sharing their personal information with social media companies, smart cars and homes than office surveillance cameras, retail loyalty programs and health services websites.
According to the study, 54 percent of American adults polled found the prospect of security cameras in their workplace capable of tracking employee performance and attendance with facial recognition technology and stockpiled footage “acceptable,” compared to 51 percent who said it was “not acceptable” to give up personal information in exchange for free use of a social media platform, which would use the data to target users with ads.
“More acceptable”? How about finding neither “acceptable.”
By the way, if you’re wondering why Clinton is losing millennial women to Sanders, this may be the cause:
As for Mrs. Clinton, she has clearly been rattled by Mr. Trump’s merciless resurrection of her alleged complicity in the sometimes brutal handling of women involved in her husband’s dramas. This reminds everyone of—and introduces young voters, who were children during the Gennifer Flowers through Monica Lewinsky stories to—the whole sordid underside of Clintonism. Mrs. Clinton clearly wasn’t expecting it, and she bobbled. She has never gone up against a competitor like Mr. Trump.
History is a bear, and this is a history that I would bet (especially in the light of the Cosby problem) that many of those women weren’t familiar. It really puts “hollow” in the claim of feminism Clinton has been trying to sell them. Instead, it shouts “enabler”. Add in all the other negatives and the candidate looks even less attractive to them. Most of us would consider it to be well earned shadenfruede.
Is the next recession already teed up? And will it be worse than 2008?
A major contributor for this imminent recession is the fallout from a faltering Chinese economy. The megalomaniac communist government has increased debt 28 times since the year 2000. Taking that total north of 300 percent of GDP in a very short period of time for the primary purpose of building a massive unproductive fixed asset bubble that adds little to GDP.
Now that this debt bubble is unwinding, growth in China is going offline. The renminbi’s falling value, cascading Shanghai equity prices (down 40 percent since June 2014) and plummeting rail freight volumes (down 10.5 percent year over year), all clearly illustrate that China is not growing at the promulgated 7 percent, but rather isn’t growing at all. The problem is that China accounted for 34 percent of global growth, and the nation’s multiplier effect on emerging markets takes that number to over 50 percent.
China has been in trouble for a while. In my best Rev. Wright voice, I wonder if the “chickens are coming home to roost?” I also wonder if so, what that means in terms of stability for China’s ancient totalitarian ruling class.
And in the world of participation trophies and no consequences, this was inevitable:
With nothing but hope and her faulty judgement, Cinnamon Nicole allegedly spent her entire life savings buying up all the Powerball tickets she could afford. But the Cordova resident ended up a broke loser when none of her lucky numbers matched Wednesday’s $1.6 billion Powerball numbers.
So what’s a penniless woman to do when she’s still all filled with hope but not a hint of common sense? Create a GoFundMe page, get donations and “spend another fortune trying to hit it big again.” That’s what Nicole did before GoFundMe decided they weren’t going to stand idly by while she makes a mockery of the crowdfunding site and shut her Powerball Reimbursement page down.
And yes, before GoFundMe shut her down, she had actually raised $800.
Have a great weekend.
One of the things always clear about oppressive and totalitarian ideologies is the rules only apply to the ruled. And the rulers see nothing wrong or hypocritical about that. Today’s liberalism is precisely like that and demonstrably so. For instance, as Victor Davis Hanson points out:
The rich supporter of affirmative action still uses, without apology, the old-boy network to pull privileged strings to get his own son admitted to the proper college. Al Gore flies on a carbon-spewing private jet, saving the planet by getting to conferences more quickly and enjoyably. High-tax proponent John Kerry docks his yacht where he can avoid taxes; how else to ensure downtime for furthering social justice?
A spread-the-wealth Obama, who warns others about making too much money and profiting at all the wrong times, nonetheless chooses the tony haunts of the moneyed and privileged — the Hawaiian resort coast, Martha’s Vineyard, Rancho Mirage — in preference to the old Chicago hood or even Camp David.
And then there are the Clintons who seem to believe that the laws of the land simply shouldn’t be something they have to follow. These are only a few of the hypocritical examples that highlight the left’s bankruptcy. The rules are for the little people, as is the facade these sorts of people erect to attract their votes.
The examples of the left’s hypocrisy abound and aren’t at all hard to find (btw, before anyone wonders, yes, there is hypocrisy on the right … see the GOP Congress, but this is about a pernicious ideology which usually devolves into a form of oppression). For instance, this beauty:
State Senator R.C. Soles (D – NC) Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home … The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
And he has every right to defend himself. But he’s all for taking your right away and my guess is he felt no hypocrisy at all when he defended himself with a private firearm. Among the torch bearers of today’s progressives or liberals, there is a sense of entitlement that is astonishing. Camp David? My goodness, use a private and secure location built specifically for presidential vacations when one can use whatever funds needed to take dream vacations at the expense of others (especially in the midst of one of the worst economic downturns in modern history)?! Heaven forbid! “I’m entitled!”
It is that attitude that is both infuriating and dangerous. Because it inures them to the reality that they’re attitudes and actions lead to oppression. Since they never believe their ideology necessarily pertains to them, it isn’t difficult then for them to impose it on us … for our own good, you see. It is a “do as I say, not as I do” ideology.
It is also an ideology that constantly gets tripped up when it’s ideas clash. More hipocrisy ensues:
Thousands of first- and second-generation Middle Eastern immigrants, at least some of them recent arrivals, went on a rampage in many German cities over the New Year’s holidays, pawing, manhandling, and sexually assaulting hundreds of German women — a classic foretaste of the coming collisions between the Morlock premodern and the Eloi postmodern worlds.
But, in essence, the progressive leaders of Europe have suppressed these events, playing all sorts of games through the media while, I’m sure, expecting you to believe they believe strongly in women’s rights. You certainly wouldn’t know it by their actions. Which brings me to something else Hanson said:
How does one adjudicate when various –isms and –ologies conflict with one another — radical feminism versus sexual emancipation, environmentalism versus the customs of indigenous peoples, free speech versus correct speech, integration and free expression versus safe spaces and trigger warnings? Does not even PC marijuana tar the lungs, give off second-hand smoke, and, in double-martini fashion, impair driving?
Yet in truth, liberal correctness trumps all lesser progressive agendas. The master ring of leftwing politics rules the lesser rings of race, class, gender, immigration, and environment. Ideology alone makes Barack Obama, prep-schooled in Honolulu, a more authentic representative of the Jim Crow South than Clarence Thomas, or Bill Richardson more Latino than Marco Rubio.
His point is dead on. “Liberal correctness” is the trump card they use when finally forced to choose between two competing portions of the ideology. In this case, the rights of women take second place to the PC staple of multiculturalism (a failure if ever there was one). One mustn’t presume to judge a culture based on our own because apparently good and evil are malleable concepts and we have no right to decide what is good or evil.
As for authenticity, they are the deciders of what is or isn’t authentic. Why? Because a) we’ve allowed them to introduce authenticity into all aspects of race, class, culture and gender to the point that now favored minorities are allowed to whine about “appropriation” of their culture.
It’s all a big mess – but at bottom it’s all about the imposition of “right thinking” and “right acting” according to them. But it doesn’t apply to them.
What is that, you may ask? Well, it’s the “new media” of sorts. In the old days, reporters reported. They came up through the ranks and they were fairly objective. They knew their territory and they knew their subject. Yes, I know about “yellow dog” journalism. But it wasn’t hidden then under the patina of “objectivity” we suffer through today. Today’s journalists, for the most part, are agenda journalists. They have an ideological agenda that has been introduced to them early and nurtured through years of schooling and grad school.
Given what we read and hear, most people would gather that the agenda they follow is that of the left. Why? Well, has anyone taken a good hard look at academia lately? Or is asking that a micro-aggression? Help, I need a safe space.
Here’s an example. If you saw a headline that said “Poll: 70 percent believe in climate change“, what would you infer from that? We all know that “climate change” is the left’s newest code phrase for man-made global warming. They had “global warming” pretty much shoved down their throats by multitudes of questions they couldn’t answer and conditions that didn’t meet their claims. So they decided on a squishy term: climate change.
Here’s the term in use:
“Americans know climate action is critical — they’re seeing its impacts with their own eyes. Climate change is a moral issue, a health issue, and a jobs issue — and that’s why the strong majority of Americans want the federal government to do something about it, and support the strong outcome in Paris.”
But the support is complicated. Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
“The data exposes the extent to which this has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. rather than a scientific issue,” Tony MacDonald, director of Monmouth University’s Urban Coast Institute, said in a statement accompanying the poll results.
You know, I got to thinking about it over the holidays. I needed a break. I feel somewhat refreshed and ready to face a brand new shiny year that will, unfortunately, contain the same old political dreck … times 10, since it is a presidential election year. As has been pointed out here, many times, we are woefully served by our political class. And, frankly, that’s our fault. Complain all you want about government and politicians, but the bottom line is, the incumbents continue to be reelected and give away the farm and the bureaucrats continue to siphon off our freedoms through unaccountable fiefdoms imposing freedom killing regulations.
The one good thing this year brings is seeing the Obamas ushered out of the White House. The two bad things are the front runners for president in each major party. I’m sorry, I see no intrinsic leadership value in either of them. One is a blowhard opportunist with no concept of how to do what he claims he can get done and the other is, plain and simple, a crook and a liar. This is what present day presidential politics has come down to. What a non-choice.
Well, that’s not true. We always have a choice, don’t we? Even if it is to do nothing. And if those are the two running in November, that will be my choice. But, as with just about everything to do with today’s political and the class of politicians we suffer, this is an old complaint and frankly, I see nothing on the horizon to change that. The polity is who makes these decisions, and it appears, for the most part, they believe that the government has money and can give them “free” things. The depth of ignorance, especially about basic economic principles and how government functions is appalling, but that’s with what we continue to deal.
I’ve decided I need to take a little more time with my posts than with last year. So I’m going to attempt to rearrange my schedule to where I have more time to devote to them. That may mean posting in the evening when the work day is done. Or not … depends. But what doesn’t “depend” is the desire to be less reactive, less prosaic and more thoughtful. Anyone can be outraged (and I will be) and upset, but it’s time to do more than state that. It’s time to talk about the whys and wherefores. It’s time to talk about alternatives. It is time to take a good look at this grand experiment and dissect it to find out where the pathogen introduced itself and began to corrupt the system. My guess is it will mostly boil down to human nature, opportunity and the quest for power.
Anyway, that’s my desire for this year. Hopefully, I’ll keep this in mind and not let myself wander into the rut I found myself in last year.
Welcome to 2016. Let’s see how it goes.
Brought to you by Victor Davis Hanson. I’m sure you can recognize the intent as well as the real subject:
Would Donald Trump cross the racial line to weigh in on a current high-profile criminal case, and suggest that had he another daughter she would have looked just like the deceased? Would he dare go to the UN Assembly to deplore an average bloody and lawless weekend in Chicago, reminding the world that a tribal U.S. has a long way to go? Or at an Islamic prayer breakfast, would Trump remind Muslims not to get on their religious high horses given the outrages of the Caliphate? Perhaps if Guantanamo is closed by executive order, Trump would reopen it by one too?
Would Trump dare use his sloppy epithets in reference to foreign leaders? Would he dismiss Putin as a back of the class cutup or obsessed with “macho shtick?” Would his aides with impunity tell reporters that the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was a “chicken sh*t?” Would he lecture us that America was as exceptional as Greece or Britain? Maybe he would visit the Middle East and Turkey and remind the world from foreign shores that the U.S. had a lot to own up to?
If Trump were to take selfies, claims he was usually the most interesting guy in the room, set a new presidential record for golf outings, pick the Final Four on live TV, would we still dub him narcissistic, distracted, and buffoonish?
And the biased institution in this bit?
Yup, that’s right, the so-called “unbiased media” which is about as unbiased and a Grand Dragon at a KKK rally (and no, in case you’re wondering, it doesn’t mean I’m for Donald Trump … just to clear the air). Just remember, in the years since GW Bush left office, not once have we seen a report on anti-war protests, even though Afghanistan still continues, Iraq smolders and we toppled Libya.
Yeah, me neither. Yet, we have a group of people out there who are more than willing to take the chance of “inviting” known killers who hate us into the country.
As usual, the media and some pundits have turned a very gray area into stark black and white arguments. You’re apparently for allowing open immigration to anyone or you’re a racist and a bigot if you opt to be selective.
What I’m talking about is the majority of the nation which is reasonably concerned that those who would kill us are seeking entry into the country without being screened and, if necessary, rejected. This is characterized as “unAmerican”. So, then, was Ellis Island where we rejected would be immigrants if they were sick or had criminal backgrounds, etc.
Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical. . . .
All important points, but the final point is most likely the most important. McCarthy again:
Our constitutional principle of religious liberty is derived from the Western concept that the spiritual realm should be separate from civic and political life. The concept flows from the New Testament injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.
Crucially, the interpretation of Islam that is mainstream in most Muslim-majority countries does not accept a division between mosque and state. . . .
The lack of separation between spiritual and civic life is not the only problem with Islam. Sharia is counter-constitutional in its most basic elements — beginning with the elementary belief that people do not have a right to govern themselves freely. Islam, instead, requires adherence to sharia and rejection of all law that contradicts it. So we start with fundamental incompatibility, before we ever get to other aspects of sharia: its systematic discrimination against non-Muslims and women; its denial of religious liberty, free speech, economic freedom, privacy rights, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments; and its endorsement of violent jihad in furtherance of protecting and expanding the territory it governs.
And that’s where we must draw the line. If an immigrant wants to become an American, recognize the separation of church and state and embrace the constitutional principles which govern this country, I say “welcome”. If not, I say, “don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass as you leave”.
Of course, the left’s legacy of “multiculturalism” says we must respect different cultures and learn to live with them. I say, no we don’t. Why? Because some cultures are destructive and some cultures are inferiors. I know, not politically correct, but certainly reality based (something the left once tried to convince us was a description of their ideological grounding).
You would no more invite a killer that hated you and wanted to take over your house into your home than any other sane person. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t apply the same principle to this country (and for those of you who don’t read carefully, that means we don’t keep out all Muslims, only those (of any religion or ethnic group) who refuse to recognize our Constitutional principles and won’t assimilate).
We don’t “owe” them anything.
One of the three in the title doesn’t belong there:
I watched, incredulously, as all three contenders in Saturday night’s Democratic presidential debate — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley — refused to say the slaughter was the work of “Muslim” extremists.
Clinton blamed “jihadis.” But despite prodding, she would not speak of the Islamic elephant in the room.
Sanders stood by his earlier claim that climate change, not creatures in suicide vests, presents the biggest threat to this planet because it makes poor people into terrorists by interfering with their crops or something.
At that point, I switched to the Syfy channel to get a bigger dose of reality.
And probably got much more of a dose of reality than the Democratic debate.
Imagine claiming “climate change” was the “biggest threat to the planet” when terrorists are blowing up people in France. Or the simple fact that the climate really hasn’t shown any change in over a decade.
Who are “jihadis” and what religion do they represent, Ms. Clinton?
And who’s two memes, “ISIS is the jayvee” and “other civilized countries don’t have this sort of problem (referring to mass killings), were utterly destroyed? Not to mention watching the French president show what leadership means by hitting ISIS immediately, repeatedly and hard?
Oh, that would be our Commander-in-Chief, the semi-retired and totally disconnected Barack Obama.
Meanwhile, the importation of 10,000 Syrian refugees will continue as planned.
Yup, Syfy would seem to deal in reality much more than our President and the Democrats.
This is one that you have to read to believe. It is one of those irredeemably stupid people and two time losers that helped Obama to two terms. Of course you won’t be particularly surprised that she is the director of Women and Gender Studies at The College at Brockport – whatever that is. Apparently she and her family ate off of Obama placemats prior to 2008 and were pretty sure that this was the guy who could change the world, stop the seas from rising and deliver the utopia that includes “free stuff” and world peace. Then reality set in, sort of, and the goodie bag wasn’t delivered as promised, the seas ignored him and world peace was even more illusory than before his ascension. But they still BELIEVE!
Today, I write this letter with a bleeding heart. I admire Obama. But he has let me down. I am disappointed because his presidency could have done more for our country, and sadly, the many taken lives who cannot read this essay. I still worry about urgent social tensions facing our nation, and I recognize their ongoing complexities in policy and legislative action. But gun violence can be averted. Can our country ever be free from senseless gun-crime?
Firearm possession should be banned in America; President Obama can orchestrate this directive. His presidency can be remembered as a remarkable turn in United States history where a progressive leader forever changed the landscape under which we live and work. This is his legacy. To establish gun control laws in America that will reduce high levels of male violence and usher in a culture of peace and civility.
Barack Obama is the president of the United States. He can change the country. He can do it today. I believe in him.
Gun violence can be averted by banning guns? One would assume then that knife violence, sword violence, club violence and fist violence can all be “averted”- if we “ban” all those things. Because we know that as soon as a law is passed, and all those are banned, it will “usher in a culture of peace and civility”. Because … every violent male will put those things aside and become a part of … what?
Would anyone actually want to be a part of this woman’s world? She’s all for taking things away from you. In fact, she lobbies for it. And my guess is she’d be fine if the things were taken away from you violently in the name of her utopia. You know, whatever’s necessary. After all, that’s what government is for, right?
As with most progressives, she’s anti-freedom, a closet totalitarian and has an anti-male bias so strong it colors everything she says or does.
And she votes.
I find this observation by Joel Kotkin to be interesting:
Generational politics pose both risks and rewards for each party. A Trump candidacy may excite older voters and many younger white voters, but the cost among a pro-immigrant, heavily minority millennial voting bloc could prove damaging over the longer run.
Democrats, too, face risks, particularly if they continue on the path of radical wealth redistribution and draconian climate change regulation. Although still strong, support for Obama has been steadily weakening since 2008. Millennials are the only age group to still approve of President Obama’s record, but by only 49 percent, not exactly a ringing endorsement.
The future may be determined by the extent that millennials feel that Democratic policies inhibit their ability to move up economically. Younger millennials, having grown up during a weak economy under a progressive president, are notably more conservative than older ones, notes a recent Harvard study.
They increasingly share some attitudes with conservatives, having become notably more deeply distrustful of many of the nation’s political institutions. Nearly half describe themselves as independents, far more than any other age group.
To be sure, mllennials will likely stay more liberal than boomers (about as many are conservative as liberal), but they could shift further to the right once they enter their 30s and start earning a living.
Independent is a pretty flexible label and hides a lot of biases that might otherwise put them solidly in one camp or the other. But the realities of life do indeed have a tendency to temper idealism. As you grow older, you realize how little your priorities for what you earn matter to government. You are simply a cash cow to them and they’ll use force to make you pay your “fair share” … as defined by them.
When you begin to get into your career and raise a family, and watch as your priorities in life become second to the government’s you have a sort of epiphany. Most, at least, begin to pay a little more attention to what is happening via government and begin to drop the youthful silliness that marks their adolescent and college years (colleges are incubators of silly ideas … see past 7 years). You begin to see government for what it really is … a “legalized” and ever expanding protection racket. Something that, if Paulie ran it in the neighborhood, would be illegal because it would be considered extortion. But then, if you disagree with government and refuse to pay the protection money, what happens?
These are the things … just some among many … that begin to dawn on people as they get older. And it usually pushes those with the ability to reason, to the more fiscally conservative, smaller less costly side.
Of course, some never get it, and they’re the type that elected this idiot in the White House and will vote for Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders and then Hillary Clinton).
They will never understand that there is nothing free in the world, most of the problems we are “scared” with originate with government (and that government is NOT the answer) and simply have no problem with their freedom being limited if it is limited by the “right people”.
However, as you read this blurb, you see something that should clue you into why we’re in this shape. And it isn’t millennials. It’s boomers. They defy the point I’m trying to make (“about as many are conservative as liberal”) with about half remaining in fantasy land. Of course, they also lived in the golden age of the US in terms of total wealth.
So I dispute the belief expressed by the author that millennials will “likely stay more liberal than boomers.” Perhaps socially, as in social issues. But in pocket book issues, they’re hardly found the living easy. And the big government help they were told was so necessary and good isn’t at all panning out like promised.
Is there any wonder the Democrats are insistent on importing new voters, legally or not?
But are millennials “game changers” like Kotkin contends?
Frankly I don’t really see any generation as “game changers” at the moment. But you may disagree.