Tag: liberals

Liberal Suburbs Have Their Own Border Wall

The New York City suburb of Scarsdale, located in Westchester County, New York, is one of the country’s wealthiest communities, and its residents are reliably liberal. In 2020, three-quarters of Scarsdale voters cast ballots for Joe Biden over Donald Trump. One can safely presume that few Scarsdale residents are ardent backers of Trump’s wall on the Mexican border. But many of them support a less visible kind of wall, erected by zoning regulations that ban multifamily housing and keep non-wealthy people, many of them people of color, out of their community.

Across the country, a lot of good white liberals, people who purchase copies of White Fragility and decry the U.S. Supreme Court for ending affirmative action, sleep every night in exclusive suburbs that socially engineer economic (and thereby racial) segregation by government edict. The huge inequalities between upscale municipalities and their poorer neighbors didn’t just happen; they are in large measure the product of laws that are hard to square with the inclusive In This House, We Believe signs on lawns in many highly educated, deep-blue suburbs.

In a new report for The Century Foundation, I contrast Scarsdale with another Westchester County suburb, Port Chester, which is just eight miles away but has remarkably different demographics. Scarsdale’s median household income, in excess of $250,000, is nearly three times that of Port Chester, as is the portion of residents with a college degree. And whereas three-quarters of Port Chester’s elementary students qualify for free or reduced-price meals at school, zero percent of Scarsdale’s students do. In Scarsdale, 87 percent of residents are non-Hispanic white or Asian American, whereas 69 percent of Port Chester residents are Black or Hispanic.

Keep reading

Liberals Still Vastly Overestimate Police Shootings of Black Men

After the death of George Floyd on 25th May 2020, America was rocked by weeks of protests and rioting – 25 people lost their lives and property damage totalled $1–2 billion.

The protestors’ main grievance was “systemic police racism”. As the media reported endlessly at the time, black people make up around 30% of the victims of police shootings despite comprising only 13% of the population. Black people, it was said, could not even walk down the street without fear of being gunned down by a racist police officer.

Yet the narrative was flawed. After all, victims of police shootings are overwhelmingly male, but this doesn’t mean the police are sexist against men. It is simply that men are more likely to get into situations where a police officer ends up shooting them.

What’s more, activists were vastly inflating the numbers. According to the Washington Post’s police shooting database, only 12 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019 –in a country of 330 million.

We now know that part of the problem was innumeracy.

Keep reading

When did the Left go from Standing up to ‘The Man’ to becoming ‘The Man’?

“The Man” was the left’s bogeyman in the 1960s and 70s, representing establishment authority and oppression, from the Viet Nam war to the civil rights movement.

As the Urban Dictionary defines the term,

“The Man is the head of ‘the establishment’ put in place to ‘bring us down’. Though nobody has physically seen ‘the man’, he is assumed to be a male Caucasian between the ages of 25-40 and is rumored to have a substantial amount of acquired wealth, presumably acquired by exploiting those whom his ‘establishment’ is keeping down.”

Decades ago, The Man represented authority figures like Nixon, Kissinger, Hoover, and McNamara. In those days, Democrats and the left railed against The Man in music, protests, and activism.

But a funny thing happened in the 1990s as those Baby Boomers once protesting against The Man came of age, assuming prominent positions in society and government, in essence becoming The Man, the monster they once despised and railed against.

Looking back through history, the Nixon administration and its footnote the Ford administration was considered The Man, especially after the Viet Nam War and Watergate. The left tasted power during the Carter years, but also got a mouthful of fecklessness and misery. The country said “enough” and elected Ronald Reagan to two terms, and George HW Bush to a single term although his “kinder and gentler” approach to governance was more Carter than Reagan.

Then came Bill Clinton, the first Baby Boomer president. Clinton was against the Viet Nam war, dodging the draft, writing a letter in 1969 to an ROTC leader discussing “loathing the military”. From fighting The Man to becoming The Man as president, this was the turning point.

Hard core leftist activist actor Ron Silver inadvertently exemplified, revealed, and explained this transition during Clinton’s first inauguration,

At Clinton’s first inauguration, he saw military jets flying over the Lincoln Memorial, and was disgusted. Then he thought, “Those are our planes now.”

Instead of fighting the establishment and authority, the left became that which they were fighting. They now controlled the levers of power, including the evil CIA, FBI, DOJ, military, and other oppressive government agencies.

Democrats and the left had transitioned from standing up to The Man to becoming The Man.

Keep reading

The Climate Change Movement is a Religion

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy recently said that climate change has become a religion because it “actually has nothing to do with the climate,” and is instead all about power and control. To test if the public agrees with this assessment, a Rasmussen Reports survey found that 60 percent of likely voters agreed with him; 35 percent disagreed.

The poll did not reveal who the minority is, but we know from other surveys who they are.

The Pew Research Center found in 2021 that those who express the most concern about climate change are young people and those on the left. Younger adults, for obvious reasons, tend to be more concerned than older Americans about the dangers of climate change. Ideologically, those on the left are considerably more concerned about this issue than those on the right. This pattern is generally true in other developed countries as well.

Those who say they are the most concerned about climate change would argue that it is their genuine concern for the environment that makes them more sensitive to this issue; conservatives, they would maintain, just don’t care that much about it. But most Americans aren’t buying it. They say it’s because the “pro-environmentalists” are motivated more by power than purity, and that they have made a religion out of it.

There is no doubting that power is the signature of the left. From the time of the French Revolution to the latest antics of Antifa, the desire to control the words and deeds of the masses has been their overriding goal. So when surveys show that most Americans believe that those who are the most concerned about climate control are really obsessed by power and control, they are referring to those on the left. Conservatives favor small government, not large government.

There are good grounds to conclude that the left has made climate control a religion. For example, a Gallup poll released last year found that young people, liberals and Democrats are the most secular of any demographic group in the nation: they are the most likely to say they are religiously unaffiliated, agnostic or atheist.

It does not follow that those who have no conventional religious beliefs are without an ersatz religion, or something which functions as a religion for them. In the case of young people and those on the Left, their devotion to climate control acts as a ready substitute.

Keep reading

Progressive Mantra: Choice For Me But Not For Thee

When it Comes to Options that are Actually Good for Children, Progressives Pick Mandates over Choice EVERY Time

It’s a puzzle, an irony, a conundrum. Progressives, the party of “you do you” and “my body, my choice,” have once again proven that they hate choice when it comes to programs and actions that are actually GOOD for children.

Want to abort your child seven days after it’s born? Your choice. Want to allow your minor child to have body parts removed and be put on hormone blockers/therapy? Your choice. Want to take your child to a drag queen show in an adult bar and expose them to overly sexualized and inappropriate entertainment? Your choice.

Want to get your child out of a failing school and take him/her to a good school where he/she can succeed? Whoa, wait a minute. Progressives can’t have that. They think that is dangerous.

It makes me wonder why.

When I was teaching, the argument was always the same. “If we take kids out of some public schools and allow them to go to better public or private schools, it will leave the public schools decimated.“

And the people who said this always followed it up with, ” School choice is racist and elitist.”

Here’s a sample of that opposition from the Baltimore Sun Op-Ed section: Md. BOOST program helps private schools at the expense of public ones – Baltimore Sun

The “best” argument of all was “public schools can’t succeed if we take the best kids out.” Wow. And they called those who believe in school choice racist and elitist? It’s kind of like when Joe Biden said, “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as White kids.” Biden says ‘poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids’ (nbcnews.com)

But he’s not racist. No. Never. But you people who support school choice, shame on you.

Keep reading

A Good Democrat: Liberal NBA Player Stephen Curry Opposes Affordable Housing Development Near His Mansion

NBA player Stephen Curry is a liberal, Biden-supporting Democrat. He is also a hypocrite.

Despite being part of a nonprofit that “aims to promote economic equality and opportunity,” Curry and his wife are opposing the construction of an affordable housing development near their multi-million dollar mansion.

It’s classic NIMBY – Not in my back yard.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Lib NBA Star Stephen Curry Opposes Affordable Housing Near His $30 Million Mansion

NBA superstar and Biden-supporter Stephen Curry is opposing the proposed construction of a low-income multifamily unit proposed for construction next to his $30 million mansion, saying he has “major concerns” for his “privacy” and “safety.”

Curry, who joined a nonprofit in 2021 focused on “bridging the racial wealth gap,” wrote a letter with his wife Ayesha to the city of Atherton, Calif., asking that it reconsider the construction of a 16-unit property near their estate.

“We hesitate to add to the ‘not in our backyard’ (literally) rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today’s meeting,” the couple wrote in the letter. “Safety and privacy for us and our kids continues to be our top priority.”

While the Golden State Warriors guard opposes affordable housing in his own neighborhood, Curry in 2021 joined the nonprofit NinetyToZero, which aims to promote economic equality and opportunity…

Curry is a longtime Democrat. He joined former president Barack Obama for a town hall on racial equality in 2019. A year later, he put his kids in front of a camera during the 2020 DNC to endorse Joe Biden. He gave $10,000 to Colin Kaepernick-linked charities and called Donald Trump’s 2024 run a ‘threat.”

He wants to help the little guy, as long as it doesn’t happen in his neighborhood.

Keep reading

The Left’s Cynical “Speech Is Violence” Ploy

This week, another evil mass shooter unleashed horror at a gay club in Colorado Springs, killing 5 and wounding another 25. The shooter – whose name I refuse to mention in order to disincentivize future shooters, who seek notoriety – was clearly mentally ill: Just last year, the shooter reportedly threatened his mother with a bomb, resulting in his arrest. Yet Colorado’s red flag law, which could have deprived him of legal access to weaponry, was not invoked by either police or relatives. The Colorado Springs massacre, then, is yet another example of a perpetrator with more red flags than a bullfighting convention, and no one in authority willing to take action to do anything about him.

Yet the national conversation, as it so often does, has now been directed away from the question at hand – how to prevent mass shootings – and toward broader politics. Instead of seeking methodologies that might be effective in finding and stopping deranged individuals seeking murder without curbing rights and liberties for hundreds of millions of people, our political and media leaders have decided to blame Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, drag queen story hour, and “family-friendly” drag shows.

Disagreement with the radical Leftist social agenda amounts to incitement to violence, they argue.

Thus, NBC News senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny said, “there is a pipeline. It starts from some smaller accounts online like Libs of TikTok, it moves to the right wing blogosphere, and then it ends up on Tucker Carlson or ends up out of a right-wing politician’s mouth, and it is a really dangerous cycle that does have real-world consequences.”

Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times wrote, “it seems hard to separate (these murders) from a nationwide campaign of anti-LGBTQ incitement …. They’ve been screaming that drag events … are part of a monstrous plot to prey on children. They don’t get to duck responsibility if a sick man with a gun took them seriously.”

Brian Broome wrote in The Washington Post that the shooting could not be “blamed on mental illness”; no, he stated, “It’s right-wing rhetoric that sparks these nightmares …. The bottomless list of homophobes and transphobes on the right don’t need to throw the rock and then hide their hands. Instead, they use someone else’s hands entirely.”

The Left’s attempt to lay responsibility for violence at the feet of anyone who opposes the transgressive social agenda doesn’t stop with blame—it extends to calls for full-scale censorship.

Keep reading

How the Left Became Cheerleaders for US War and Imperialism

One of the biggest problems for the left, as it confronts what seems like humanity’s ever-more precarious relationship with the planet – from the climate emergency to a potential nuclear exchange – is that siren voices keep luring it towards the rocks of political confusion and self-harm.

And one of the loudest sirens on the British left is the environmental activist George Monbiot.

Monbiot has carved out for himself a figurehead role on the mainstream British left because he is the only big-picture thinker allowed a regular platform in the establishment media: in his case, the liberal Guardian newspaper. It is a spot he covets and one that seems to have come with a big price tag: he is allowed to criticize the corporate elite’s capture of British domestic politics – he occasionally concedes that our political life has been stripped of all democratic content – but only, it seems, because he has become ever less willing to extend that same critique to British foreign policy.

As a result, Monbiot holds as a cherished piety what should be two entirely inconsistent positions: that British and Western elites are pillaging the planet for corporate gain, immune to the catastrophe they are wreaking on the environment and oblivious to the lives they are destroying at home and abroad; and that these same elites are fighting good, humanitarian wars to protect the interests of poor and oppressed peoples overseas, from Syria and Libya to Ukraine, peoples who coincidentally just happen to live in areas of geostrategic significance.

Because of the vice-like corporate hold on Britain’s political priorities, Monbiot avers, nothing the corporate media tells us should be believed – except when those priorities relate to protecting people facing down ruthless foreign dictators, from Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Then the media should be believed absolutely.

Monbiot’s embrace of the narratives justifying Washington’s “humanitarian” interventions abroad has been incremental. Back in the late 1990s, while generally supporting the aims of NATO’s war on the former Yugoslavia, he called out its bombing of Serbia as a “dirty war”, highlighting the ecological and economic destruction it entailed. He would also sound the alarm – if ambivalently – over the Iraq war in 2003, and later become a leading proponent of jailing former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair as a war criminal for his involvement.

Keep reading

Donald Trump, Elon Musk, And Kanye West Preemptively BANNED From Far-Left Social Media Network Tribel

Woke alternative social media site, Tribel, has preemptively banned Donald Trump and his son, Elon Musk, and Kanye West from its platform.

This comes after liberals panic and foment fear over Musk’s takeover of Twitter.

This news was initially shared by far-left account Occupy Democrats, who said Tribel made this decision because these now-banned individuals are already guilty of spreading “dangerous” conspiracy theories and “fake news.” 

Tribel would later announce that Musk was banned from the platform too.

The leftist social media alternative seems to be on a banning spree this week. Which is rich considering it prides itself on and promises to promote a place of inclusion, tolerance, and free speech.

For example, Tribel says they do not censor speech, all while admitting they use an algorithm that is made to filter out fake news and hate.

The infamous LibsofTikTok went to Tribel to test out this so-called fake news and hate filtering algorithm herself. And made an account and posted “men cannot get pregnant.”

20 minutes later, LibsofTikTok was suspended.

LibsofTikTok reported “it appears @tribelsocial suspended my account. I can no longer access it. I’ve tried multiple times to log in. My account lasted less than 20 minutes. I’m being silenced.”

Tribal would then “celebrate” the LibsofTikTok suspension, writing on Twitter: “That was quick. Your transphobic posts were quickly suppressed by our system — and then we at @TribelSocial network gave you a swift boot. Take your bigotry back to Trump’s Truth Social or @kanyewest’s Parler.”

Ever since that incident with LibsofTikTok, Tribel has been trending on Twitter not just for its blatant censorship against conservatives and wrongthink, but also for its terrible cyber security issues and data harvesting.

Keep reading