Candace Owens: White Supremacy Isn't What's Harming Black America - 'It's Liberal Supremacy'

Candace Owens, founder of the Blexit movement, told Fox News on Thursday that white supremacy isn’t what’s harming black America - it’s “liberal supremacy.”

“The purpose for this is to distract black Americans from the fact that Democrat policies are actually harming the inner cities. They don’t want to talk about the illiteracy rates. They don't want to talk about what’s actually harming black America, because let me tell you, it's not white supremacy. It’s liberal supremacy,” Owens said during an appearance on “The Ingraham Angle.”

“It’s liberal policies that have infested our inner cities and are destroying our youth that are driving up the gun violence. Nobody cares about gun violence when it happens in theses inner-cities. Isn’t that right? You can see 60 people every weekend being slaughtered in Chicago and Baltimore, and no one talks about it, because liberal policies are the problem,” she said.

Owens debated Democrat strategist Monique Pressley about whether President Donald Trump is a racist. Owens said Trump wasn’t considered a racist until he ran for president.

PRESSLEY: I'm not here to defend anyone who takes the side of a racist, so when the president retweets or comments about Nazi enthusiasts or people in Britain who are saying things that are hateful or --

LAURA INGRAHAM: So you don't think he was a white supremacist in the '80s but you do today? You didn't think he was a white supremacist in the '80s or the 90s?

PRESSLEY: I said I didn't disagree that he received those awards. I think when he was taking out the article on the Central Park Five who was then the exonerated Park Five, I think that he was a racist then.

INGRAHAM: That’s fine. No one’s gonna follow Central Park Five but I'm just asking you because I really do want to understand. Do you believe in the '80s and '90s that Donald trump was not a white supremacist or he's been a white supremacist his whole life but hid it from everybody?

PRESSLEY: I can't speak about what he hid or what I believe. All I can go with is what is factual. So what we know -- if I can just answer, what I'm basing my belief on is the fact that he 1) took out an article for people who were ultimately exonerated - a full-page ad for those young men who were citizens -- …

So Obama was someone who, according to him, was not born in the United States - I guess Hawaii is not part of the United States. The immigrants from the first time he came down the escalator were coming.

INGRAHAM: He didn’t say immigrants. He said illegal.

PRESSLEY: The Mexicans. I’m sorry. The Mexicans - not just the illegals, and I'm not here to defend --

OWENS: So basically, your argument is that he went from being so not racist that Al Sharpton was hugging him to suddenly one day he decided to run for president and boom, just like that he became an avowed racist and all of a sudden we’re digging back into Central Park Five, which by the way in his ad said that if anybody is found guilty, any person of killing somebody in the park, then they should be put to death.

Guess what? Nobody got killed in a park that day, so that's completely irrelevant. All the points just made about Central Park Five were completely irrelevant, because the woman did not die. She actually survived. We can debate that another day. What we're talking about today is nobody suddenly becomes racist, okay, as time goes on. You decide that one day he goes, oh, you know what? Never mind. Forget me hugging and doing so much for black America that I was receiving awards. Suddenly today, I'm a racist.

You want to know why he's a racist suddenly? Because he ran for the presidency and this is how the Democrats try to score points in order to enslave black Americans ideologically.

PRESSLEY: When his entire family was running slum landlord tenements and then refusing..

OWENS: Actually that’s wrong. In Mar-A-Lago, he launched a lawsuit against the state because he felt that they were discriminated against Spanish people and black people. In 1995, Trump did that. You can look it up. So much for being a racist.

PRESSLEY: I’m talking about the city of New York. And when you are discriminating against people of color

INGRAHAM: So, you think is a racist.

Owens said that in order for Pressley to stand by the Democrats, she needs for Trump to be a racist.

INGRAHAM: I don’t believe—Candace, do you support people are racist?

OWENS: No, that's why I'm a Republican.

INGRAHAM: I find it so reprehensible that right now the Democrat Party, framing these issues the way they are, they are literally saying, without saying the actual words, that 100 million plus Americans are racist.

PRESSLEY: No. I hope that--

INGRAHAM: Oh yeah they are.

PRESSLEY: I'm a Democrat, and that's not what I'm saying at all. I believe, actually, that the vast majority of the people in the United States are not racist and do not like -- I mean are disgusted by the tweets and the comments that are coming out of the president's mouth. Even when I'm on your show, the thing I'm most thankful for is the emails I get from people who say, you know what, I heard you tonight. I voted for Trump. I'm not planning to do it again. I wish he would stop saying the things that he's saying. ...

INGRAHAM: What I wonder is the Trump’s a white supremacist, Trump’s a racist over and over and over again. What life in America is that improving? Let's say all the Democrats think they truly believe that. They've worked with him in the past. They liked him in the past. They hung out with him in the past. They took his donations in the past, but now suddenly it's washed over them that he's this terrible, awful, rotten person. Their daily activity in their own input into the political conversation, is it really helping a single black kid in Chicago? One in Baltimore? I don't think it's helping anyone. --

PRESSLEY:: I think that's a very interesting and necessary question. Because sometimes, Laura, a truth needs to be told because it is true and especially when it concerns the person who holds the highest office in our land.

INGRAHAM: 100 million Americans disagree with you.

PRESSLEY: I don't know where that stat is coming from, but what I can say is as this one little black girl from Texas who’s sitting here right now, if someone is conducting themselves as a racist, ought to be able to say so--

INGRAHAM: Everyone has the right to their own opinion. Everyone has the right to speak out, but that doesn't mean you have the right to objective truth. If there is an objective truth.

OWENS: The purpose for this is to distract black Americans from the fact that Democrat policies are actually harming the inner cities. They don’t want to talk about the illiteracy rates. They don't want to talk about what’s actually harming black America, because let me tell you, it's not white supremacy. It’s liberal supremacy. It’s liberal policies that have infested our inner cities and are destroying our youth, that are driving up the gun violence. Nobody cares about gun violence when it happens in theses inner-cities. Isn’t that right? You can see 60 people every weekend being slaughtered in Chicago and Baltimore, and no one talks about it, because liberal policies are the problem.

SOURCE






Wisconsin Bill Assaults Confessional Seal

Bill Donohue

A bill to bust the seal of the confessional will soon be introduced by three Democratic lawmakers from Wisconsin: Sen. Lena Taylor, Rep. Chris Taylor and Rep. Melissa Sargent. The clergy in Wisconsin are already mandated reporters of sexual abuse; this bill would remove the exemption afforded the confessional.

The sponsors of the bill have provided no evidence that this bill would remedy anything. Indeed, they cannot cite one case of sexual abuse that would have been reported to the authorities had the religious exemption for the confessional not existed.

This bill is a monumental flop. Not only does it not solve anything, it will  not convince a single priest to subject himself to excommunication for violating his vows. Moreover, a lawsuit will immediately be filed challenging this violation of the First Amendment by state officials.

The government has no business policing the sacraments of the Catholic Church. This is nothing but grandstanding by politicians pretending to be champions of the victims of sexual abuse.

Why don't these brave lawmakers go after the lawyer-client privilege? Don't attorneys learn of instances of the sexual abuse of minors? Why not target psychologists and psychiatrists as well? They hear about cases of sexual abuse, yet they are forbidden to violate their professional commitment to their patients.

Why are Catholic priests being singled out? This is religious profiling. Indeed, the bill is manifestly anti-Catholic.

We are contacting every member of the Wisconsin legislature today about this bill. The state needs to back off and keep its hands out of the internal affairs of the Catholic Church or any other religion. We see this as a national issue, one that has grave implications for religious liberty throughout the country.

SOURCE






Sweden’s impending moral and economic collapse

The so-called “Nordic Paradise” devolves into hell.

The arrival of hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern immigrants changed Sweden’s cultural scene, and adversely impacted on its economic wellbeing.

In the early 1970’s, Sweden had one of the highest income levels in Europe. Today, its lead has all but disappeared. The well-intentioned Swedish style socialism undermined individual responsibility, and created a welfare dependency, particularly among low-skilled immigrants. In recent years, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in Sweden has declined from $60,075 in 2013 to $52,958 in 2017.  Similarly, its GDP fell from $579 billion in 2013 to $536 billion in 2017.

In his book, “The New Totalitarians,” author Ronald Huntford wrote: “There is of course no reason why the new totalitarianism should resemble the old. Government by firing squads…is not merely inhumane…it is demonstrably inefficient, and in an age of advanced technology, it is a sin against the Holy Ghost. A real efficient totalitarian state would be the one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their many managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. Of all the people, it is the Swedes who have come closest to this state of affairs.” Huntford argued in his 1972 book that the “benevolent socialism” of the Scandinavian system created a sterile, spiritually barren society populated by docile, hyper-conformist populace.”

The Swedish Lutheran Church no longer plays a spiritual role in Sweden. It has succumbed to the mores of the ultra-secular society Sweden has become. The one freedom the Swedes are very adamant about is sexual freedom. However, with the influx of Muslim immigrants from the Middle East, it has served as invitation for rape and sexual crimes. Sweden has been aptly called “the rape capital of Europe.”

Multiculturalism has become Sweden’s new religion and civic ethos, where one cannot criticize immigrants, and the press is deliberately suppressing immigrant crimes. Yet, antisemitism in Sweden has become rampant, forcing young Jews to leave the country. This reporter interviewed a 28-year old Swedish Jew who served as an officer in the Swedish army. He explained that Sweden is no longer safe for Jews, and that he planned to move to Israel or the U.S. The city of Malmo, the third largest Swedish city is nearing a point of being ‘judenrein’ due to Muslim immigrants’ assaults and intimidation.

Sweden has turned a blind eye on Iran’s gross violations of human rights, and its cruel executions of women and teenagers. The Iranian regime has executed Kurdish dissidents with impunity. Sweden was silent about it, as were other leaders of the EU. They were too busy appeasing the Ayatollahs in an effort to preserve the unreliable Iran nuclear deal or JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), and winning business contracts.

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, had this to say (February 2017) about a Swedish delegation of the so-called “first feminist government in the world,” visiting Iran wearing Hijabs, Chadors, and long coats indoors in deference to Iran’s oppressive Hijab law. “If Sweden really cares about human rights, they should not be empowering a regime that brutalizes its own citizens while carrying out genocide in Syria; and if they care about women’s rights, then the female ministers never should have gone to misogynistic Iran in the first place.” It is rather ironic that that the Swedes elected a “feminist” government that is more concerned with protecting immigrant rapists than with protecting Swedish women.

The once homogeneous, virtually crime-free Sweden, with its cradle to grave benefits, in which the government pampered its citizenry, labeled by many as the so-called “Nordic Paradise,” has turned into a hellish reality. This reporter witnessed Stockholm neighborhoods where police dare not enter, and ordinary Swedes avoid at all costs. Malmo is already virtually lost; its immigrant gangs rule its streets.

The Swedish media won’t reveal the extent of the rape epidemic in the country. The Swedish parliament, in recent years, defeated a motion to produce up-to-date crime figures based on national origin. The Spectator headlined its February 10, 2018 issue with, “Violent crime in Sweden is soaring. When will politicians act?” It was followed by a sub-title that read, “Shootings, hand-grenade attacks, and gang warfare made some city areas no-go-zones.”

The above description sounds more like Baghdad or Gaza than the Nordic paradise. Sweden’s multiculturalism and open immigration policy is contributing to its moral and economic collapse.

SOURCE





A message to the lost tribes of the left wing

Last week, Australia's Joe Hildebrand argued why “hate speech” shouldn’t be banned. After copping a wave of abuse, he has a message.

This time last week I wrote a long, considered piece arguing that free speech, even that considered offensive or “hate speech”, should not be banned — with the obvious and explicit exception of any incitement to violence.

I put forward a number of reasons both principled and practical but chief among them was that allowing freedom of expression is an invaluable way of identifying extremist sentiments in society and hopefully, through reason and open discourse, turning those sentiments around.

The piece was written in response to calls to ban a right-wing UK activist from entering Australia and as it turned out, the reaction to the piece overwhelmingly proved its point.

The only irony is that the extremists it identified were all on the Left.

Indeed, the reactions themselves were also crippled by their own internal irony. It was, as anyone who witnessed the response on social media will know, a volcanic eruption of abuse all exploding in the name of peace and tolerance.

Now before anyone shrieks hypocrisy — even if certain people struggle to tell the difference between free speech and abuse — I’m not going to complain or name and shame individuals. But to illustrate the point, here are just a few examples.

One respondent opened by calling me a “c**t” and then, in the very same tweet, bemoaned the lack of civil discourse in public debate.

Another began their first tweet with the words, “get f***ed Joe” and then in their second, complained that I wouldn’t have a polite discussion with them.

A third quipped: “Nothing good ever comes out of Dandenong” — a reference to my home town, one of the poorest, most multicultural and working-class Labor suburbs in the country. She was also, apparently, a Labor supporter.

There were also the obligatory pictures of dead bodies in Nazi concentration camps — according to the new hard Left narrative, history’s most infamous book-burners were in fact diehard free speech advocates.

And of course the more vicious the abuse, the more voiceless and victimised the abusers claimed to be. They also appeared to be mostly white and university educated, both statistically unusual indicators of oppression.

You honestly could not make this stuff up and it is a sad reflection of where we are.

The reason for this is probably not so much a rise in extreme Left sentiment in the community but the advent of platforms that allow it to be spread so effortlessly and widely. In order to return to Russia to start the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin had to travel 2000 miles over eight days by train. These days you only have to literally hit return.

To get an idea of just how extreme Lenin was, this was someone who described a fellow socialist as a “detestable centrist”, accepted the patronage of the despicable autocratic German Kaiser (who was using him as a pawn to sabotage the Russian front in World War I), and then returned to Russia to overthrow a revolution that had already taken place because the first revolution wasn’t extreme enough.

Russia was thus turned from a miserable imperialist slaughterhouse to a miserable socialist slaughterhouse. And so imagine my lack of surprise when one of my more vociferous anti-free speech Twitter critics proudly described themselves as “Left of Lenin”. And they are far from alone in doing so.

Of course, I was a student socialist back in the day but at least my influence was limited to whoever I was chanting at on the steps of Parliament House or having a bucket bong with in my lounge room. And at least, unlike Lenin and many of my then-comrades, I had the good grace to actually be poor.

These days, as then, socialism is the domain of the disaffected, upper middle-class so-called intellectual. The only difference is that these days such insufferable twats can bang on about it 24 hours a day, creating the impression that it is a growing movement rather than just a spreading disease.

And of course because it is the domain of the over-privileged, the causes du jour have shifted from elevating the poor — or the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as Lenin so progressively proclaimed — to the niche obsessions of identity politics that have so dominated public debate.

Say what you like about Vlad, at least he wouldn’t have slagged off Dandenong.

But just like Vlad, they see anyone on the right as a fascist and even centrists as fascist enablers.

And while the brutally oppressed and impoverished people of 1917 Russia can be forgiven for embracing such an ideology, no one with even a passing understanding of history or complex thought could hold such a view in the information age. These are people less interested in backstories than backs against the wall.

This brings us to the most profound response to left-wing extremism, which is the number of sensible, compassionate and thoughtful people who once considered themselves progressive but now feel abandoned and isolated, as the movement has been hijacked by hardcore ideologues. And little wonder.

As one former fellow traveller mournfully said: “ALP/Greens/lefty social democrat my entire life … and I am really starting to detest the left. De. Test.”

Another: “My upbringing and instinct too but increasingly embarrassed at the level of self-bullshit, hysteria, hate/division and gesture politics in Left circles.”

Another: “I’m feeling you man. Their hysterical application of ‘fascism’, their antagonism to free speech, their often violent disruption of legitimate political meetings, their inability to see the contradiction between open borders and a welfare state and the hierarchy of victimhood.”

And another: “It’s becoming a mass exodus. But where to go? Not Lib that’s for sure. The politics of group identity and emotions over facts however, leave a lot of us feeling homeless … In a political sense.”

These are the lost tribes of the left. Needless to say, I know how they feel.

And of course not only do hardcore socialists and hand-wringing identity ideologues turn anyone with a brain or a sense of humour away from their cause, they also play into the hands of the right by making the whole Left side of politics look ridiculous. Donald Trump might appear crazy compared to a centrist but he looks sensible compared to a Stalinist.

Little wonder major left-wing parties are fracturing and struggling to win government in liberal democracies all over the world while populist right-wing movements are on the rise.

Likewise in Australia, the ALP lost the unlosable election just a couple of months ago after a cynical attempt to harness what it thought was a neo-Marxist resurgence. For next time, it’s probably a good rule of thumb to remember that when Australia’s only celebrity communist endorses your campaign, you’re probably on the wrong track.

The good news is that the Labor Party has learned from this and is in the process of recovering and recalibrating under the sensible stewardship of Anthony Albanese.

Cynics might point to the post-election dip in the polls, but it is pretty obvious to any seasoned observer that this is almost certainly a result of the party having to quietly jettison all of the toxic policies and rhetoric that cost it victory and start from scratch.

And greater cynics might point to the fact that all the polls got it wrong in the first place.

And so the message to the sensible Left is don’t give up hope. Don’t let dead-eyed socialist extremists or elitist ideological dilettantes trick you into thinking that they are the future of the Left or the champions of working Australians. They are the shackles on their feet, the ones who would rather go down spitting and shrieking than work for meaningful and achievable change.

Society progresses through evolution, not revolution. And it is the extremists who have yet to evolve. The centre will survive. The centre will hold. And the centre will eventually bring us together.

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here.

************************************