19 Search results

For the term "Greatness".

Boys, Girls, Guns, and Blacks

If Congress is going to discriminate against 18-21 year-olds by requiring them to jump through certain hoops to buy a gun, shouldn’t it also impose the same rules on “similarly situated” people?

Ten Republican senators apparently have signed onto a proposal to make it more difficult for people under the age of 21 to buy a gun. Four of the 10 are retiring, and the other six are not up for reelection this year, which suggests they know the legislation will be unpopular with Republicans. If 10 Republicans vote with Democrats, the legislation (which has not been fully drafted yet) would survive an attempt to filibuster it. 

There are at least three obvious points to make: first, if the 18-to-21-year-old group (for convenience they’ll be referred to as “kids”) are not considered to be as wise as people 21 years of age and older, why are they allowed to vote? That’s the kind of query that the kind of Republican who would limit the gun rights of the under-21 crowd tends to shrug off without comment—because there really is no comment that makes sense.

Second, what’s the reason for picking on the kids? Presumably their ages (18-to-21) aren’t random numbers on a roulette wheel or a Ouija board vouchsafed to us. There must be some sort of correlation between something and something else: presumably between the number of murders by kids and the number of murders by . . . a different group. And presumably the number of murders by the kids must be sufficiently higher than the number of murders by any other group you could think of to justify picking on the kids and not also picking on that other group.

Well, almost. If it turned out that the number of murders committed by the 118- to 120-year-old group was significantly higher than the number of murders committed by the kids, it might be fair to conclude that that still wasn’t much of a problem. How many people of that age are there, after all? If there are only 10 of them, and they commit five murders, that means 50 percent of them committed murder, but five murders are hardly a national catastrophe—with inflation going through the roof, baby formula in short supply, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens streaming over our southern border (bringing disease, crime, and fentanyl with them), crime rising in our cities (mostly run by entrenched Democrats), and a whole lot more. We really haven’t got time to focus on a few trigger-happy centenarians.

Also, how many of the kids who have committed murder, in any given year, were girls? Does that matter to anyone? Does that matter to the aforementioned 10 Republican senators? Can they tell the difference between boys and girls? And if they can, would they admit it in public? As of February 2017, 93.3 percent of federal inmates were men, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. That suggests that whatever the problem is with kids and guns, it’s a problem with boys not with girls. And in that case, whatever rule the Congress is about to produce should apply only to boys, not to girls. Place your bets that the Republicans will make a distinction between boys and girls? Please! And where are the feminists when we need them? 

Here’s a third, two-part problem: part one is that, as Crisis Magazine reports, contrary to popular belief, most mass shooters are black. “Consider that young black men make up less than 6% of the population. Yet, according to an aggregation of news sources, this demographic committed 68% of mass shootings in 2019, 73% of the mass shootings in 2020, and so far [April 2021], 70% of mass shootings in 2021. For those same years, white men committed 14%, 14%, and 14%. Latinos held steady at 14%, 14%, and 16%. Asians committed 4% in 2019, and none in 2020 and 2021.” 

Part two is that blacks commit “regular” murder (i.e., not mass shootings) at about the same rate as the kids (the boy kids), and that rate is higher than the rate at which the rest of the population commits murder. 

If Congress is going to discriminate against kids (by passing special legislation that requires them to jump through certain hoops to buy a gun, hoops that older people don’t have to jump through), shouldn’t it also impose the same rules on “similarly situated” people? If blacks commit murder at the same rate as kids, or if blacks commit more mass shootings than whites, shouldn’t the legislation now supported by the 10 Republicans, as well as by all the Democrats, include, specifically, blacks?

If not, why not?


June 16, 2022
American Greatness

Diversity Is Our Strength, You Christo-Fascist!

Does anyone who doesn’t live in a gated community or who can’t afford private security guards really believe that diversity is a virtue?

Following the leak of the draft Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on abortion, first-year Yale Law School student Shyamala Ramakrishna referred to members of the Federalist Society as “Christo-fascists.”

The Washington Free Beacon added nonchalantly, “Some of her classmates were less moderate.” You might agree. The Free Beacon quoted another first-year student, Melisa Olgun, as saying: “Neither the constitution nor the courts—nor the f—ing illusion of ‘democracy’—are going to save us. How can we possibly expect a document, drafted by wealthy, white, landowning men, to protect those who face marginalization that is the direct result of the very actions of the founders?”

It is not known from under which rock those Yale law students emerged (or who let them matriculate), but you can be reasonably sure they subscribe to the mantra, endlessly repeated by the most dishonest woman ever to foul the American political scene, “Diversity is our strength.” 

Saying “diversity is our strength” is no longer the way to win friends and influence people in Europe, whose history with that experiment bears examining and remembering. 

A 2015 attack by immigrants in Sweden would, according to the Washington Post, prove to be “one of the most scandalous in recent Swedish history.” A mother and son, both Swedes, “died from their stab wounds. The two suspects, [Abraham] Ukbagabir and a fellow Eritrean named Yohannes Mahari” were arrested for murder. Was anyone surprised?

According to Reuters, “the number of people in Sweden born abroad has doubled in the last two decades to 2 million, or a fifth of the population.” One study reports that Arabic is now the second most popular language in Sweden. 

It is generally agreed that Sweden’s attempt to integrate the vast numbers of immigrants it has taken in over the past two decades has failed miserably, and that that has led to parallel societies and gang violence.

Bloomberg News reported in 2018 that “anti-immigrant parties have long linked Muslim immigration to crime, but verifiable data to support their arguments have been scarce, not least because police services and statistical agencies have been reluctant to track this aspect of criminality so as not to increase tension in societies.” And that was even before the woke Left started riding the range. 

“Research done in the Netherlands, which has a large Moroccan population, has at times shown a connection between the immigrants’ home culture and their propensity to violence,” the Bloomberg report continues.

Hmm. Does that mean different cultures produce people with different ideas about how one should . . . behave in a “civilized” society? Or even what a “civilized society” really is?


How many of those people from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia would you want living near you?

An opinion poll in Germany a few years ago showed that 55 percent of those polled thought that Muslims were a burden on the economy. One has to wonder what the other 45 percent thought—and why. Maybe they’re the people who don’t have to mix with immigrants. In a moment of candor in 2010, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said German multiculturalism had “utterly failed.” Has much improved in the 12 years since? 

Can a society have an infinite variety of “peoples” in it? Can America survive if it becomes a diverse society? Is there something special about America? About American democracy? Immigrants like the Syrians in Sweden may never (or certainly not soon) become a fifth of the U.S. population, but they could easily become a fifth, or enough, of your town, to produce, for your town, the problems that are plaguing Europe. 

John Jay wrote in Federalist 2 of “one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government.” 

Does anyone who doesn’t live in a gated community or who can’t afford private security guards really believe that diversity is our strength? 

Probably not—and not because they don’t believe in allowing some “strangers” into our midst, but because they want to keep America . . . America, and that means letting in only those people who understand and accept our traditions. 

Why, after all, do people come to America, governed by (or if not really governed by at least inspired by) “a document, drafted by wealthy, white, landowning men, to protect those who face marginalization that is the direct result of the very actions of the founders”? 

Perhaps because whatever its imperfections may seem to be, America’s system of government beats all the other systems on offer. America’s system is, still—but for how long?—a beacon of Western Civilization, which is at its heart a Christian civilization. 

Diversity is not our strength, as people who call us “Christo-fascists” make abundantly clear.


June 2, 2022
American Greatness