The arrogant elite face their ‘perfect storm’



A version of the following column appears in the Nov. 10 edition of the three-times-a-month magazine “Firearms News” (previously “Shotgun News”) — circulation 89,900 — arriving in mailboxes and on newsstands nationwide, today, Nov. 7, 2016.


Many are saying this is the strangest presidential election in living memory. They may be right, given that no one can now remember the campaigns of 1824 and 1828, when the silk-stocking elite reacted with similar horror at the ascent of that original favorite of the unwashed yokels, the “illiterate baboon” (and champion of the Battle of New Orleans), Andrew Jackson.

The real issues at the time were tariffs and the monopoly Bank of the United States. But the campaigns were instead waged in the anti-Jackson media by dredging up scandals concerning when Jackson’s wife Rachel actually divorced her first husband, while painting Old Hickory as a tyrant whose election would spell the death of the republic. (Sound familiar?)

It’s important to realize that today’s mainstream media have purposely sought to MAKE this a campaign about personalities rather than issues.

No longer even bothering to seriously disguise their role as agents and proxies for the Hillary Democrats, they’ve been working hard since last spring precisely to make this a referendum on the “loose cannon” Donald Trump, taking a page right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook as they “personalize and demonize” the challenge to their power, just as they attacked and ridiculed Sarah Palin, a self-made political reformer who you’d THINK they would have championed as an attractive and successful all-America woman, but who instead got trashed as a hayseed from a backwoods state who hadn’t even gone to Vassar or Yale, like you’re supposed to.


They don’t want voters to focus on the pay-to-play operation which the Secretary of State’s office became under Hillary Clinton — the massive FOIA e-mail dump by Judicial Watch showing how time and again Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, would tell those who sought a meeting or a favor how hard it would be for them to see the Secretary — until they somehow got the message and made a million-dollar donation to the “Clinton Foundation,” or rustled up a $750,000 “speaking fee” for husband Bill, at which point they’d get their meeting, their favor, lickety-split.

They certainly don’t want voters to focus on Hillary’s health, as they peddle without further investigation one medical cover story after another (“allergies,” “pneumonia”) — ridiculing, even firing anyone who attempts to probe further — for a woman described by her own top aide as “often confused” after her 2012 fall, concussion, and blood clot on the brain.


Mrs. Clinton now travels with a nurse at one elbow and a huge “health aide” at the other -– available to rub her back, whisper instructions in her ear, even pick her up and toss her bodily into a waiting van if she shows signs of “freezing up,” a symptom which according to more than one medical doctor resembles the behavior of someone being treated for an advanced neurological disease. (Search for the videos of Dr. Ted Noel, starting here: .)




This bi-coastal media elite certainly doesn’t want voters to focus on the way the Obama administration — including Secretary of State Clinton — has sold this nation down the river to the Islamic terrorists and the subversive “refugee settlement jihad” by purging all references to “Islam,” “jihad,” or even “the enemy” from our federal law enforcement policy and procedure manuals, refusing to allow our agents to track the terror-funding groups, purging vast swatches of relevant data from their databases, ordering agents not to bring cases against terror funders and promoters on a “law-enforcement basis” (what?) – even putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of the FBI’s counter-terrorism training. (See the book “See Something, Say Nothing,” by former top anti-terror agent Phil Haney, or simply search the internet for any Haney video. For a short one, start here: .)


Nor do the members of this Ivy League media elite want the public talking or thinking about the way Hillary Clinton abandoned Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans to die in Bengazi rather than approving a ready-to-go rescue mission that might draw attention to what they were really doing there — arranging the shipment of tons of surplus Libyan arms to the Muslim “ISIS” rebels in Syria.

(Even Pulitzer-Prize-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has confirmed this Obama/Clinton illegal arms dealing; see: ; or , or .)

In fact, they seem curiously reluctant to focus on ANY real issues.

On gun control — the issue on which Bill Clinton acknowledged the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994 by enacting their goofy ban on certain scary-looking guns and their normal-sized magazines — Hillary Clinton has said repeatedly the “Australian solution” is “worth a try.” That is, seizing every semi-automatic long gun in the country (yes, they called it a “buy-back” — do you think gun owners got to set the price for their collectibles? Did you know the penalty for refusing to “accept their offer” was years in prison?) . . .crushing and melting 600,000 of them. (They’ve since gone after many handguns, as well.)

(See .)

Of course, predictably, the “Australian solution” hasn’t worked, even in Australia. The Adelaide Advertiser conceded a few years ago: “Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms -— including fully automatic weapons.” ( .)

More recently, Australia’s New Daily gained access to “previously unpublished data for firearms offences” and reported a surge in crime “including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period” . . . after the big gun confiscation! ( .)

“Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country’s underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade,” the report added. “The national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns.”

In contrast, at Donald Trump’s official web site we’re told: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. . . . The Constitution doesn’t create that right — it ensures that the government can’t take it away. . . .

“Here’s another important way to fight crime,” The Donald continues: “empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great . . . but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner. . . .”

Gun and magazine bans? “A total failure,” says Mr. Trump. “Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons’, ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. . . .”

The right to carry? “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway,” Mr. Trump continues. “That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. . . .”


Normally, I’d add here that the Libertarian ticket offers a second alternative for gun owners. Not this year. The current LP vice presidential candidate is former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Bill Weld, the RINO in sheep’s clothing who in 1993 signed into law a package of unconstitutional gun control measures which he’d previously told voters he’d oppose — precisely the kind of ban on normal-sized magazines and “scary-looking” semi-automatics that candidate Trump refers to. Both Weld and running mate Gary Johnson (and, coincidentally, loyal Harry Reid foot-soldier Catherine Cortez Masto, running for U.S. Senate here in Nevada) all agree “You shouldn’t have anybody who is on the terrorist watch list buy any gun at all.”

Problem is, a “terrorist watch list” is not a list of people who’ve been notified of the charges against them and provided a due-process opportunity to confront their accusers. The government can put any American they want on such a “watch list.” They don’t even notify those being “listed.”


Does Mrs. Clinton want to debate the economy? Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, our current political-media elite was instructed by their leftist professors that every “progressive” shares the wish to tear down the “greedy capitalist” culture which over 300 years made America the freest and most prosperous nation on earth, replacing it with “multiculturalism.”

For 30 years, this “politics of jealousy” has been driving American jobs overseas with high corporate tax rates and expensive “employer mandates,” until Ford just announced it will now build all its smaller cars in Mexico.

Yes, some of us worry about Donald Trump’s tendency to grab first for protective tariffs. After all, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs played a major role in extending the world-wide Depression of the 1930s.


But shouldn’t such issues be the topic of this election, rather than whether Donald Trump is a “racist” (because he wants the immigration laws enforced equally for everyone) or an “Islamophobe” (because he wants to screen and track would-be Islamic terrorists seeking to enter this country), or “the next Hitler” (when the most Hitlerian action I’ve seen in America in my lifetime was the FBI holding the fire engines a mile away while they burned the women and children to death in that church near Waco, having set the place afire with their highly flammable “ferret rounds” later found in the wreckage. Who occupied the White House at the time — and saw to it those G-men got praise and promotions? Oh dear. The Clintons.)

It may also be worth noting that Hitler’s handiwork was enormously facilitated by the effective disarmament of the German people. Why then would a “next Hitler” want to encourage Americans to own and carry firearms in order to resist tyranny, as Trump does? Why, in contrast, would Hillary Clinton — if she’s such a proponent of freedom — want our most effective personal weapons seized and destroyed, with prison terms for anyone who refuses to “turn them in,” just like in Australia?


More and more working-class Americans now scrape by on a couple of part-time jobs with few benefits. This economic condition has been created by those (of both parties) who’ve been in charge in Washington for the past 30 years — piling on bizarre, economically crippling regulations. Now you can even be penalized if your operation emits carbon dioxide — a harmless gas necessary to life on earth!

Meantime, even though the mainstream media may turn their eyes away, everyday Americans have started to notice the ongoing campaign to cripple the economies of rural states by driving ranchers, miners, lumbermen, even small farmers off the land, all under the absurd pretense of “protecting” some obscure bird, reptile, minnow or maggot.

But something went wrong, didn’t it?


Writing many weeks before the election, I can’t predict where this campaign will stand in early November. For one thing, we can’t know whether Hillary Clinton will be still standing, literally.

But one thing is obvious: The media failed in their effort to have Donald Trump down for the count, apologizing for his every supposed “gaffe” and “misstep,” by Labor Day. Why?

The Internet. More than half the populace can now turn to alternative news sources. They can see for themselves the chaos that an “open borders” policy has created in Europe, where Mideast “refugees” who believe it’s OK to rape any woman not wrapped head to toe in Muslim-style garments show no inclination to assimilate, where Scandinavian police have stopped even attempting to protect their citizens in the “no-go” Muslim enclaves, and civil wars loom.


Just because the “old media” threaten to fire anyone who wants to talk about Hillary’s health doesn’t mean millions of Americans didn’t go online and watch her fall down before they could drag her into her escape van at Ground Zero on Sept. 11.


And finally, the selective personal attacks against Trump handed him an unintended autumn gift: In September, as voters actually started to tune in and listen to the candidates, Donald Trump benefited from low expectations. All he had to do was address bedrock issues – economics, the suffering of families who’ve lost relatives to Islamic terror – in a calm, coherent way. Amazed voters started turning to each other and saying, “Wow. Common sense. But where’s that pathological lunatic they told us about?”



The grip of the collectivist elite on our urban centers means a modern Democrat could probably count on the 115 electoral votes of New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts — almost half the 270 required — even if she actually did drop dead. So Republicans face an uphill road.

I won’t predict an outcome. But as Daniel Henninger of the financial blog Zero Hedge wrote in the Sept. 15 Wall Street Journal (under the “house” pseudonym Tyler Durden): “Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are ‘racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic’ . . . puts back in play what will be seen as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the politically incorrect.

“They may not live at the level of Victor Hugo’s ‘Les Miserables,’ but it was only a matter of time before ‘les deplorables’ — our own writhing mass of unheard Americans — rebelled against the intellectual elites’ ‘ancien regime’ of political correctness,” Mr. Henninger continues.

“In the eight years available to Barack Obama to do something about what rankles the lower-middle class — white, black or brown — the non-employed and underemployed grew. A lot of them will vote for Donald Trump because they want a radical mid-course correction. . . .

“This is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton. The progressive Democrats, a wholly public-sector party, have disconnected from the realities of the private economy, which exists as a mysterious revenue-producing abstraction. . . .

“Donald Trump’s appeal, in part, is that he cracks back at progressive cultural condescension in utterly crude terms. . . . They’re fed up with the relentless, moral superciliousness of Hillary, the Obamas, progressive pundits and 19-year-old campus activists,” Mr. Henninger concludes.


“If the Democrats lose behind Hillary Clinton, it will be in part because America’s ‘les deplorables’ decided enough of this is enough.”

And that would be a watershed. Or maybe even — following the vote of Britons to pull out of the German-run, Sharia-infiltrated Common Market — the beginnings of a tidal wave.

Vin Suprynowicz was for 20 years an award-winning libertarian columnist and editorial writer at the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal, back when it had a reputation for independence and a circulation of 180,000 (212,000 on Sundays.) He blogs at


4 Comments to “The arrogant elite face their ‘perfect storm’”

  1. K. Bill Hodges Says:

    I broke my own rule and watched a few minutes of the cable “news” channels tonight. They’re already smiling and celebrating and saying the final numbers have no hope for Trump.

    Twenty twenty twenty four hours to go…

  2. R. Hartman Says:

    (They’ve since gone after many handguns, as well.)

    And then crime went through the roof…

  3. K. Bill Hodges Says:

    And there you go. Millions of dollars for paid television and journalistic experts, but they got it wrong; Vin got it right!

    Thanks for bearing that torch in the dark times. You lit the way for the rest of us.

  4. Vince Says:


    An “attaboy” doesn’t even come close to covering it but since I’m still somewhat in the grip of reality vertigo (I had no idea what to expect when I brewed my first cup of coffee at 4:30 this morning) it is the best I can say to you just now.

    You stayed true to your principles and never stopped publishing news of actual value, supported by links in support of the points being made.

    I congratulate you on your sense of honesty and insistence upon sticking to the facts.

    Your friend,