The greatest unreported achievement of President Trump is that he’s knocked income inequality — the most divisive, yet silliest, issue in recent years — off the radar screen.
Spurred on by the thuggish Occupy mob, the predecessor of today’s even more thuggish Antifa gang, income inequality became the main obsession of Democrats and other elements of the Left in recent years. Throughout the 2016 campaign, the double “i” words were on all leftish lips. But then Trump became White House-bound, and “income inequality” vanished from the public forum even quicker than “The era of Big Government is over.”
You can’t blame the Dems for ginning up a brouhaha over income inequality. It’s the perfect weapon to wield when class warfare’s your game and dividing the country’s your aim.
The most important thing to know about income inequality is that it was never about helping the unfortunate poor. Most people mired in poverty are far too busy trying to simply survive to join protest movements. The spearhead of this egalitarian drive was forged from people of privilege whose social level was stages above the mere middle class.
But, to be fair, the allies egging on the hordes against the 1 percent did have their grievances. Their rage was stoked by frustration — they’d never have that plush Manhattan apartment, Ivy League cred for their spawn or vacations in the south of France on an annual household income of only $250,000.
It just plain wasn’t fair that corporate CEOs, hedge fund managers and investment bankers could afford such trifles, while folks earning a quarter-million bucks a year who considered themselves middle-class stalwarts were shut out of the good life.
Similar outrage was evident each step down the line, as people who were financially well off howled over the status of those who had just bit more (and obviously didn’t serve it).
Complaining about income inequality was a game anyone could play except maybe Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett. It united the Democrats like no other issue.
The protesters who claimed to represent the 99 percent of American society constantly accused the 1 percent of greed. In actuality, the activists were guilty of envy, which is considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins because it can corrode the soul itself.
The foolishness of getting angry over someone else’s wealth came home to me as I was mowing my lawn in the summer of 1996. I was minding my own business when my neighbor motioned me over to the fence. After I turned off my mower, he launched into a 15-minute diatribe about Michael Jordan’s new contract.
It was, indeed, a monster of a deal that boosted His Airness’ salary from $3.85 million to an unprecedented $30 million — giving him more money than the combined salaries of entire NBA teams. I listened politely and nodded occasionally but wondered why he was so mad. After all, not a penny of Jordan’s pay was coming out of our pockets. Then it hit me: He was a Democrat.
When I got back my mowing, I couldn’t help but chuckle. My neighbor and his wife were both teachers whose combined pay was three times my annual salary — yet he was the one blowing his stack over a stranger’s good fortune.
Yes, income inequality, as an issue, has left the building, primarily because Democrats and the media are too busy raising a clamor over Trump, Russia and Melania’s stiletto heels. But while it’s gone, don’t expect a farewell tour.
It all boils down to envy, and that’s always in style for some people.
SHREVEPORT – In a move that should be a surprise to no one at this point, the Orpheum Theater in Memphis has pulled the 1939 film, Gone with the Wind, from its annual summer screening after 34 years, citing complaints from offended citizens.
Brett Batterson, president of the Orpheum Theater Group, said … “The Orpheum carefully reviewed all of them. As an organization whose stated mission is to ‘entertain, educate and enlighten the communities it serves,’ the Orpheum cannot show a film that is insensitive to a large segment of its local population.”
The slippery slope is now in our rear view mirror, folks. We’re done here.
We can’t screen certain films because they are “insensitive to a large segment” of the local population? Just imagine where this will now lead. Let your mind wander and just imagine the films that could be offensive to any large group of people. The list could be staggering.
I expect we won’t be seeing To Kill a Mockingbird on television or in libraries anymore, or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, or even Harry Potter, because certainly people might be offended.
Let me guess – these are probably the same people walking around in their Che Guevara t-shirts.
The merits of the film are long established and don’t need my small voice to vouch for it; it won ten Oscars including one for Hattie McDaniel who was the first black woman to win an Oscar.
Margaret Mitchell once said that the theme of her novel is survival. “What quality is it that makes some people able to survive catastrophes and others, apparently just as brave and strong, go under?”
I’m not sure the history of our nation will survive censorship.
The point is less the film itself but that our selective outrage has moved from statues to film. We truly are in Ray Bradbury’s world. When will the book burnings begin?
As for The Orpheum I would have applauded them had they had the nerve to stand up to intimidation and rejected censorship.
Mary Cooper:When your mom gets back, I’m gonna need to apologize for the way I spoke to her. Penny:Well, come on, she did kinda start it. Mary Cooper:Doesn’t matter. A good Christian would have turned the other cheek. On the other hand, a good Texan would have shot her, so I’ll just split the difference.
The Big Bang Theory: The Maternal Combustion 2015
On Saturday my reading of this Daily Caller piece concerning Stacy McCain’s visit this week to New England and his appearance at Tang Dynasty this coming Saturday. Two different instincts took hold beside me.
The first was gratitude for the publicity of a nationally known site writing about it. It increases the exposure of the event and the potential for ticket sales (buy yours here) Not only is this critical for me as the person financing this event and on the hook if it fails to break even, but the success or failure of this event will be the determining factor if this is one off event featuring a friend of mine at a restaurant I like or the first of a series bringing conservative reporters and authors to the area to both educate and entertain outnumbered conservatives and moderate in a deep blue state.
The second was my Sicilian instinct that kicks in when someone disses a friend of mine like this:
The Mirror also sought comment from Washington journalists who are familiar with his work.
“I think the guy is bad news,” said a Washington journalist. “Seems like a parody of the racist, sexist Neanderthal that the opponents want to portray all Republicans as being.”
“He’s gross,” said a female Washington writer when asked for comment. “You can disagree with feminism without being derisive about women.”
Whether some anonymous writer thinks of me as a Neanderthal is of no consequence, but I fully agree with your second source: Disagreeing with feminism doesn’t mean being “derisive about women,” and I am not.
This is a point I made myself in reply to one of your email questions. You asked how I viewed women “generally,” and in my answer I said, “There obviously is no correct answer to such a question, because no one views women ‘generally.’ Rather, every intelligent person views people as individuals, and we tend to be offended by generalizations about groups.” Elsewhere in my reply, I remarked on the unfortunate tendency to think that any man who criticizes feminism is somehow “anti-woman.” This is some like saying a critic of Marxism is “anti-worker,” and is self-evidently false. Radical ideologues who insist that all opponents of their identity-politics movement are motivated by bad faith (mala fides) are engaged in a dishonest rhetorical game, and become offended when their tactics are exposed. During the Cold War, Communists always engaged in character assassination against their enemies, because Communism was (and still is) indefensible on its merits.
The Author Ms. Betsy Rothstein, who was the subject of an odd but interesting profile at the New Republic here, also suggested some nefarious attitudes to Mr. McCain that I occasionally see online. Stacy answered these too:
Elsewhere in your article, you seem interested in reviving the ancient fable that I am some kind of “white supremacist,” which falls into the category of fake news, as President Trump might say. As I told the pathetic bungler Max Blumenthal a dozen years ago, I’m too lazy to be evil. You might also want to consult my November 2009 blog post, “How to Reply to the Southern Poverty Law Center (If You Must).”
This obviously trashy mansigning is sure to create waves with the ladies.
which draws a conclusion without evidence, nor the tone when listing the price of the event which has to cover:
1. A guaranteed number of book sales
2. A guaranteed number of buffet attendees
3. The cost of Stacy’s Round Trip flight
And while I am very grateful for the manpower and promotion from the good folks of the Worcester Tea Party at Granite Grok as I said earlier, if this event fails those costs not covered by ticket sales will be on me.
So now having vented satisfying my Sicilian side let me allow my Christian instinct to offer thanks one more time to Ms. Rothstein as she was kind enough to give me a timely topic for my Monday Lead post.
I consider Stacy McCain an American Success Story. My own American success story depends on the willingness of you dear reader to like what you see here and support it, so if you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please consider hitting DaTipJar to help me secure a weekly paycheck.
Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer
Remember your subscription pay our Magnificent Seven writers each month
Reports are coming in from Politico that President Trump will announce a six-month delayed end to the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. The executive order signed by President Obama allowed children brought illegally into the country to apply for work permits. It was universally loved by Democrats and reluctantly protected by a handful of Republicans.
Now, it will go away if the report is accurate. It should and this is the right way to do it.
Complaints are already emerging from both sides of the political aisle. Liberals are outraged, of course, but some conservatives are also voicing concerns. Chief of Staff John Kelly believes Congress should have been prepared with a plan by now. Iowa Representative Steve King believes putting it on the Republican Congress is a bad political move.
Ending DACA now gives chance 2 restore Rule of Law. Delaying so R Leadership can push Amnesty is Republican suicide. https://t.co/iYOLxFWp7V
To some extent, King is correct. If the GOP Congress puts forth a replacement that does all or part of what the previous lawless president intended with his executive order, all this does is shift ownership. If, on the other hand, the GOP decides to take the political hit and encourage enforcement of the rule of law for our sovereign nation, it’s a win.
King is apparently not very confident his cohorts will take the second path.
For President Trump, this is a win-win. He is fulfilling one of his most important campaign promises and setting the stage for the GOP to demonstrate their resolve on the issue. If they do, he wins because the “blame” will be spread throughout the party rather than just focusing on him. If they cave for political expediency and recreate a congressional version of DACA, then President Trump did his part and Congress was the body that changed.
As critical as I’ve been of the president during his short term, this is one instance where I’m in full agreement. Pulling the rug out from under “Dreamers” may be what most conservatives want, but it would be a poor political move. It’s just an unnecessary burden at this point following a slew of failures from Obamacare to the travel ban. Instead, he’s giving Congress the opportunity to act while still fulfilling his promise. The message to potential illegal immigrants is still clear and effective: this president will not protect you so don’t bother coming over.
We are a sovereign nation. We have a robust legal immigration system that allows opportunities for people to enter the nation the right way. We cannot afford mixed messages making people believe they or their children can stay if they come here illegally. Ending the executive order is a righteous move by the president. Will Congress follow suit?