Most of us are raised to root for the underdog, for the person or people who somehow succeed in spite of the odds stacked against them. At least that used to be the case. These days, it seems what we keep seeing are those who were previously held down behaving as if they are now entitled to rule the roost and call the shots.

For instance, back when I was a youngster, homosexuals were openly ridiculed and referred to by demeaning nicknames. Eventually, the name-calling stopped and a civilized society granted them civil union status so they could visit one another in hospitals and even file joint tax returns. But, suddenly, even that wasn’t enough. Nothing less than same-sex marriages would do, and no matter whether your objection was based on religious or common sense grounds, you were the one being called bad names. What’s more, the game was so changed that if you, as an individual, objected to going along with the joke by baking same-sex wedding cakes or videotaping the ceremony, the government would drum you out of business.

Even when it was glaringly apparent that even in towns with a multitude of photographers and bakers that the homosexuals were intentionally targeting those whose religious beliefs trumped their commercial concerns, the government sided with the bullies.

We have seen a similar scenario play out in cities around the nation when it comes to blacks. Every time, a black thug is shot during the commission of a crime by cops doing their job, the media, the courts and even the federal government, are certain to take up for the black rabble.

This isn’t meant to deny that on rare occasions, rogue cops haven’t take advantage of the badge to dispense what they regard as street justice. But the operative word is “rare.” Far more often, as in Ferguson, a black punk has been shot by a white cop, and it triggers a series of predictable events. First, the black community will pretend that the thug was a choir boy destined to eventually cure cancer. They will then show their moral outrage by setting fire to stores after first removing all the food, liquor and Nikes, they can possibly steal.

This will be followed by Obama’s defending the mob and claiming that the victim could have been his own son. Next, the Attorney General will call for an investigation of the police force and immediately place the department under the thumb of the Justice Department.

A series of photos that has gone viral tells the story better than I can. Headlined “Looting,” one photo is captioned: “An act performed in urban communities to honor a recently killed person that nobody knew, but whom the looters claim was like a son to them.” In another, it reads “When free housing, welfare checks, free food and a free education just aren’t enough.” A third: “Because nothing says you care about a dead kid and the community more than stealing 50 pairs of Air Jordan’s, and then burning the place to the ground!”

The fourth in the series shows a Ferguson store owner standing in the middle of what had once been a proud symbol of his entrepreneurship and now resembles downtown Beirut. The headline reads: “Gets robbed by Michael Brown.” The caption reads: “Gets looted by people honoring Michael Brown’s memory.”

The fifth is a picture of Obama announcing “I will be signing a new executive order replacing the word ‘looting’ with ‘undocumented shopping.’” After recently writing with dismay about the 16 black female cadets at West Point who posed for what could have served as a recruiting poster for the Black Lives Matter movement, I heard from a couple of military veterans.

Both were angry about the picture, about the fact that Obama gave the young women a presidential thumbs-up and that West Point was not only allowing them to graduate on schedule, but planned no disciplinary action. As one of the two, an Air Force vet, wrote: “I would give the women three options: 1) face a general court martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; 2) graduate, but not be allowed to take part in the ceremonies, and be given a dishonorable discharge; 3) same as option 2 regarding graduation, but allow them to enlist as an E-1 (private) and be required to serve the full seven years for having made the taxpayers foot the bill for their education, but not be allowed to progress beyond the rank of E-4, then be discharged either honorably or dishonorably, depending on their performance while in uniform.

"Under no circumstances would I allow them to progress to the rank of senior NCO or officer, because they have already demonstrated their startling lack of leadership capabilities by engaging in such a foolish protest. Lest anyone think these options are too harsh, consider what the ensuing outcry would have been if those cadets had been white males holding up the Confederate flag. I think you know the answer.”

The other reader identified himself as a proud second generation graduate of the Academy (class of 1952), and also the third of four generations of career Army officers. He let me know that he had written a strong letter to the Superintendent of West Point.

“His initial response was that there was an ‘ongoing investigation’ as to the rationale and motivation behind the event. The next day, Obama said they were admirable ladies! And, surprise, surprise, the day after that, the Superintendent said the women were not going to be disciplined or punished, since they didn’t really mean what it was so obvious they did mean!

"What bothers me most is that once they realized they might be in real trouble, it is obvious they lied to the investigators. At the U.S. Military Academy, that is a breach of the Honor Code, which in my day would have meant, at best, demotion of cadet rank to private and delayed graduation. At worst, it would have meant expulsion and no graduation, commission or graduation certificate.

"You can bet that if they were white, an honor violation would be a big deal.”

In closing, he mentioned that he had not only personally contributed generously over the years to the Academy, but helped to raise millions of dollars for West Point. But never again.

At least honor still counts for something among its graduates, even if it no longer responds to Reveille at the institution.

I worry about what a Trump administration will look like because, like Obama, he is always claiming powers for himself that the Constitution denies to the executive branch. Therefore, he can no more deliver on his promise to deport millions of illegal aliens than Obama could get away with granting them immunity.

Even his promise to punish American companies that move factories outside our borders by placing tariffs on their products or on Chinese-made goods because China manipulates its currency ignores the fact that tariffs punish consumers every bit, if not more, than they do those who produce the products. Tariffs, like taxes, merely force the manufacturers to raise the price of the goods to cover the additional costs.

Furthermore, it’s worth mentioning that the president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to punish other countries by leveling tariffs on their exports. It is Congress that’s empowered to make those decisions. And if we didn’t like it when Obama trampled on the Constitution, it doesn’t behoove us to encourage Trump to follow suit simply because he is allegedly a Republican.

But, as I have said so many times in the past, when voting, you must consider the alternative. And in Trump’s case, that would be Hillary Clinton.

If Elizabeth Barrett Browning were still around and weren’t a liberal, she might pen a poem that read in part: “How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.”

Whereas we might have to wait to find out how bad Trump is when it comes to core issues, we already know that Mrs. Clinton believes in climate change, which is a multi-trillion-dollar hoax perpetrated by chiselers like Al Gore to make himself rich and by Third World nations looking to make the industrial West poor.

We also know that Mrs. Clinton would do nothing to diminish the power of the EPA to control the economy through federal regulations; that she shares the same distaste for the Second Amendment as Obama and Michael Bloomberg and that she shares Obama’s contempt for the police and the military; that she would continue appointing Supreme Court justices who would vote like Kagan and Sotomayor, not like Scalia and Thomas; that she would continue to promote Obama’s existing foreign policy that kowtows to Russia and Iran while forcing Israel to toe the line and to pull its punches when defending itself against terrorist attacks from an existential enemy.

One can also assume that, as president, she would continue to encourage Bill to deliver expensive speeches to anyone and everyone looking to influence American policies here and abroad.

And while I am among those who would love to see Donald Trump’s tax returns, I, along with Bernie Sanders, would be even more interested in finally getting to read those speeches that Wall Street kept coughing up $250,000 to hear.

What might she have said to the very people that Democrats are always accusing of ruining America? If she not only chastised them, but made them pay through the nose for the sermon, you would think she’d want to share.

Instead, she has all the speeches locked up in what is possibly the same vault where Obama has stashed his college records, his travel visas and his actual birth certificate.

It should be enough to make even Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and several million Bernie Sanders supporters wonder.