Leftist writer calls for parenthood to be abolished to achieve equity, says your children should be given to ‘homeless neighbors’ or to the state

A writer is proposing that California abolish parenthood so that the state can “achieve true equity.”

The outlandish proposal was presented in an article published in the “opinion” section of the Ventura County Star – a daily newspaper published in California. The publication is owned by Gannett – the largest newspaper company in the United States. The article titled “California should abolish parenthood, in the name of equity” was also republished by Yahoo in its “news” section.

The author of the piece is Joe Mathews – a co-president of the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, which is “dedicated to those active on issues of direct democracy, participation and citizens’ rights around the world.”

The article touts Californians as having the goal of “equity” to be their “greatest value.” However, Mathews notes that parenthood prevents true equity because “fathers and mothers with greater wealth and education are more likely to transfer these advantages to their children, compounding privilege over generations.”

Keep reading

America’s ‘white supremacy’ is a myth, and here’s the proof

Asian women are now more successful than white men in the United States, shattering the progressives’ narrative that the country is systemically racist. And the response of the left? To claim that Asians are actually white.

According to a recent US Department of Labour report, Asian women out-earned white men in six of the last nine quarters, and in the most recent quarter, Asian women on average earned 9.1% more than their white male counterparts ($1,224 per week compared to $1,122 per week).

And while that news may not mean much to the casual observer, the success of Asian women does, however, pose a problem for those keen to paint America as a land rife with systemic discrimination against women and particularly non-white people. But rather than give up the narrative of oppression, the left has instead offered increasingly impressive mental gymnastics to justify the disconnect between their ideology and our reality.

Keep reading

Liberals 3X More Likely Than Conservatives To Report People On Social Media

Liberals are three times more likely than conservatives to report people on social media to Big Tech companies for possible terms and regulations violations, a new poll suggests.

According to the Cato 2021 Speech and Social Media National Survey, of the 2,000 people polled, liberals, even moderate ones, were far more likely to encourage Big Tech-led censorship of their peers on apps such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

“This behavior is highly tied to political ideology,” the poll notes.

While 65 percent of strong liberals, 44 percent of moderate liberals, and 32 percent of moderates testified that they reported another user for “sharing offensive content or false information,” only 21 percent of moderate conservatives and 24 percent of strong conservatives said they did the same.

In addition to reporting people to Big Tech companies, 80 percent of strong liberals and 68 percent of moderate liberals said they have blocked or unfriended someone for their posts “about politics or science.” Only 48 percent of moderates, 44 percent of moderate conservatives, and 46 percent of strong conservatives reported doing the same.

The survey also found that “altogether, conservatives are more likely than liberals to have personal or near personal experience of being penalized by social media companies for the content they’ve posted to their accounts.”

The poll reinforces an alarming trend indicating a shrinking level of tolerance and a desire for censorship among the left. In a recent poll of 850 private and public college, university, and trade school students spread across the United States, Generation Lab and Axios found “Young Dems more likely to despise the other party.”

Keep reading

Man running for Texas Lt. Governor drops out of race to make room for non-white candidates

Matthew Dowd has ended his campaign to become Lieutenant Governor of Texas in order to “step back” and make room for non-white candidates. Dowd, who is a white man, appears to believe that his presence in the race would make it harder for candidates of color to win the race.

In a December 7 statement, Dowd referenced a 2018 column of his entitled “Us white male Christians need to step back and give others room to lead.”

In a justification for his dropping out of the race, he quoted the column, saying “We as white male Christians should do what real leadership demands and practice a level of humility which demonstrates strength by stepping back from the center of the room and begin to give up our seats at the table. We should make this move not because we feel threatened, but because we know it is morally right and it is what would help America in this troubling time.”

Keep reading

The Left-Wing Legacy of the Mainstream Media

Over the past eight decades, there have many frauds promoted by the mainstream media.  Perhaps the most notable, and consequential, was the media persuading an overwhelming majority of citizens over the years that their brand of journalism is not only the epitome of a noble profession but one that always strives to be fair and balanced.  But the legacy of the mainstream media is that it has always been the cheerleaders and propaganda arm of the left and the Democrat Party.

The modern-day mainstream media can trace its beginning to the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, which created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), thus, placing de facto control of the electronic media under the federal government and greatly limiting competition.  Consequently, three networks had a national monopoly on the dissemination of news broadcast over the airwaves for the next 60 years. 

Additionally, the dominant members of the print media assumed even greater notoriety and dominance by cooperating with a fascist-sympathizing Roosevelt Administration and their heavy-handed treatment of the media. As radio and later television grew, metropolitan newspapers merged or ceased publication, leading to newspaper monopolies in all but a small handful of cities.  With the rise of the internet, many other less prominent publications were driven into bankruptcy or obscurity.  Thus, the mainstream media as we know it today was born.

As broadcast oligopolies and metropolitan newspaper monopolies advanced in the last century, the management of the leading newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks found it necessary to initiate the mantra that their profession was the epitome of credibility and integrity. This began when they were unabashedly promoting Franklin Roosevelt and his big government agenda, and accelerated dramatically during World War II when they eagerly embraced a partnership with the federal government to advance the war effort.  This marked the beginning of eight decades of the cozy relationship between the media, totalitarian causes, and the Democrat party.

But during the early years of oligopolistic consolidation, the dominant players in the media willingly became de facto accomplices with not only the Roosevelt administration but the despots in Europe, whom FDR refused to criticize or condemn.  During the 1930’s numerous puff pieces on Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were published or aired by the mainstream media, even after the Communists and Nazis revealed themselves to be who they were. 

Keep reading

The Cynical and Dangerous Weaponization of the “White Supremacist” Label

Within hours of the August 25, 2020, shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin — not days, but hours — it was decreed as unquestioned fact in mainstream political and media circles that the shooter, Kyle Rittenhouse, was a “white supremacist.” Over the next fifteen months, up to and including his acquittal by a jury of his peers on all charges, this label was applied to him more times than one can count by corporate media outlets as though it were proven fact. Indeed, that Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist” was deemed so unquestionably true that questioning it was cast as evidence of one’s own racist inclinations (defending a white supremacist).

Yet all along, there was never any substantial evidence, let alone convincing proof, that it was true. This fact is, or at least should be, an extraordinary, even scandalous, event: a 17-year-old was widely vilified as being a white supremacist by a union of national media and major politicians despite there being no evidence to support the accusation. Yet it took his acquittal by a jury who heard all the evidence and testimony for parts of the corporate press to finally summon the courage to point out that what had been Gospel about Rittenhouse for the last fifteen months was, in fact, utterly baseless.

Washington Post news article was published late last week that was designed to chide “both sides” for exploiting the Rittenhouse case for their own purposes while failing to adhere carefully to actual facts. Ever since the shootings in Kenosha, they lamented, “Kyle Rittenhouse has been a human canvas onto which the nation’s political divisions were mapped.” In attempting to set the record straight, the Post article contained this amazing admission:

As conservatives coalesced around the idea of Rittenhouse as a blameless defender of law and order, many on the left just as quickly cast him as the embodiment of the far-right threat. Despite a lack of evidence, hundreds of social media posts immediately pinned Rittenhouse with extremist labels: white supremacist, self-styled militia member, a “boogaloo boy” seeking violent revolution, or part of the misogynistic “incel” movement.

 “On the left he’s become a symbol of white supremacy that isn’t being held accountable in the United States today,” said Becca Lewis, a researcher of far-right movements and a doctoral candidate at Stanford University. “You see him getting conflated with a lot of the police officers who’ve shot unarmed Black men and with Trump himself and all these other things. On both sides, he’s become a symbol much bigger than himself.”

Soon after the shootings, then-candidate Joe Biden told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Rittenhouse was allegedly part of a militia group in Illinois. In the next sentence, Biden segued to criticism of Trump and hate groups: “Have you ever heard this president say one negative thing about white supremacists?

Valuable though this rather belated admission is, there were two grand ironies about this passage. The first is that The Post itself was one of the newspapers which published multiple articles and columns applying this evidence-free “white supremacist” label to Rittenhouse. Indeed, four days after this admission by The Post‘s newsroom, their opinion editors published an op-ed by Robert Jones that flatly asserted the very same accusation which The Post itself says is bereft of evidence: “Despite his boyish white frat boy appearance, there was plenty of evidence of Rittenhouse’s deeper white supremacist orientation.” In other words, Post editors approved publication of grave accusations which, just four days earlier, their own newsroom explicitly stated lacked evidence.

Keep reading