Category: Culture

Baltimore-area shooting leaves 13-year-old dead, 5 others wounded in ‘horrifying’ act of violence

Read along, then tell me what’s wrong with this picture.
It should be glaring enough, but I will give you a hint.

A 13-year-old Maryland boy was killed in a shooting outside a shopping mall where five others, including four juveniles, were wounded as they walked through the parking lot on Sunday, investigators said.

The gunfire broke out shortly after midnight in Rosedale, a community on the outskirts of the city of Baltimore, Baltimore County police said.

“This level of violence is unacceptable. We had children that were shot last night,” Police Chief Melissa Hyatt said at a news conference. “And an adolescent lost his life for some senseless and unknown reason.”

The victims left an event at the Triple Threat Elite Dance studio and were approached by several suspects, police said. An altercation ensued and multiple shots were fired.

Hyatt said the 13-year-old boy, identified as Rickie Forehand, was pronounced dead at the scene. The five injured victims included two 12-year-old boys, a girl and a boy, both age 14, and a 19-year-old man. They suffered non-life threatening injuries and one has been released from the hospital………

Second Amendment supporters attend militia muster call in Campbell County

CAMPBELL CO., Va. (WSET) — Campbell County joins the growing list of localities holding militia muster calls.

At least 300 people showed up to the militia muster call in Campbell County to protect their Second Amendment rights on Saturday.

The muster call was held on Leesville Road in Lynchburg.

Floyd County held the first militia muster in the area in January.

Bedford County followed suit two weeks ago.

Virginia Code 44-1 defines the four sections of Virginia’s militia which includes the unorganized militia.

Anyone ages 16 to 55 can join an unorganized militia, according to Virginia’s code.

Gun Owners Cause Peace- the amazing experiment in Richmond, Virginia proves the media wrong.

The mainstream media tells us that guns cause crime. The media shows us night after night that guns are bad. We see it in their “news” and in their Hollywood dramas. We recently conducted another massive public experiment and the results contradict the media’s story about guns. We put tens of thousands of armed men and women on the street in one small area. The rate of crime dropped precipitously when these armed civilians were there. Guns brought peace. Let me show you what happened.

Virginia Capital on Second Amendment Rally Day

Twenty-five-to-fifty thousand people came to the Virginia Capital on one morning to lobby the legislature. Once they filled the capital grounds, they overflowed into the streets in every direction.

A few thousand people deliberately disarmed to enter the capitol building. I can’t prove that everyone else was armed, but the vast majority of them were since this was a second-amendment protest. Judging from the pictures I’ve seen and the people I’ve talked to, for each person who was not armed at the rally, there was another person who carried multiple firearms. Call it one gun per person in round numbers.

Show us your badges- Virginia Gun Owners Rally Day in Richmond

I couldn’t find reports of violent crime in the area of the protests when I searched the news and police records. The protesters even brought trash bags and left the city streets cleaner than they’d found them. The single reported arrest I could find was of a counter-protester.

Video from ground level- https://t.co/NXZPwDxpPG

This peaceful gathering isn’t a surprise once you study the record of legally armed civilians in the US. We’ve seen this phenomenon before and I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I routinely stand in a room with twenty-to-thirty thousand armed individuals. I’ve done that over a dozen times and the results are uniformly boring.

I’ve never seen violence at those sites. I’ll go a step further and say that people are polite and there is very little conflict of any kind. We’ve searched police records and the rate of crime drops in every city when that many gun owners gather together. A public experiment on that scale is a sociologist’s dream come true.

Honest gun-owners bring peace rather than crime and conflict.

It is remarkable when we gather that many gun owners together, and we conduct that experiment for free year after year. You could argue that we conduct a similar experiment every day when these honest gun owners return home and go about their lives.. armed. We are there day after day, but concealed is concealed, and you never see us.

That leaves an obvious question unanswered. Ask yourself why the media continues to sell the lie that guns and legally armed citizens cause crime.

 

In Praise of Wadcutters and Old Men

Old men are not often impressed with the fads of the moment. The millennial movement doesn’t matter to them. They’re not “woke” and never will be. Hillary Clinton referred to them as deplorable because they think that she’s nothing but a corrupt, old, scab on the ass of society. If you don’t believe me, ask an old man sitting on a bench, feeding pigeons (flying rats).
They don’t care. Men reach a certain age when they don’t want drama. They don’t want to fight anyone – and if forced they will not fight fair. They won’t quit and there are no weapons that they won’t use.
Leave men like that alone to their coffee as they sit alone in the Waffle House, reading from an old dog eared book.
Ignore them where they sit in a bar drinking bourbon and smoking a cigar even if it’s a no-smoking bar.
Don’t poke the old men. They will hurt you.
And life in prison when you’re 75 isn’t the threat that it was when you were 25.

Give Me Liberty: A History of America’s Exceptional Idea

Nationalism is inevitable: It supplies feelings of belonging, identity, and recognition. It binds us to our neighbors and tells us who we are. But increasingly — from the United States to India, from Russia to Burma — nationalism is being invoked for unworthy ends: to disdain minorities or to support despots. As a result, nationalism has become to many a dirty word.
In Give Me Liberty, award-winning historian and biographer Richard Brookhiser offers up a truer and more inspiring story of American nationalism as it has evolved over four hundred years. He examines America’s history through thirteen documents that made the United States a new country in a new world: a free country. We are what we are because of them; we stay true to what we are by staying true to them.
Americans have always sought liberty, asked for it, fought for it; every victory has been the fulfillment of old hopes and promises. This is our nationalism, and we should be proud of it.

 

The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free

It is one of our most honored clichés that America is an idea and not a nation. This is false. America is indisputably a nation, and one that desperately needs to protect its interests, its borders, and its identity.

The Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump swept nationalism to the forefront of the political debate. This is a good thing. Nationalism is usually assumed to be a dirty word, but it is a foundation of democratic self-government and of international peace.

National Review editor Rich Lowry refutes critics on left and the right, reclaiming the term “nationalism” from those who equate it with racism, militarism and fascism. He explains how nationalism is an American tradition, a thread that runs through such diverse leaders as Alexander Hamilton, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ronald Reagan.

In The Case for Nationalism, Lowry explains how nationalism was central to the American Project. It fueled the American Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution. It preserved the country during the Civil War. It led to the expansion of the American nation’s territory and power, and eventually to our invaluable contribution to creating an international system of self-governing nations.

It’s time to recover a healthy American nationalism, and especially a cultural nationalism that insists on the assimilation of immigrants and that protects our history, civic rituals and traditions, which are under constant threat. At a time in which our nation is plagued by self-doubt and self-criticism, The Case for Nationalism offers a path for America to regain its national self-confidence and achieve continued greatness.

 States That Defend Us—Where Do Our Military Volunteers Call Home?

There’s no end to fun surveys that purport to measure patriotism among the states, with military enlistments often part of the criteria.

However, using enlistment rates to gauge the regional willingness to volunteer for the armed forces betrays a common misunderstanding of the way the U.S. military operates. What matters is accessions to the military, not enlistments. Accession is a term used when a civilian joins the military, having passed mental, physical, educational and legal standards, and swears an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Enlisted personnel—in other words, not commissioned officers—enlist for a term. When that term is up, they can leave the military or choose to reenlist. Thus, states with a large active duty presence will also then see many enlistments……….

Contrary to popular myth, members of the U.S. Armed Forces are mostly drawn from the middle class, with the lowest income quintile being slightly underrepresented, and the highest quartile being even less represented, with about 17% of enlisted personnel coming from the top 20% of neighborhoods by income. Further, 92% of accessions to active duty have a high school diploma, compared to 90% of adults age 25 and older.

But as representative of the nation as our armed forces are, there are stark regional differences in the makeup of our military, with the South contributing more than its fair share of personnel and the Northeast largely lagging behind, with a few exceptions.

Reviewing a 2016 report from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness titled “The Population Representation in the Military Services” shows that California (17,729), Texas (16,139) and Florida (11,552) had the largest number of people enlist in the military. But these three states are the three most-populous states. Further, new recruits are mostly 18-to-24 years old with about 0.5% of them volunteering and being accepted for active duty each year.

Looking at each state’s share recruits by the number of 18-to-24-year-olds in the state determines how well or how poorly a state is doing compared to its recruitable population. By that measure, the top five states in 2016 were: Hawaii, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Florida. The five places with the smallest share of recruits were: Washington D.C., North Dakota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York.

After Democrats Purge All the ‘Nazis,’ Who Will Be Left?
Trigger warning: This essay is about America’s growing Nazi problem. Some Nazis may be offended.

Democrats are on the hunt for Nazis. Their own elected officials tell us so. Senators and congressmen assure us that in Donald Trump’s America “hate is on the rise.” Nobody can feel safe, they say. Not Jews, not blacks, not immigrants, not women, not even American Indians drumming in the faces of young school boys. Everyone must be on constant guard for hate. It must be confronted and nipped in the bud. If you’re not sure who is spreading this hate, look for red ball caps with catchy political slogans. Otherwise, your default presumption should always be that white males, no matter how ordinarily dressed, are secretly plotting to oppress, harass, and threaten you. Sometimes they do so with smiles on their faces while opening doors.

The important thing to know is that Democrats are all over this problem. They have lawmakers all across America pursuing legislation that targets language for its hatefulness. No longer will people have to sit back and endure distasteful points of view; there are now laws that will allow us to throw people in jail based on what they say and write.

Thank goodness we have reached the Enlightenment’s final stage of liberalism, where we finally understand the danger of words. It has always been an oversight of freedom. Some words are hateful and must be banished. In fact, every day, more and more words are discovered to be hateful, and it turns out there is no shortage of people who believe they have the right to use them.

Here’s the important lesson: if you hear or read something from a person you believe to be oppressing you, then it is best to report that person’s words so he can be added to the list of things we are not allowed to say.

Next to the list of banished words is the list of approved education. Democrats are here to inform, not influence. It is appalling that in this year of 20 A.G. (After Gore), there are still people perpetuating the lie that man-made global warming is a con meant to justify huge increases in taxation, expanded government coercion, and international socialism. Just the idea that people could be so ignorant as to believe that the very molecule they exhale with every breath is not also a pollutant that will force us to cut back on those allowed to exhale boggles the mind.

If you can’t understand that killing off four fifths of the global population and returning to Stone-Age comforts is necessary in order to prevent free markets from destroying the modern world, then you are brainwashed and beyond reach. The best we can do now is censor any of your pseudo-science research from publication so the larger public’s enthusiasm for one-world government is not dampened.

This goes for sex and babies, too. The Dark-Ages superstition of believing that XX and XY chromosomal pairings determine whether a person’s DNA contains the genes unique to males is so absurd that it hardly merits discussion. Anyone who refuses to believe that genetics is simply a social construct imposed on one’s state of mind is living in an age before science and should be openly mocked.

If you don’t believe that men can have babies, then you probably live in a red state where education is low and concentration of Nazis is high. If you don’t believe that males should shower with high school girls after gym class, you are a Nazi. This goes, too, for the outdated patriarchal notion that an expectant father should have any say in what happens to the baby who shares half his DNA. If, after a suitable amount of time has passed after birth, the mother decides to keep the baby, then by all means that the sperm donor is financially beholden to that child for the rest of his life.

Until that time, however, interfering with a woman’s choice to cancel her pregnancy up to and including delivery is nothing less than an assault on her constitutional rights and an unacceptable threat to her “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” When Thomas Jefferson wrote those words, he said nothing about the life and liberty of an unwanted fetus. You would think the very Nazis who prattle on about originalism and the “Founding Fathers” would understand that a baby doesn’t have any rights until the man/woman giving birth makes it official with a legal birth certificate.

That’s what happens when you give fascism room to breathe, though. Nazis begin to insist that the constitution protects everyone, even those too premature to speak up.

That brings us to guns. For too long, Nazis in America have been untouchable because they own all the weapons. That is why Democrats have a plan to end this injustice once and for all. There is no reason in the modern world why anyone needs a weapon to survive. Supermarkets give us food, not hunters. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying to you, or worse, secretly arming himself against the government. There is absolutely no reason in a free society for anyone but the police, military, and federal agencies to be heavily armed. An armed country is a dangerous country. That is why Democrats have the wisdom and strength to demand all citizens hand over their weapons as their first piece of legislation. They have made a promise to the people that they will collect all the guns before pursuing any fundamental changes to the nation in the future.

But before they do that, they have to get rid of the Nazi in the White House. Because Americans refuse to do what’s in their best interest, Democrats will do it for them. It’s never really about the votes, after all. It’s about who counts the votes, and in 2020, Democrats will make certain that Democrats are counting the votes. Just to be certain, they’ve spent years preparing for every contingency.

While American Nazis go overseas to die for American freedom, Democrats have been building a secret army of anti-fascists right here at home. They are trained, armed, and ready to go. Democratic mayors have been giving them space to breathe and grow for years.

Unlike the Nazis in America, Democrats know their history. Using armed paramilitary units in uniform under the color of law is exactly how Heinrich Himmler transformed a little-known outfit of beer hall troublemakers into one of the most feared agencies of surveillance and terror throughout Europe. Whereas he used his thugs for fascism, Democrats will use their peaceful protesters for socialism. There is a big difference.

So, to the American Nazis out there, know this: you have nowhere to hide, nowhere to go, and no future in front of you. Democrats will save freedom from itself, even if they must put some of us up against a wall before tearing it down. They know what they’re doing. They have met the enemy; from every mirror, he stares back at them.

Why the Left Really Wants to Kill America

The century-long attempt to kill capitalism in America gained a dramatic head of steam in the 1960s with the rapid ascendency of progressivism, a Marxist movement that would quietly seize control of the Democratic Party over the last half-century.

Which was something different. For most of America’s 244-year history, the dominant political parties that evolved had a common goal constantly working to improve the country they both loved.  In the 1860s, a Republican president went to war to end slavery.  A century later, a Democratic president launched another well-intentioned war, a war on poverty.  Democrats and Republicans alike largely saw their country as a force for good, both at home and abroad.  Beginning in the 1960s, that widely- shared view began to show cracks as the progressive movement began tightening its grip on the modern Democratic Party.  Democrat icons of the 1960s — Adlai Stevenson, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Sam Nunn, Hubert Humphrey and JFK, to name a few — were genuine patriots who loved their country, a sentiment that was shared by a large majority of that era’s rank and file Democrats.  Such is no longer the case. Here are four ways Democrats are looking to end the idea of America altogether:

Killing America by replacing patriotism with socialism

In October 2018, The New York Times reported that 69% of progressive Democrats  are ashamed of being American.  Increasingly influenced by the progressive wing of their party, Democrats as a whole have moved sharply away from that love of country, and veered toward socialism that sounded like communism: In February 2019, Public Opinion Strategies found that an astounding 77% of Democrats who plan to vote in 2020 self-identify as socialists.  Aided and abetted by the complicit mainstream media, the modern Democratic Party has been remarkably successful at driving down patriotism: Gallup found that less than a third of Democrats are extremely proud of their country.  That’s less than a third, and trending sharply downward.

Killing America by making citizenship meaningless

Why has the modern Democratic Party worked so diligently to erode patriotism? Because love of country is a major impediment to convincing voters to support what they really want, which is yielding their nation’s sovereignty to an international governing body, ultimately the United Nations. With patriotism marginalized, a society’s populace can more easily be led to no longer see themselves as citizens of their country, but as “citizens of the world.”  (In his July 2008 speech in Berlin, progressive presidential candidate Barack Obama told an adoring crowd of 200,000 cheering Europeans, “I come to you as a Citizen of the World.”)

In Europe, the long-standing national identity of every progressive-run nation is already being intentionally erased, and it stands as a sort of bellwether of things to come over here.

Government-encouraged mass migration is its instrument, and the same thing is being attempted in America by the modern Democratic Party. This particular phenomenon is particularly associated with billionaire globalist George Soros.  The Hungarian-born “stateless statesman” is the most prolific financier of the progressive push for a world without borders.

In his anti-capitalist best-seller, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, Soros sets out the progressive strategy.  Complaining bitterly about “the sway of sovereign nations,” Soros has advocated for, and since spent immense sums each year fostering “open society alliances” among sovereign nations.  The goal of these alliances is to indoctrinate citizens of western nations to accept the high-mindedness of doing away with national identities in favor of a collectivist world identity.  With national identities erased, people no longer see themselves as patriotic citizens of their countries, but as united citizens of an enlightened global society.  People who oppose the unfettered influx of migrants and refugees are shouted down as racists and xenophobes.  Once open-border alliances have been solidified, the last obstacle is cleared for a borderless world governed by the UN.  For global governance to become a reality, the sovereignty of every western nation, including America, must be eliminated, Soros believes.

When the election of Donald Trump dealt a calamitous setback to the near-term realization of fundamentally transforming America, Soros penned an angry rant comparing Trump to Hitler, and calling him a racist and a xenophobe.  Known as “the puppet master” because of the enormous influence he exerts on Democratic Party hierarchy, Soros’s foremost target in taking down sovereign western democracies is the crown jewel of them all: the United States of America.  In working toward the culmination of that takedown, the billionaire globalist mastermind has powerful allies at the highest levels of the modern Democratic Party.

Killing America through identity politics

To overthrow a capitalist society, The Communist Manifesto calls for fomenting a titanic struggle by pitting an alleged victim class against an alleged oppressor class.  In the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks rose to power by pitting the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

Over the last half-century, the Democratic Party has taken the concept of Marxist/Leninist dialectical struggle to new heights through its use of identity politics. The term refers to politically subdividing the electorate into multiple factions (voting blocks), whose members are told they are singled out for persecution by a bigoted and unjust society.  To wit: People of color are persecuted by racists & white supremacists, women by sexists & misogynists, refugees & illegal immigrants by nativists & xenophobes, Muslims by Islamophobes, gays & lesbians by homophobes & religious bigots, the 99% by the 1%, and so on.  The goal of identity politics is to turn a majority of the American electorate against their country.

The self-serving narrative of identity politics is that caring, inclusive and tolerant Democrats will righteously defend the members (voters) of each identity group from the constant onslaught of outrages inflicted on them by an oppressive society.  Identity politics is used as a political bludgeon to deceive Americans into believing their country is an incurably unjust place where things can be set straight only by killing off its existing economic and governing systems.

That is the observed pattern and it’s important. It tells us why the 2020 elections will determine whether our free market Republic survives, or falls from within to single-party socialist rule.

 

Paul mentioned this in a comment on a previous post.
It bears serious reading.

Why Liberals Can’t Listen

When Cathy Newman’s absurdly hilarious interview with Jordan Peterson exploded across the internet, it wasn’t just because it was so funny. To a lot of conservatives, myself included, it sounded way too familiar. What we’ve known for a long time, Cathy Newman made blindingly obvious: Liberals really don’t listen. Maybe liberals can’t listen.

I’m seeing it again in a book I’m reading on the history of America’s culture wars. Conservatives’ opposition to new views on morality in the 1910s and 20s was “driven by fear,” the author says. Never mind that when the Pope Pius XI weighed in on the question, his answer was balanced, focused both on the real good that comes for all from true morality, and what dangers may follow upon straying from it. No, it was all “driven by fear.”

Liberals don’t see both sides. In fact, it’s almost as if they can’t. Or maybe we should drop “almost” from that sentence. For there’s some fascinating — and disturbing — research that says conservatives have the ability to understand liberals, but liberals literally can’t understand conservatives.

It has a lot to do with seeing moral issues from multiple points of view. The Pope could do it; can liberals?

I’m sure they think they can. Suppose you went out and struck up a conversation with a liberal friend of yours, or a teacher or a co-worker. Suppose you asked them, “Who’s better at seeing moral issues from more than one point of view: liberals or conservatives?” What would you bet they’d claim they could do it better? I’d put a lot of money down on that one.

Five Moral Foundations

But then along comes New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt. He and his research team set out on a global project seeking to understand human morality. They found that wherever you go, you’ll find five basic “moral foundations”: Caring, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity. He explains all this brilliantly in a TED talk, if you can overlook some lingering bias. (In his book The Righteous Mind he includes a sixth, Liberty.)

But there’s more. Haidt found a glaring difference between people on the left and people on the right. Conservatives, by and large, tend to live with all five of these moral dimensions in balance. Liberals don’t. They’re strong on Care and Fairness, but they’re weak on Loyalty, Authority and Purity.

And that’s a problem. Jonathan Haidt, who viewed himself as a liberal before doing this study, extended his research to look at what societies need in order to maintain stability and security. And he realized it isn’t just the left’s favorite pair. It takes all five moral categories. He paid attention: he’s a moderate now.

Conservatives could do it. Liberals couldn’t.

The Really Interesting Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

But hang on — we’re just now getting to the interesting part. Haidt asked liberals and conservatives to put themselves in one another’s shoes; to imagine how the other side would answer a list of ethical questions. Conservatives could do it. Liberals couldn’t. People on the right had the ability to understand people on the left; even to empathize with them to a degree. People on the left couldn’t do the same in return.

The reason, Haidt says, is because liberals’ moral scope is unbalanced. They’re so focused on Care and Fairness, they can’t imagine anyone thinking other values being important. Therefore, he says in this excerpt from his book The Righteous Mind, “If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness.”

And if we don’t value Care and Fairness — liberals’ most important values, by far — then we must be Really Awful People.

Misunderstanding Conservatism

Think I’m overstating it? Go back to the link and re-read the rest of the excerpt. Read the New York theater critic who wrote, “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. … I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm).”

It isn’t just that liberals don’t want to understand us. Many of them simply can’t. Not without considerable effort and coaching, at any rate; but which of them puts in that effort? Why would anyone want to empathize with Really Awful People? “Many readers,” writes Haidt, “ stayed locked inside their Care-based moral matrices and refused to believe that conservatism was an alternative moral vision.” He continues, “One reader … thought it was ‘sad’ that Republican narcissism would prevent them from understanding my perspective on their ‘illness.’”

We could go on all day explaining our positive reasons for the positions we take; all they’ll hear is us playing cover-up games. We must be driven by fear. Or power, or hate. Anything but decency. “What you’re really saying is…”

They can’t even imagine anything better of us. Why? According to Haidt, they don’t have a place in their minds to process Loyalty, Authority or Purity. For a large proportion of the liberal world, those values don’t even belong in the “ethics” category — even though human societies can’t survive without them.

So What Do We Do?

Need I say it? There’s no magic formula to fix this. It’s going to take time, and patience, and even love on our part, along with constant clear explanation of who we are and what we believe. It’s going to take real relationships, in other words.

Even that, though, may be difficult, since both conservatives and liberals have gotten ourselves fenced off in different towns and cities, or different parts of town, and certainly on different parts of the internet. It’s going to take real relational outreach on our part, in other words.

And even then nothing is guaranteed. Considering how many people ignored Jesus right up until the end of His life — and how eager some of them were to end His life — we need to be realistic with our expectations.

Yet some responded to Him then, and some will respond still today. I’m not giving up. And in the meantime, I for one find this insight from Haidt to be very interesting — and helpful.

Liberal elites’ secret weapon is conservative family values.

“If the elite had conspired to destroy the middle class, it seems they would have:
1, desired to corrupt middle class morals
2, convince middle class women to have fewer children or have a career instead of a family
3, convince middle class women they don’t need men but can do it all
4, take the middle class’s money by both promoting the need for a college education while driving the price of said education through the roof by subsidizing the education of the poor
5, send housing costs soaring by restricting supply
6, create a situation where good paying middle class jobs get outsourced while cheap labor is imported to keep wages down
7, promote a diet that tends to make anyone who follows it fat and sickly compared to those who eat roughly what people ate a century ago.
People in 1950 might have called the above a dystopian horror fiction.
The elites in 2020 call it good public policy.”..Cyrus in New York

 

A new study by Brad Wilcox and Wendy Wang at the Institute for Family Studies lays out the real picture.

“When it comes to their own families,” the authors discovered, “California elites with kids overwhelmingly ‘live right’ in private, giving their children the benefit of growing up in a two-parent family.”

Wilcox and Wang reveal granular data showing “that some of the most elite neighborhoods in the state — including several in Hollywood and San Francisco — have virtually no single parents.”

This is a far bigger story than Hollywood’s message vs. Hollywood’s lifestyle, of course. Across the country, Americans in the upper class are much more likely to profess liberalized teachings on family and marriage while personally practicing conservative family values. Wilcox and Wang just happened to get the data for California.

Among Californians aged 18-50, the college-educated were far more likely than those with no college degree (85% to 69%) to agree that we should celebrate the diversity of family structures, including single parenthood, unmarried parents, and other alternative family structures. The college-educated were specifically far more cheerful toward single motherhood.

That’s how they feel about others. How do the elites feel about their own lives? “It’s very important for me, personally to be married before having children,” 68% of the college-educated sample agreed. That number was only 59% for those who never went to college.

So the elites are more “tolerant” than the working class ideologically, but they are much more conservative about how they plan to live.

Why Journalists and Politicians are Frightened by Armed Defense

Armed citizens stopped a mass murderer at the West Freeway Church of Christ. When we plain folk in fly-over country heard that the attacker was stopped quickly, most of us thought, “Praise God.” In contrast, Joe Biden said it was irrational to allow anyone to be armed at any religious institution. Some journalists said they were terrified that ordinary citizens could be armed at church.

Why is the emotional response from politicians and journalists so different from ours? We know something that they don’t know. Those of us who live in fly-over country know Armed America, and the elites don’t.

We know real gun owners-  We know real people people who own guns, rather than the two-dimensional cardboard-cutout characters portrayed by Hollywood and the media. With over a hundred million gun owners in the US, they are easy to find. Legally licensed gun owners are our friends, our co-workers, our associates, and our neighbors.

I have a news flash for Vice President Joe and the journalists. Ordinary people are armed. Millions of us carry a legally concealed personal firearm in public. Unless you live in one of the elite bubbles in the US, then you are standing shoulder to shoulder with Armed America.

We’ve seen their good judgement. We’ve met Armed America and we’ve seen their restraint. We’re not surprised to learn that individuals who are licensed to carry a firearm in public are among the most law abiding groups that sociologists can find. That makes us different from Joe Biden and Co. Most elites don’t have a friend who drives a pickup truck, much less a friend who is a licensed concealed carrier.

We know and trust our neighbors- We have a positive opinion of our neighbors, our community and our town. We formed this judgement through experience. We’ve seen our fellow citizens solve challenging problems. We’ve seen their character under challenging circumstances, like fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and floods. We’ve seen a broad segment of society rise to the occasion and do their best for themselves and for those around them.

We’re comfortable with our neighbors. The media elites are only comfortable with other elites. Select law enforcement officers can be armed, according to the elites. Select bodyguards can be armed, according to the elites. You and I, average voters, not so much.

We actually believe in “diversity:” Our circle of friends includes people of all ages, backgrounds, and races. If you want to see elitism, look at the makeup of the MSM and at our elite colleges. If you doubt me, try to find a conservative-Christian-Republican male in the Sociology Department at your local college.

Also, consider the “diversity” of the editors at the Huffington post.

Only young college-educated women need apply

We’ve seen bad people do bad things- We’ve seen what criminals do. We’ve seen their effect on our family, our neighbors, and our communities. In our world, violence doesn’t happen in slow motion at 35 frames a second on a 60 inch screen; it happens in the parking lot at the corner store after dark. Our connection to reality is stronger than a TV crime-drama where the bad guy is brought to justice in 42 minutes.

Ordinary citizens like us defend ourselves thousands of times a day. We are not the easy victims the criminals expected. The bad guy meets Armed America and runs the other way. In that way, Armed America is making me and my family safer every day,  just like the defenders did at the Church of Christ in Texas.

Armed America frightens the elites. Maybe the elites like Joe Biden had better stay home and have their food delivered by Amazon so they feel safe. Don’t tell them the Amazon driver might be carrying. That might upset Joe and the mainstream journalists.

We’ll keep that truth to ourselves.

Muhammad Makes List of Top 10 Baby Names in the U.S. For First Time

That’s demographics, part of which is a high birthrate for moslems, another part being the number of ‘refugees’ imported by charities run by purportedly well meaning, but crap-for-brains idiots

Sophia still reigns as queen, but Jackson has lost his crown as king.

The parenting website BabyCenter released its annual list of 100 most popular baby names for girls and boys in the United States, and for the 10th year in a row, Sophia is at the top. Liam knocked Jackson out of the No. 1 spot that he had held onto for six years straight.

The online parenting and pregnancy destination compiled the names of babies born to some 600,000 registered U.S. users in 2019 and combined those that sound the same but have different spellings (such as Sophia and Sofia) to create a true measure of popularity. The Social Security Administration also generates a list, pulling from the names of all babies born in the U.S., but the agency treats each unique spelling as a separate name.

Almost all of last year’s top-10 darlings are still favorites this year, with a few exceptions. Revealing a rise in Arabic names, Muhammad and Aaliyah made the top 10 for the first time, replacing Mason and Layla.