E Pluribus Unum ...

Translation: out of many, one. 

Despite what Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats say, diversity is not our strength. 

Assimilation is and has been for centuries. Through assimilation people from all over the world – of diverse cultures, races, ethnicities and religions – have joined in the American experiment for the betterment of themselves and this country.

It’s been good for us. 

The opposite of assimilation is what you see now in parts of Europe. It’s also what Democrats, the far left, and people like George Soros want for the United States. 

They oppose assimilation because it’s easier to manipulate discrete segments of a population than to win over a majority. It’s a classic divide and conquer strategy.  They want to tear apart the social fabric that’s held this country together for hundreds of years.  When they accomplish that, they can rewrite the social contract between government and its citizens. 

Which is what they really want.

They aspire to implement an authoritarian-run country. They want a government run by the best people – people just like them; people who know better than the masses, not people foolishly elected by a dim-witted public.  And at the very top of their movement they truly believe the general public isn’t smart enough to be allowed to choose their own leaders.

To get there they need to keep us divided and at each other’s throats. They don’t want us to put aside our differences. They need to destroy the concept of America as the great melting pot where people of different cultures, ethnicities, races, and religions can still unite as one nation.

They’ve been working at shredding this concept for years through our schools, the media, and the entertainment industry.

They’ve artificially amplified our differences to keep us apart. They continue to promote the idea that racism and bigotry are rampant in America, when in fact they’re not. They claim there’s widespread voter suppression to disenfranchise minorities, when there’s no proof of this.  They insist hate crimes are on the rise, when these are not; most are found to be hoaxes. They invent mythologies about the dramatic increase in supporters of white supremacy, antisemitism, fascism, and Nazi-like nationalism in America, even though facts and statistics show otherwise.

It’s a nonstop propaganda blitz aided by useful idiots to make us fear each other, doubt our security, and distrust our institutions.  They want us to believe there’s no such thing as the rule of law, or equal justice under the law, and never has been in America. They want to destroy our faith in the basic fairness of America and its people. 

Their goal is for our country to collapse into chaos.  Political, social, and economic collapse will lead the way.  They’re doing everything in their power to move it toward that. 

They’re pitting the young against the old. The poor against the affluent.  Minimum-wage earners against business owners.  Blacks against whites.  Blacks against police.  Blacks against the criminal justice system. Muslims against Jews. Women against men.  Social liberals against social conservatives.  Anti-religion secularists against the religious. Illegal immigrants against citizens. Blue states against red states.  Populous states against less populated states.  The left against the right. Progressives against moderates. Socialists against capitalists.

It goes on and on.   

It’s always one group against another.  There’s no middle ground; no room for compromise – compromise is unacceptable.  That’s intentional.

They preach the “beauty” of diversity, yet what they want is increasing segmentation along racial, ethnic, gender, economic, moral and religious grounds. Their “diversity” is in fact isolation among one’s own tribe. They need to keep the tribes separate, with their own respective victimology.

They mask this under the guise of “preserving” and “respecting” everybody’s culture and identity. It’s really just a way to prevent cultural and economic assimilation, which is their greatest fear.

Listen carefully: you’ll hear them talk about the black vote, the gay vote, the woman vote, the Hispanic vote, the Jewish vote, the Asian vote, etc.  In short, their “diversity” is really just market segmentation to win elections.  Their political strength is not diversity, but division. 

And the more divided we are, the more chaos they can create.

Rank and file Democrats may not realize this is what the top Dems and their deep-pocked donors like Soros and Steyer want. I’m not sure most of the progressive candidates running for President fully understand this either.  I also don’t think the media grasps this yet.    

But there is a concerted effort to cause chaos and sow discord to disrupt this country enough to usher in an authoritarian regime to “save” us. Look at their support for Antifa. For open borders.  For giving illegal immigrants the same rights and benefits as citizens. For the most extreme abortion on demand positions.  For their collective silence when people assault police officers. 

They know most Americans are outraged by these things. They know they’re polarizing the public even more every day.  Yet they keep stepping up their efforts, knowing they’re risking a possibly violent backlash. But a backlash is what they want. They want absolute chaos. 

We’re not there yet despite their best efforts.  It may take years.  Still, that’s what all this talk about the “beauty” of diversity is. It’s a sham.   

Our strength is in assimilation. A shared language.  A shared set of values.  A shared belief that America, its people, and its ideals are basically good and worthy of protection. 

Always has been.  

Nobody really "likes" Trump ...

Outside his immediate family – and I’d bet that’s even a stretch at times – I suspect most people wouldn’t want to spend a lot of one-on-one time with Trump if he weren’t President. 

Ed Rendell, former mayor of Philly, once said that the test of a politician’s likeability is whether you’d like to go to a ball game with him or her.  I don’t think Trump would pass that test. 

Democrats obviously hate him. The media largely abhor him.  Republicans don’t like him. Nor do independents. He may be the least likeable President in our modern history.

I don’t like him personally, either. But I voted for him in 2016.  And unless something truly bizarre happens or he quits or dies before the next election, I’ll probably vote for him again in 2020. Not because I’ll suddenly like him, but because he’s getting stuff done. 

That’s the key. That I, and many other Americans, don’t like Trump the man, but will likely vote for him again baffles Democrats and the media. They can’t understand it.  How can someone so demonstrably unlikeable become – and perhaps be reelected – President?

They don’t get that there’s been a big change in the electorate when it comes to how important personal likeability is. Obama talked a good game and enjoyed high personal approval ratings yet accomplished little of substance in eight years aside from doubling the national debt, saddling us with Obamacare, and making us appear weak to the world. To me he was an empty suit.   

Many of us are now more focused on what a candidate says they’ll do, and how confident we are they’ll fulfill their promises. We want a President that’s not desperate to be our friend at the expense of doing what’s necessary for the safety and security of the country. 

We don’t think a President should be just like us – they’re going to be President of the United States, for God’s sake, not our pal or drinking buddy. 

We want our President to protect us, protect our rights, protect our judiciary system, protect and uphold the Constitution, leave us alone, and stop spending our tax dollars on stupid stuff like unnecessary foreign wars and feel-good social programs that don’t work. That’s going to take someone willing to fight for us; someone who isn’t afraid of public opinion or what the media think.  Someone who isn’t always worried about being likeable or popular. 

We’re perfectly willing to put up with a jerk if they can do that.  Trump’s proof.   

Make no mistake, Trump’s a jerk at times.  But he’s an authentic jerk and authenticity is more important than likeability in politics today.  He never pretends to be anyone other than who he is – warts and all. He’s openly politically incorrect and says whatever he really thinks regardless of who he’s talking to. That makes him refreshingly honest, if often also just misguided. 

If he doesn’t like you, you’ll know it. He’ll never stab you in the back. Or in secret.  He’ll stab you in the front while the cameras are rolling. 

He’s a billionaire, his wife is a knock-out model who speaks multiple languages, he’s a Wharton Business School grad, and he owns properties all over the world. He never pretends he’s just like you and me. Nor does he ever try to prove he is.  He knows that would be silly. 

That’s a point apparently lost on a lot of people now running for President. Most of them are busy promising things they can’t possibly deliver and engaging in stunts to make them seem more “authentic” and in touch with the “common people” of this country.   

Yet the more they push these stunts the more they come off as phony, and often ridiculous.

Like Liz Warren “having a beer.”  Beto getting a haircut, changing a tire, or worse yet, getting his teeth cleaned – thank God he wasn’t up for a colonoscopy. Kamala claiming she smoked pot and listened to Tupac when she was in college.  Remember Hillary claiming she always carried hot sauce in her purse?  They all came off as shameless and disingenuous. 

Can you imagine Trump doing any of that?  Nope. 

Say what you will about Bernie and his looney-tune policies, but at least he is who he appears to be. He’s the genuine article: a crazy old socialist and unrepentant class warrior, who with all his arm waving and yelling clearly doesn’t give a rat’s ass whether you like him personally. He’s not pretending to be anything else to be more likeable.  He doesn’t care.

I think he’s nuts, but I give him credit for not hiding it.     

Trump doesn’t care whether you like him personally, either. Nor does he waste time trying to fool anyone he’s like the rest of us.  He’s not and that’s obvious.

It doesn’t seem to bother him. Or me.     

Now, I’m often appalled by what he says. I cringe whenever I hear “President Trump tweeted …” because I just know it’s going to be off the wall, and most likely offensive. Some of his ideas are crazy.  He has a loose relation, at best, with facts. I don’t always agree with how he’s chosen and treated the people supposed to advise him, or even the people supposed to be his political allies. 

He’s a bully. He’s rude. He’s arrogant. He’s egotistical and lacks social graces.

If someone made a comedy about Trump’s Presidency, the late Rodney Dangerfield would have been a shoo-in for the Trump part, if only to reprise his Al Czervik character in Caddyshack. 

Trump’s a developer from Queens, as Greg Gutfeld says: What did we expect? 

Yet I do appreciate that he’s willing to step up and address problems other Presidents have kicked down the road for decades.

Like the trade imbalance with China and the EU. Like pulling out of bad trade agreements. Like withdrawing from feel-good yet one-sided agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal.  Like dealing with North Korea and Iran from a position of strength.  Like making NATO members pay their fair share.  Like rebuilding our military. 

And of course, confronting illegal immigration. 

I may not always agree with some of his solutions, but at least he’s doing something. 

Which is more than I can say about many of our most recent and more popular Presidents from both parties.    

About those universal background checks ...

After the recent mass shootings, universal background checks for gun purchases are again front and center. The media always make it appear as if there are powerful forces preventing legislation for these from ever getting passed in Congress and signed into law. 

Actually, almost nobody is opposed to background checks for gun purchases. 

Even the oft-loathed NRA has supported these for decades.  As a gun owner, I’m not opposed, nor is anyone else I know who also owns guns. We’re all in favor of them. No responsible gun owner – the overwhelming majority – wants a crazy or violent person to get a gun.  

The problem is these checks won’t always prevent someone who shouldn’t have a gun – the psychotic, the mentally unstable, those prone to extreme violence, and even some juveniles with criminal records – from getting one.  At least not in today’s environment of political correctness. 

Not because the premise of universal background checks is bad.  No, it’s because the data that would rule these people out are often intentionally withheld to comply with a variety of laws and policies designed to protect the privacy of individuals, and especially juveniles.

HIPAA routinely prevents licensed medical professionals – and insurance companies – from disclosing medical conditions and sharing treatment records of a patient with anyone else, even another medical professional, unless the patient or legal guardian consents in writing. What makes anyone believe these would now be part of a background check database?  

Many schools and local police departments, as in Broward County where the Parkland shooter lived, have policies intended to avoid putting juveniles in the system unless he or she causes serious bodily harm to another. Then, in many states and cities, the criminal records of juveniles are sealed by the courts and not accessible; in some places, barring another conviction, those same records are later expunged. Essentially like they never happened.      

In short, the kind of data that might be useful in a background check database to see if someone shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a gun simply won’t be there. 

However well-meaning those laws and policies may be, these severely limit access to the type of information that might have kept guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals.

If we want this information in a national database, we’d have to sacrifice some personal liberties. We’d have to agree as a nation that there are limits to anyone’s privacy, raising the question of who decides what constitutes a warranted invasion of privacy and when.  And the dicier issue of what constitutes protected speech, and when is something posing imminent danger.

Some states are already wrestling with this.

Florida has something called the Baker Act which allows for the temporary involuntary commitment by family or friends of someone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. There is also new consideration among other states of so-called “red flag” laws which would allow authorities to take guns from those who might use these to harm themselves or others. 

While these seem to make common sense, there are flaws in them, too; fundamental ones that will surely be exploited by civil libertarians and smart lawyers. They violate due process, for one. There’s the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure, too. Then there’s the Second Amendment, of course. 

More to the point, in this country it would set a dangerous precedent to deny basic rights to anyone based on what they think, what they might do, or what they say:  you can only do that after they’ve done something. If we start incarcerating, committing, or taking away other rights merely based on a hunch or a grudge by someone, we’re opening up a terrible can of worms.

And granting law enforcement the right to take away someone’s rights based solely on a person’s thoughts and speech is truly scary: that’s police state stuff.   

There's nothing wrong with legislating universal background checks to purchase a gun. Expanding checks to include gun buyers at gun shows and guns bought privately from another owner – which is what’s on the table – probably won’t make much of a difference, though. 

I doubt these will accomplish as much as their rabid supporters promise, mostly because the data still won’t be there unless key laws are changed.  And that’s not going to happen anytime soon. 

Once even the most ardent supporters realize they might be opening a Pandora’s Box – by giving government the right to monitor and track an individual’s most personal data – many will reconsider. After all, do they trust the government to collect and manage their most intimate and personal data, and protect it from unauthorized disclosure?

This is the NSA snooping on steroids. We all know how vulnerable that data was to hacking.  We also know that hackers routinely get into bank and credit card files.  Imagine how valuable the data in this database would be. 

So what’s the solution?

How do we stop crazies from getting guns and committing mass murder?

The honest answer is we can’t.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying. You can’t prove a negative hypothesis – that something will never happen.  

In a population of about 330 million, we’ve had 3-4 mass shootings a year at most, which by any measure is extraordinarily rare. That’s not to minimize the horror of each, but for perspective when politicians and gun-control advocates talk about abridging the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens to prevent these.    

The best hope we have is to find a way to stop people from wanting to commit such heinous acts.  We need to prevent them from becoming perverse celebrities; we need to cut off the social media oxygen they use to fuel their demented fantasies and rewards them with notoriety.

Until we accomplish that, we’re essentially screwed.