Racists and bigots …

Racists see everything through the prism of race.  Bigots are intolerant of others with differing opinions. 

During this election cycle those two terms have been tossed around liberally. Hillary accuses Trump of being a racist and a bigot. Trump returns the favor.

Who is correct? 

Frankly, you can be a racist and a bigot. But you can also just be a bigot. Bigotry is a lot more widespread than racism.

The case can be made that certain elements in the Democrat and the Republican parties are bigots.  They have no tolerance for anyone who holds different beliefs from them – whether that’s on abortion, gay marriage, the size and scope of government, or on expanding the welfare state. 

But is Hillary a bigot? What about Trump?  I think they throw those slurs at each other because they’ve already used racist.  In short, they’re both running out of insults. 

On the other hand, I’d put any activists that shout down speakers with whom they disagree in the bigot camp. The same for Black Lives Matter.  Or the Westboro Baptist morons.  Or Kim Davis.

Bigotry has no political affiliation. It’s simply intolerance for others beliefs.   

Racism is far more pernicious. Some people view everything that happens as racially based.  If something bad happens, it’s because of their race; if something good happens, it’s in spite of their race.  They believe race is one of the most important determinants of outcomes. 

That makes them a racist. 

Disliking someone of another race is not automatically racism.  There could be any number of reasons why you dislike them, none of which has anything to do with their race. However, if you don’t like them, or distrust them, solely because of their race, you are a racist.           

It may sound pedantic, but words have specific meanings. “Racist” is one of them.  

Being a racist isn’t exclusively a white thing, either. 

For example, I would bet there are more openly racists as a percentage of the black community than there are as a percentage of the white community.   

Sure, there are racist lunatic fringes in the white community like the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK, however most of these are such a tiny part of the white community they have no valid claim to represent the majority of whites.

In the black community you have the NAACP, Black Lives Matter, the Black Entertainment Network, as well as “historically black colleges,” black fraternities and sororities, and even associations of black journalists and a Black Caucus in Congress.  I just heard about a Black College Football Hall of Fame.  There are no parallels to these in the broader white community. If there were these would be considered racist; but because blacks are given a pass to self-segregate their racist – by definition – organizations are perfectly fine.

Imagine for a moment that someone started a National Association for the Advancement of White People, or a White Entertainment Network. Or created a White Caucus in Congress.  Or a White College Football Hall of Fame. The DOJ would be filing charges against them for discrimination.  

Americans generally are dreadfully afraid of being called racist, especially white Americans.  Most white Americans work hard at trying to be color blind, which is what Dr. King dreamed of. They also don’t want to have anything to do with racists.  

That’s why Hillary and Democrats in general like to tag Republicans, and Trump in particular, as racists. They do this because being called a racist is one of the most damning epithets in our society. It’s a powerful weapon designed to chill Independents, white women, educated white males and anyone who considers themselves a moderate – which is most Americans.  It also serves as a less than subtle dog whistle to minorities to be wary.  

Is it justified? Not really.

Historically Republicans have done the most to enfranchise minorities. I’ve long admired the Republicans for their role in giving women the right to vote (19^th Amendment), giving citizenship and the right to vote to former slaves (14^th and 15^th  Amendments, respectively), and for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – all against opposition primarily from Democrats.

Yes, it was Democrats who tried to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including former KKK member Robert Byrd (D. WVA) who led a filibuster to prevent passage. Hubert Humphrey (D. MN) tried to insert amendments to make busing to achieve desegregation illegal. 

Now Democrats claim to be responsible for guaranteeing voting rights to women and minorities and have convinced the black community and women this is true. They blame Republicans for restricting voting rights and for waging a “war on women” and minorities. Everybody conveniently forgets the role Republicans played in establishing their rights in the first place.

The black community also believes that anyone who opposes – or, God forbid, criticizes – Obama is automatically a racist. I heard some prominent black woman the other night claim that criticizing “our first black President” was evidence someone was a racist. The fact that Trump questioned Obama’s citizenship early on was proof Trump was a racist, she added.

Remember the definition of a racist: someone who views everything through the prism of race. 

She was a racist. 

To be honest – I’ve yet to hear Trump say anything remotely racist. If anything, most of what he’s been accused of racism for saying seems, on the face of it, to simply be common sense.

It’s not racist to oppose illegal immigration. Calling out the nationalities of illegal immigrants is also not racist; not if you are opposed to illegal immigration by any groups or ethnicities and not if what you say is true.  It may make people uncomfortable, but the reality is that most of the illegals hiding in our country are from Mexico and to a lesser degree Central America. Trump never said he wanted to ban or deport all Hispanics; he simply said he wanted to seal our southern border to protect us from criminals streaming across. 

It’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico and Mexicans to be offended at that – Mexico imprisons people it catches crossing its southern border illegally. We give them a ride home.  

He’s also said he’s opposed to any amnesty for the illegals already here.  Ever.  

Again, that doesn’t make him a racist. Not if you consider history.   

In 1986 Reagan signed legislation that gave one-time amnesty to all illegal aliens who arrived here before 1982.  This was supposed to be in exchange for a tightening of our borders.  Which never happened.  So it’s not surprising that Republicans – burned once already – would now be opposed to any new amnesty program. Trump’s opposition to amnesty shouldn’t be a surprise.     

And actually, Trump’s position on deporting illegals who commit crimes is very similar to Obama’s – who now holds the all-time record for deportations. Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than all other modern Presidents combined. But you don’t hear much about that.

So is Obama a racist? 

Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslim immigrants also doesn’t make him a racist. It’s not racist to take a harder look at people trying to enter our country from regions where a radical form of Islam prevails and encourages Muslims everywhere to rise up and slaughter innocents who don’t agree with them. Once again, it may make some people uncomfortable, but entering our country is a privilege.  We have every right to decide who can or can’t enter. 

So where does the charge of racist come from?  I think it’s because Trump – a Republican – has the audacity to reach out directly to the black community and tell blacks they’ve been used by Democrats for decades and gotten essentially nothing in return but empty promises.  All of which, unfortunately for the black community, is absolutely true. 

But how dare he talk down to blacks?  How dare he point out that their inner cities are a disaster, their schools suck, their families are falling apart, and black-on-black crime is out of control? 

How dare he – a white guy – say such things and imply that blacks don’t get it?

Black leaders were swift to condemn Trump for this. That’s not surprising.  They are equal participants in – and beneficiaries of – the poverty-industrial complex Democrats have engineered. They have focused on keeping  blacks exactly where they are and have been for decades. They can’t afford to have the black community finally wake up and realize they’ve been had.

Because he addressed blacks directly, he’s supposedly a racist. I don’t think he is.

However, when Hillary chastises Trump for disparaging the black community, by telling them what is in fact the truth, he’s supposedly the racist.

Telling the truth doesn’t make you a racist.  What makes you a racist is when you deny reality to pander to a certain group based entirely on their race. 

Which is exactly what Hillary and the Democrats are doing.

They are the racists. 

The problem with Republicans …

(As promised, equal time.)

Rush Limbaugh once said most Americans naturally identify with Democrats. Republicans only get elected when Democrats screw up so bad the voting public wants to punish them. Once things get back to normal the public feels comfortable enough to vote Democrats back in.

I don’t always agree with Rush, but on this I think he’s on to something. 

Democrats have done a better job of positioning from a marketing standpoint. They are the “fun” party; the anything-goes party where you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don’t physically harm someone else – and no one ever judges you. It’s like having perpetually indulgent grandparents who always have a gift for you and never tell you “no.”

What’s not to like?  Sure, there’s a lot of weird stuff Democrats are up to but as long as it doesn’t affect you personally, who cares?  Plus, they always have a gift for you.

Compared to the Democrats, Republicans are pinch-faced party poopers. Republicans are the neighbors who call the cops on you for making too much noise and having too much fun. 

Well, of course Republicans aren’t all like that. 

But enough of them are to make those descriptions stick. And we can thank the far right wing of the Republican Party for that.

While the Democrats have managed to keep their far-left loons under relative control and still supporting the Party, Republicans seem unable to rein in their crazies.  Now part of that is because the media likes to focus on the far-right nut jobs disproportionally but it’s also because Republican Party mavens are afraid to confront the far right and the evangelical blocs. 

Consequently, Democrats stand for good times; Republicans stand for intolerant redneck Bible thumpers. Sorry, but that’s what the Republicans have devolved to as a political party.   

Democrats don’t claim to be for anything or anyone but the working class. The average Joe and Jane. The mental image is of a hard-working, lower or middle-class family, a couple of kids, in a decent neighborhood where everybody barbeques. The reality of who the Democrats represent is quite different, yet that’s the image they successfully deploy.    

The Republicans claim to be for the working class and small businesses. However, the mental image they convey is as shills for the ultra-religious, ultraconservative, creationist / anti-science fundamentalists who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, that women should be subservient to men, and that homosexuality is an abomination to God punishable by an eternity in Hell.   

Who would you rather hang out with?  It’s a wonder Democrats don’t win every single election.

That’s not an accurate representation of Republicans, any more than it is of Democrats. But perception equals reality.

Every time the Republicans’ far-right crazies get on their soapbox, it leaves a mark.

All it takes is some Republican male running for office to say rape rarely leads to pregnancy because it’s not God’s will.  Or, some Republican getting a bunch of other Republicans to support legislation to address a “threat” that isn’t one – such as defining gender based on anatomy at birth, or marriage as only being between a man and a woman. It always seems to be Republicans pushing for laws enabling businesses to discriminate based on the owners’ religious beliefs, or allowing elected public officials to refuse to do their jobs for personal religious reasons.   

The Republican Party’s far right and religious right never know when to simply STFU. 

And Republican Party leaders aren’t willing to kick the party’s looney tunes to the curb.  Or put a leash on them. There are a lot of far-left nutcases in the Democrat Party for sure but Democrats at least have the common sense to realize you can’t let the loons be the public face of the party.

Worse, when some ill-informed Republican struts his or her far-right or religious-right creds – and basic ignorance of science, or even the Constitution – far too many other Republicans defend whatever nutso thing they said.

When elected Kentucky official Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her personal religious beliefs – even though the law said she had to – a number of “leading” Republicans leapt to her defense.  Why?  

She was wrong.  She violated her oath of office. There’s really no other possible interpretation of the circumstances. But the champions of the religious and social far right – like Huckabee and that pandering horse’s ass Ted Cruz – tried to make this Bible-thumping bigot into some kind of hero for religious liberty. Exactly whose religious liberty? 

There’s an Uncle Remus and the Tar Baby sense about Republicans as well.  They can’t resist getting sucked into the traps set by the Democrats. Then they flail about making themselves so wedded to a losing issue they look even more ridiculous.  And there’s no way out.

Some city in North Carolina passes an ordinance that all public restrooms need to be gender neutral. It’s a silly ordinance that’s wildly impractical. But leave it to Republicans to escalate this into a scenario where young girls would be forced to shower with adult men, and young boys with pedophiles – at least according to Huckabee and Cruz.

Democrats had a field day with that. They used that as evidence that Republicans hated the transgendered, the new politically favored victims du jour (less than one-tenth of one percent of the population), which in turn meant Republicans hated the entire LGBTQ community.

And that’s exactly how it looked.      

Holy Mother of God.  When will Republicans learn to stop rising to the bait?

Here’s the really, really weird part about Republicans:  Just about every single Republican I know personally – and I know a lot of them – is appalled by the current Republican Party, especially the far right and religious right factions holding it hostage. 

Yet they are equally appalled at the Republican Party establishment, which seems more and more like Democrat-lite. Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress for a long time and have done absolutely nothing except spend as wildly as the Democrats they criticize. Government continues to grow. More regulations are passed every day.  The debt keeps increasing.  Republicans seem impotent to stop the madness. 

Republicans have no solutions for anything. If the Democrats are the party of bad ideas, then the Republicans are the party of no ideas. 

In essence, my Republican friends increasingly find themselves voting against Democrats rather than for Republicans.  Republicans don’t seem to offer anything different or new except that they aren’t as bad as the Democrats. 

Based on their performance over the past few years, the jury’s still out on that.     

Now they have Trump, who beat the Republican Establishment while also beating the far-right and religious-right candidates, to win the nomination of the party. 

He's the wake-up call to the Republican Party. I wonder if they'll listen. 

The problem with Democrats …

(Don’t worry … there will be a follow up posting about the Republicans, too.)

It’s been said that if you’re not a liberal when you’re young you don’t have a heart.  But if you’re not a conservative when you’re older you don’t have a brain.

The Democrat Party has never grown up.  Democrats live in a never-never land of make believe still populated by Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and other wish-granting mythologies. They shut their ears to anything they don’t want to hear. They throw tantrums when they don’t get their way. They repeat the same lies over and over again as if repetition makes something true. They make up stuff when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

You can’t reason with them, any more than you can with a 4-year-old. 

When you try to pin them down on anything they’ve said or done, they defiantly try to avoid responsibility. They refuse to accept there’s a right or wrong – the only thing that matters is whether you get caught; even then you might have an out on a technicality.

I think that’s what annoys me most about Democrats.

Even when they are caught red-handed they try to find a loophole to exploit. They are big on “intention” as the only measure of guilt. If you can’t prove they “intended” to do something wrong, they expect to get off scot-free.  And proving “intention” is always subject to interpretation.

Ted Kennedy didn’t “intend” for Mary Jo Kopechne to die when he drunkenly drove off the bridge and abandoned her to drown. Elizabeth Warren didn’t “intend” for her claim of Native American lineage to have any impact on her ability to get a job in academia. Obama didn’t “intend” to bow to the Saudi king, or for the $400-million payment for the release of the Iranian hostages to be considered ransom, in violation of long-standing U.S. policy.  Hillary didn’t “intend” to lie to the parents of the Benghazi victims, or to allow classified State Department documents on her unsecured private e-mail server to be vulnerable to hackers.      

That’s the moral gray area in which Democrats thrive.   

Their other way to avoid responsibility is to claim that whatever they’ve done is not all that different from what others have done. So if others got away with it, they should as well.

That’s why you have Hillary now saying that other Secretaries of State used private e-mail. Except, of course, none of them maintained a private e-mail server, nor deleted all their e-mails when asked to turn them over to the State Department. But isn’t it sort of the same?   

It’s childish.  As I said, it’s like trying to reason with a 4-year old.

The truly sad part is that Democrats have managed to convince a large number of Americans that they have their best interests at heart. In reality they don’t; the only thing that matters to them is getting their way regardless of the consequences. 

They’ll do anything to get their way. They’ll lie. They’ll cheat. They’ll even try to rewrite history to provide justification for their actions. Essentially, they are morally and ethically bankrupt; the perfect personification of the United States of Me, and Me the People.

Their traditional supporters are also wholly self-serving. 

Our national motto – for now – may be “in God We Trust,” but the Democrat motto is more aptly described as “What’s In It For Me?” That’s why the Democrats have the unwavering support of the teachers unions, public service employee unions, labor unions in general, Wall Street, and of course class and race warriors. Democrats are the party of big business as well. 

Democrats don’t do anything in the public interest – be that making our military stronger, protecting us from terrorists, providing a business environment that creates more private sector jobs, improving education outcomes, reducing crime, cutting the size of government, or reducing government spending and the national debt – if that conflicts with in any way with their base. 

How Democrats keep winning elections – especially in our decaying urban centers – continues to baffle me.  I can’t think of a single major city with good public schools.  Or one that’s been regularly creating good private sector jobs. Or one that families with children want to move to. 

However, I can name any number of major cities with skyrocketing murder rates, historic high black unemployment rates, massive poverty and dependency on social welfare payments, widespread government corruption, and other objective measures of failure. They are all run by Democrats, and have been for decades. 

Plus, their residents reliably vote for Democrats in every national, state and local election.    

The real question is why? 

One possible answer is that Democrats like things the way they are – no rules, no legal penalties or social stigma for bad behavior, plus more and more free stuff. The poor are made comfortably poor with little or no pressure – or financial incentive, to be honest – to work their way out of poverty when all their basic needs are already being met.  Why bother? 

For white middle- and upper-class Democrats, there’s no need to actually get their hands dirty helping others – government does it all with programs paid for with their tax dollars. Sweet.

So better-off Democrats can live comfortably in their suburbs or their downtown luxury high-rise pied-a-terre and still feel good about helping the underprivileged without having any real contact with them. They don’t have to go into their neighborhoods, send their kids to school with them, find jobs for them, or even associate with them in any way. They’ve outsourced everything – including their white-privilege guilt – to the government.

That’s why so many of the really rich are Democrats; they’d much rather pay someone else – in this case the government – to manage the poor so the underprivileged don’t show up on their doorstep. 

The ultimate problem with Democrats is that despite all their conniving and planning to maintain control by any means just about everything they do in terms of government policy and programs is short term. They don’t even attempt to address underlying problems; everything is a quick fix for the issue du jour – not a long-term solution.

Financial crisis?  Bail out banks and speculators.  Economic contraction? Increase the number of people on food stamps. Soaring national debt?  Raise the debt ceiling.  The growth of ISIS?  Use drones to kill the leaders. Mass murders by Islamic terrorists in San Bernardino? Push gun control legislation. Growing illegal immigration? Limit border enforcement and stop counting.     

Short term solutions and quick fixes are no way to run a country as large and complex as ours. The constant lies, deceit and reliance on specious “technicalities” from the Democrats continue to erode what little faith most Americans have in public officials.

Then again, that’s what Democrats seem to want – no accountability for anything. 

Next, the problem with Republicans …  

Calling a spade a spade …

I bet that made you uncomfortable. Admit it.

This is what political correctness has done to us. 

It’s a harmless phrase about calling something exactly what it is.  But since it includes the word “spade” someone might interpret that word as a racist epithet.  

I’ve had Maine Coon cats as pets. “Coon” makes us all wince, too. So does “Negro,” even though that’s the Spanish word for black, and is an accepted anthropological term. 

For years the jingle for the Flintstones’ cartoon series ended with “We’ll have a gay old time!” I’m sure years from now that will be deemed unacceptable. Someone will find a hidden meaning.   

We live in a time when silly old series like Dukes of Hazzard are no longer shown simply because the car had a Confederate flag on the roof and was called the General Lee.  Huckleberry Finn, Dr. Doolittle, and Little House on the Prairie are being pulled from library shelves along with other classics either for being racist or culturally insensitive.

Where does it end?    

People actually search for sexist and racist innuendos in the strangest places – like the ice cubes in a liquor ad, the bubbles in a cold beer, and even Disney cartoons.  TV ads are scrutinized to ensure no one could possibly be offended.

Meanwhile, it’s perfectly okay to broadcast shows on basic cable during prime time – when kids are watching – that offer up murder, promiscuity, and gratuitous violence. These are sandwiched between commercials for products to treat erectile dysfunction, yeast infections, and herpes outbreaks.  Switch over to premium cable and the kids will miss the awkward-to-explain commercials but will be exposed to far more graphic treatments of sex, physical abuse, drug use and more, along with language that would make a sailor blush. 

Don’t get me wrong – I am no puritan; far from it. But I’m an adult. 

How do you explain erectile dysfunction to a 10 year old? Why should you have to? Why is it politically incorrect to allow children to read stories written more than 100 years ago simply because the words used then have now been deemed “harmful” to others?      

To me, it’s far easier to explain “nigger” Jim – one of the most important characters from Huck Finn, or Injun Joe from Tom Sawyer, in a historical context than it is to explain a man’s inability to maintain an erection, or what “if you have an erection that lasts more than four hours” means.

And that is my fundamental problem with political correctness. It’s solely in the eye of the beholder.  The rules constantly change, depending on the whims of a few.

If you read Huck Finn again today you’d probably flinch the first time you encountered the word “nigger” on a page. But then you’d realize the context was more important than the language used – a runaway child who partners with a runaway slave to escape a physically abusive drunken father. In many ways Huck and Jim are in equal straits. Jim and Huck are both treated like property – Jim by his owner, Widow Douglas; Huck by his alcoholic father, Pap. 

It’s a great story, written in the vernacular of a different time. Millions of kids read it without lasting psychological harm. If anything it probably made them more sympathetic to the plight of black slaves and the discrimination blacks faced. 

And it’s just a story, after all.   

What’s next? The Wizard of Oz was rereleased as The Wiz with a black cast. The latest incarnation of Annie features a black Annie.  The Honeymooners movie – a rip from the Jackie Gleason classic TV show – recast Ralph Kramden with Cedric The Entertainer. 

Why? 

I wonder what the reaction would be if someone re-released Porgy and Bess with an all-white cast? Or the classic Cabin in the Sky?  Should we ban Cinderella because it’s sexist?  What about Snow White – she can only be awakened by the kiss from the male prince?               

We’re all so sensitive now. We’re so afraid using a taboo word or phrase.

Except, apparently, Donald Trump. 

I think part of the appeal of Trump is a reaction to overbearing political correctness.  He has no filters and a lot of people find that refreshing.  So when he talks about radical Islamic terrorists or illegal immigrants it’s perfectly clear what he is saying – there’s no weasel wording about “radicalized jihadists” or “undocumented workers.”

In a speech the other night he addressed African Americans directly – something the Republican Establishment should have done for years but hasn’t. He pointed out the very obvious: African Americans have been voting for decades in virtual lockstep for Democrats, and what has it gotten them?  The inner cities run by Democrats are only getting worse.  Black unemployment remains stubbornly high. School choice – which would offer an avenue out of failing schools for black youth – is consistently blocked by Democrats and their allies in the teachers unions.    

Decades of support for Democrats – and even the election of a black President – have done nothing to help blacks. Trump put it succinctly – Democrats don’t really care about blacks; only their votes. He asked, what have Obama and Democrats like Hillary really done for black Americans, except to take their votes for granted?    

Trump added that if black Americans want real change they shouldn’t keep voting for the same people who’ve done nothing for them for years. 

That’s politically incorrect on so many levels – including criticizing our first black President for doing essentially nothing for the black community – but true. 

He also took on political correctness about Islam and respect for “multiculturalism” when he said:

“Anyone who believes Sharia law supplants American law will not be given an immigrant visa. If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society, our values and our tolerant way of life. Those who believe in oppressing women, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans and people of different faiths are not welcome to join our country.”

Now, a lot of things Trump gets wrong.  He’s loose with facts, and he has a bad tendency to overreact to any criticism with low blows. 

But one thing is absolutely certain: he doesn’t give a damn about political correctness.  I have to admit I like that about him.  

In an era when safe spaces and microaggressions increasingly dominate public discourse, and when books written in a different time and place are suddenly being banned, there are a lot of us that, quite frankly, are fed up with it all. 

Our Constitution and its Amendments grant us many rights. But not the right to be protected from hurt feelings. You can't do that and maintain a free society. When you limit which words or phrases can be used -- or substitute euphemisms for otherwise factual descriptions -- you not only inhibit freedom of speech, but alter what's being expressed.  When you attempt to censor or ban artistic works -- be they books, TV shows, movies or whatever from years ago -- simply because they might offend someone today, where does it stop?  Who decides?       

That’s the real danger of political correctness. 

Gun violence …

I don’t own a gun. 

Well, actually I do – it’s a BB gun I bought to ding the squirrels that mugged my bird feeder years ago.  Once I discovered a truly squirrel-proof feeder I didn’t need it any more.  But I kept it. 

So I don’t own a firearm. Nor do I feel a pressing need to have one. I don’t hunt. I’m not into target shooting. I’m not too worried about violent criminals or wild animal attacks where I live. 

That said, I have nothing against law-abiding people who own guns. The gun owners I know are respectable citizens who bought their guns legally, maintain them properly, and know how to use them. They learned in the military, in law enforcement, or were taught by a family member how to safely and responsibly handle a gun.   

Not everyone should have a gun, however. Criminals, for example. The mentally unstable shouldn’t, either. Nor should the average person get their hands on weapons designed specifically for the military to kill a lot of other people quickly – like a .50 cal machine gun.  Or a tank. Or an RPG launcher. No good from come from that. 

Some people believe nobody should be allowed to have any kind of firearm, whether that’s a .22 handgun or rifle, a .357 magnum, or an AR-15. They believe if you take away all the guns you’ll eliminate mass murders such as the Newtown, Orlando and San Bernardino massacres.

Every time one of these horrifying incidents happens they push to tighten restrictions on guns. As I write this there’s a sit-in in Congress to protest the lack of new gun laws. The media love this type of stuff – legislators pounding the table over the need to ban “assault weapons” while Mothers Against Gun Violence and other anti-gun groups march in the streets, coupled with tearful clips of families who’ve lost loved ones through gang shootings or accidents.

The problem is that they are all addressing the wrong cause. There are plenty of restrictions on gun purchases and laws about guns on the books already. The problem is not the types of guns or the laws – it’s the simple fact that when someone is a criminal, or mentally deranged, and they decide to kill people they will, with or without a gun.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a home-made truck bomb of fuel oil and fertilizer. We didn’t ban fuel oil, fertilizer or trucks in the aftermath, because McVeigh was the lunatic monster who killed all those people. Those were his tools. 

When the 911 hijackers killed 3000 people in New York they didn’t use guns, they used planes they commandeered by brandishing box cutters.  We didn’t ban planes as a result, but we tightened restrictions on what objects people could carry on a plane.  Did that make air travel safer? Nobody knows but it hasn’t stopped terrorists from blowing up planes.     

Banning all guns will accomplish nothing. Taking violent criminals and terrorist wannabes off the street will. So will keeping violent mentally unstable people from getting dangerous weapons.

None of which is politically correct. The same people who want to ban guns are usually the same people opposed to lengthy sentences for violent criminals, despise any form of profiling or pro-active law enforcement, and almost always oppose to the death penalty. 

No one in that same group wants to admit it, but the “mainstreaming” into society of the mentally ill in the 1970s and beyond, and the desire to consider all forms of mental illness as “treatable” diseases controllable through medications, opened the floodgates as well. That ignored the fact that this only works if someone voluntarily sticks to their medication regimen; it’s entirely up to the patient, and not everybody will take their meds as prescribed once they’re on the street.    

In the three most recent massacres, many people recognized in advance that the perpetrators were unstable.  But they were afraid to say anything for fear of seeming insensitive. In the Newtown case, the mother of the killer knew he was off his meds, but did nothing.  In Orlando there were warning flags all over the place – the FBI even interviewed the killer twice before that based on tips. And in San Bernardino neighbors hesitated to call police because they didn’t want to seem to be racial profiling. 

The lesson: Bad things happen when good people do nothing. 

I blame political correctness more so than guns for these events. All three of these slaughters could have been prevented if only someone had the courage to simply report what they knew, instead of worrying about hurting someone’s feelings.   

I won’t bother to rehash the usual arguments about the 2^nd Amendment and why it’s really in the Constitution.  The anti-gun extremists keep parsing the words to support a flawed premise that it was never intended to allow individual citizens – rather than “militia” – to own guns.  And that it only applied to muskets, not modern firearms. Their arguments are ridiculous. 

Nor will I take the other extreme’s position that every citizen can have whatever firearm they desire, be that a .22 or a bazooka. That’s equally ridiculous.   

I concede we have a problem with “gun violence.” We always have as long as I can remember. Growing up in Miami it was mainly bad guys killing other bad guys – much as it is in Chicago now – or good guys killing bad guys, so nobody really cared that much.  It’s only when innocent civilians get gunned down that it grabs the public’s attention.  And truthfully, that doesn’t happen all that often outside the bad parts of major U.S. cities.

The majority of deaths attributed to “gun violence” in this country are suicides (61%), which is rarely noted when gun-control advocates throw around how many people are killed by guns every year.  Gun involved murders are a fraction of that.  Mass shootings, however horrific, are extremely rare and an even smaller fraction of gun deaths each year.

That doesn’t mean we should accept mass shootings as a part of life.  We should do everything in our power to prevent them – the key word being “prevent.” And that means removing from society those people who are most likely to commit such acts.  Making it harder or even impossible for them to legally buy a gun won’t prevent them from getting one, if that’s their weapon of choice; it will only delay them or raise their cost. If someone is Hell-bent on killing lots of people for whatever crazy and/or ideological reason, you have to stop the person, not the weapon. 

Gun violence doesn’t come from the gun, but from the person wielding the gun.  Nobody wants to deal with the people behind the guns until they’ve killed people with those guns. 

All the political theater surrounding the issue is just that – political theater. Democrats in particular see this as a big issue heading into November elections; something they can use to bludgeon Republicans and paint them as uncaring, unfeeling pawns of the NRA. Democrats are counting on the ignorance of the public – and their friends in the media – to associate the tragedy in Orlando with the lack of stricter restrictions on access to guns.

I’m afraid they’ll succeed. Even though what happened in Orlando had nothing to do with lax restrictions on access to guns. Or even with the gun used -- which the media instantly tagged, erroneously, as an “assault” weapon, which implies an automatic weapon to most – but was in fact a fairly ordinary AR-15-style .223 caliber hunting rifle. And yes, someone has to pull the trigger each and every time to fire every shot using that rifle.    

If they do succeed that’s too bad because another law, another regulation, another ban on certain types of guns would not have prevented the massacres in Newtown, San Bernardino, or Orlando, nor would those prevent something just as heinous happening again. 

We need to step up and recognize that we need to stop the people intent on doing harm, not the weapons.  That means keeping violent criminals in jail.  Getting terrorist wannabes off our streets. And taking a hard look at how much latitude we give the mentally ill to manage themselves.

Until we do all that, as politically incorrect that will be, we’re begging for a repeat.        

The coming civil war …

The nation is weirdly divided right now. 

One faction believes in the power of big government to right all wrongs and provide whatever anyone wants.  One faction believes the government should only provide for the common defense and support for those who are truly in need, with the emphasis on “truly.”

Then there’s a sizable faction that works in government, or largely depends on government for a living – everybody from bureaucrats, politicians, defense contractors, mega-multinational companies and others.  Small businesses that are not part of that faction tend to view the same government with suspicion at best and fear at worst. 

There are the ultra-rich, the ultra-poor, the middle class, the well-educated and the uneducated. A growing number of people live mostly or entirely on public assistance, including those who do so not out of necessity but preference, which really annoys a fairly large segment of the public.

We have the military haters, the one-world types, anti-gun and anti-death penalty folks. We also have the pro-gun, pro-military, anti-immigrant, law & order, leave-us-alone, America-first people. The former think we can earn the love of the world – and that actually matters – if we give up being a world super power and act more like Europe; the latter doesn’t give a rat’s ass what the rest of the world thinks of us and believe the only way we can protect ourselves and our rights is a big, bad-ass military and a well-armed citizenry not willing to take crap from whomever is serving it up, foreign or domestic. 

Republicans vs. Democrats, or conservatives vs. liberals doesn’t really matter. That’s because all of the groups and factions I’ve mentioned – and I’ve left out many more – aren’t monolithic, despite what politicians and media talking heads and bloggers promote. 

Just because you think there should be controls on gun purchases doesn’t make you anti-gun.  You can be opposed to abortion depending on the circumstances and pro-choice under other circumstances.  It’s easy to be against war yet still want to have the biggest, bad-ass military in the world so no one is ever tempted to go to war with you. The whole issue of entitlements – who should or shouldn’t get them – is again dependent on circumstances for most people; almost no one thinks we shouldn’t provide aid to those in need – the difference is deciding who is in need and who isn’t.

The real divide is on how much power the government should have, who pulls the strings, and how and where the government spends your money. 

Everything else is a matter of degrees. 

The Trump phenomenon illustrates this. 

Certainly, there are rabid elements in both the Hillary and Trump camps. However, the real debate is between business as usual and something different. Hillary is by far the more experienced at government the way it is; Trump is a wild card who scares the crap out of the political establishments of both the Republican and Democrat parties.

And me, too, at times. 

Once you get past the hyperbole, Trump is something no one has seen in a while – a cross between a liberal Republican and a conservative Democrat. 

There’s another factor, too, perhaps even more important: Hillary and most current politicians in either party are money-grubbing whores beholden to whatever special interest group or lobbyists that give them the most money and support. Frankly, Trump doesn’t need the money, nor is he apparently afraid to toss traditional sources of money and support under the bus. 

He just did that with the NRA and extreme gun-rights groups (not the same thing, BTW) by indicating he’d be willing to listen to arguments for reasonable controls on access to guns. He’s also said while he’s personally opposed to abortion in general, he believes the Federal government shouldn’t be deciding who can and can’t obtain abortions – a traditional pro-choice stance.  On taxes he’s said he’s not totally opposed to raising taxes on the rich. Nor is he interested in cutting Social Security or disability benefits – and he concedes that we need to help the poor.  

Ah, but what about immigration?  Trump supports legal immigration – which most Americans do – but is against illegal immigration, again which most Americans also oppose. His talk about building a wall between us and Mexico chills some, but is actually a popular sentiment, as is his thing about banning all Muslims for a while.

In relatively short order he’s managed to piss off the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which supports open borders); major multinationals like Apple and Ford (which outsource jobs); radical conservatives and radical liberals; Grover Norquist and Elizabeth Warren; the NRA and gun-control fanatics; extreme anti-abortion and extreme abortion rights advocates, and a host of other single-issue groups that would normally be on opposite sides.

The only people he hasn’t pissed off are all those who are tired of being caught in the interminable tug of war between diametrically opposed special interests. The members of that group don’t really care that much about safe spaces, microaggressions, gender identity politics, income inequality, bailing out student loan deadbeats, racial or sexual preferences, the war on women, and whose race/gender turn it is to be President.

They really only care about a few things – none of which are on that list. Among these are the economy, decent-paying jobs, and terror. Everything else isn’t that important      

They blame politicians in general and big-money donors who control them for wasting time and resources on things that don’t matter much if you don’t have a good job with a future, and are worried about your safety. Nobody in DC seems to care what’s happening to them, preferring to focus on appeasing the politically connected and deep-pocketed special interest groups. 

All the posturing and finger-pointing is just useless background noise to them, designed to hide what they fear is complete and utter contempt for them and their values by media and political elites who have absolutely no idea what everyday life is like for them.

Unlike the elites, their kids go to public or parochial schools. They don’t have private drivers to whisk them and their kids here and there. No private security firm polices their neighborhood. They can’t afford to ski in the Swiss Alps, travel to Spain for shopping, or take a private jet wherever they wish. They shop at Walmart, Target, Costco, Sams and BJs, not on Rodeo Drive or Fifth Avenue. Their clothes and shoes are off-the-rack, not custom made for them.  They buy most of their groceries and produce at their local supermarket.

In essence, they are typical middle to lower income Americans. They aren’t rich; they aren’t poor.  They worry more about paying their bills, taking care of their families, and keeping safe, than whether transgendered people should be allowed to use the restrooms of their choice.

Most of all they worry that there’s nobody in government helping them get or keep a decent job, or protecting them from violent criminals or home-grown or foreign terrorists.  Or even realizes that these are the most pressing issues they should be dealing with. 

Over the decades they’ve seen nothing change, except for the worse. More wars. More mass shootings. More jobs being outsourced to foreign countries. More illegal immigrants entering our country with apparent impunity. More ridiculous edicts from DC about what they can do in their private lives or businesses. More government spending on things that don’t matter to them.  More political polarization.  More racial and gender divisiveness. 

More of everything except a good economy, decent jobs, and safety.   

The civil war is here.  It’s between the status quo and anything different than that. 

This November, every incumbent – regardless of party – is vulnerable. Years of political experience are no longer an asset. Endorsement by the political establishment of either party could be the kiss of death. 

A significant part of the public is furious with business as usual.  And they’ll vote.   

The new Brownshirts …

Love him or hate him, Trump has a right to speak. And his supporters have a reasonable expectation they will be able to attend his events and be safe. 

However, a loud and often violent group doesn’t agree. 

They’ve taken to protesting every Trump event, which is their right – the same right Trump has to air his views.  They’ve also taken to physically attacking Trump supporters, which is not their right. Waving Mexican flags, throwing eggs, rocks, and bottles at Trump event-goers and even police has become the new standard for Trump opponents.

Not an event goes by that they do not step up the violence.  Just watch the national news on any network – OTA or cable – and you’ll see the mob in action. Spitting, screaming obscenities, and physically assaulting anyone who disagrees with them. 

They are the new Brownshirts, only this time the uniform is the dark t-shirt, and often a bandanna over the face. But the goal is the same: to intimidate. 

While they hold signs calling Trump a fascist and worse, and burn American flags and those red Make America Great Again hats, they claim they are doing this in the name of freedom and defending American values. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Their idea of freedom is the right to do whatever they want, to shut down anyone with whom they disagree, and to physically assault anyone they wish.  That’s not freedom; that’s anarchy.  Nor is it consistent with American values.

Like it or not, most Americans find comfort in law and order.  The media on all sides may find the violence directed toward Trump supporters at Trump rallies makes for great TV, but the American public is generally turned off by this violence.  If anything, it swings more people over to Trump’s side – not because they like him or agree with him – but because they abhor his opponents.   

The myth that Trump supporters cause the violence is evaporating under the bright lights of all the media coverage. It’s clear from news clips that it’s the protestors who are starting the mayhem, and that the Trump supporters they assault are the real victims. 

That’s a major “aha” moment even the media can’t ignore.  Every time the protestors attack, Trump’s support rises, and I think I know why. 

I don’t like Donald Trump. I don’t like much of what he proposes he’ll do.

But I dislike the protestors and their chaos far more.  If it’s a choice between Trump and the forces aligned against him, who tacitly endorse what the protestors are doing, I’ll go for Trump. 

Don’t be surprised if a lot of other Americans feel the same.