Category Archives: Liberal

The differences can be exemplified in the contrasting themes from Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail.

On the Orlando nightclub shooter:

Clinton: "A madman filled with hate, with guns in his hands, and just a horrible sense of vengeance and vindictiveness in his heart, apparently consumed by rage against LGBT Americans, and by extension, the openness and diversity that defines our American way of life...."

Trump: "A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub, not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens, because of their sexual orientation."

Responses to a question on job creation at the first general election debate:

Clinton: "The central question in this election is really what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we'll build together. Today is my granddaughter's second birthday, so I think about this a lot..."

Trump: "Our jobs are fleeing the country. They're going to Mexico. They're going to many other countries. You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product. They're devaluing their currency, and there's nobody in our government to fight them..."

Opening remarks after acknowledging the crowds at their first campaign speeches:

Clinton: "You know, President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms are a testament to our nation's unmatched aspirations and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad."

Trump: "Our country is in serious trouble. We don't have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don't have them."

View post:

Liberal and conservative brains handle emotions differently - Axios

When Jason Schadewald stepped up to the microphone to chime in with support for single-payer healthcare in California, he kept it short, stating his name, hometown and affiliation.

But like scores of others present at the bills first committee hearing last week, the elected California Democratic Party delegate from the 41st Assembly District, which includes Pasadena, couldnt resist going off script. He punctuated his remarks with a pointed warning.

I represent about 200,000 registered Democrats in that district who strongly support this measure, Schadewald said. With a grin, he added, and well primary people who dont.

The audience hooted approvingly at the threat of electoral consequences.

The 35-year-old technology consultant is emblematic of a surge of activism rippling through Californias political landscape. Not content to rely on the state to be a liberal bastion of resistance against President Trump and Republican-controlled Washington, D.C., Schadewald and his ilk are turning to Sacramento to pressure the ruling Democrats from the left.

And lawmakers are taking notice.

In recent years, there has been this false sense that it was somehow cool to be a moderate, said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego), of her Democratic colleagues. But now, she said, its suddenly very cool to be the progressive. Theres positive reinforcement now.

What accounts for this magnetic pull leftward? An influx of new activists, energized by the 2016 election, have turned their focus to state-level politics. Advocacy groups, striving to offer a progressive seal of approval, are poring over legislators voting records. And the prospect of single-payer healthcare in the state the government would cover all residents medical costs offers a galvanizing rallying cry.

With bills still in early stages in the Capitol and elections 18 months away it remains to be seen if this liberal clamor can affect policy outcomes or unseat incumbent legislators. But politicians acknowledge the phenomenon is bound to have an impact.

We listen to our constituents, Assemblyman Matt Dababneh (D-Woodland Hills) said. If our constituents are getting more engaged and moving farther to the left, in this case, I think that will have an effect on how we vote and how we do things.

California single-payer healthcare bill passes first committee test

Some of these efforts started before the 2016 election. After business-aligned Democrats successfully blocked efforts to slash oil consumption, ban fracking and double workers pay on holidays, the Courage Campaign, an advocacy group, decided to scour legislators voting records to see who, in their eyes, wasnt sufficiently liberal.

It was painfully clear that despite being this deep-blue progressive state with a progressive electorate, we were unable to enact the significant progress we feel is so desperately needed, said Eddie Kurtz, the groups president.

Scorecards, which are common among interest groups, are imperfect tools to capture what is happening in Sacramento, and many legislators are quick to point out errors or lack of nuance in their tallies.

But Assemblyman Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley) said the Courage Campaigns first report card, released last year, proved to be unusually irritating to Democrats.

For weeks following that report card, [lawmakers] were still complaining about it. It struck a chord, Stone said. I think there were some legislators who werent used to being called out on their votes.

The latest scorecard, released this week, features nine legislators five of them Democrats in a Hall of Shame. The group also notes that seven legislators dramatically improved their scores a sign, its organizers claim, that increased scrutiny is working.

We absolutely are claiming credit for that, Kurtz said. We think our scorecard had a direct impact, on those folks and others.

Some legislators downplay the groups influence.

I havent done anything different. I support the same legislation Ive always supported, said Assemblyman Ian Calderon (D-Whittier), who went from an F to an A.

By compiling the only multi-issue report card the 2016 scored bills include those dealing with consumer protections, increasing farmworker overtime and criminal justice reforms the group is trying to position itself as offering a progressive primer to those newly interested in Sacramento.

We definitely see our role, as veterans of California politics, to help give our two cents, Kurtz said.

This year, more political neophytes than ever are turning an eye to the Capitol.

The first signs came in January, after the biennial elections for Assembly district-level delegates to the California Democratic Party. The positions 14 in each district are the type of low-level posts that help determine endorsements and internal party business, and the elections are typically insider affairs.

But now first-timers had run for the slots, and many had won, beating longtime activists backed by sitting lawmakers. Schadewald was among the newcomers, after heeding Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders call to his supporters to run for local office.

Another new face was Pamela Harris of Oakland, who had decided to channel her grief over the 2016 election outcome into remaking the Democratic Party. To have the biggest impact, she decided to focus her efforts close to home.

You can't really penetrate the national party, said Harris, a 46-year-old filmmaker and mother. You have to go local.

Harris joined an ad-hoc group of hopefuls to run as Groundswell Progressives. They swept the election, prevailing over a slate of candidates backed by the districts assemblyman, Rob Bonta of Alameda.

Harris credited Bonta with swiftly reaching out to the new activists. Their impact already is evident in his bill package: One of his measures, which would streamline Californias public records law, was suggested by another delegate.

You ignore that energy at your own peril, Bonta said of the spiking interest in state politics. Its there. You cant ignore it. Something is clearly happening.

Stone, the Scotts Valley assemblyman, said the next challenge will be getting that energy focused in the right direction.

I worry this is a flash in the pan that folks will come in, shake things up, and maybe get bored and move on, Stone said.

So far, most of that energy has been concentrated on single-payer healthcare. Hundreds of supporters attended the first committee hearing of the bill, SB 562, which cleared the panel despite the fact that key details in particular, how it would be financed are still undetermined.

The California Nurses Assn., which has long pushed single-payer, organized the hearings robust turnout. But RoseAnn DeMoro, the unions leader, said itd be wrong to chalk up the energy just to her groups activism.

This is a spontaneous, grass-roots effort, she said. If the nurses went away, this effort would still be there. And thats the first time in history I could say that.

DeMoro said lawmakers are keenly aware the issue has become a litmus test for this crop of invigorated activists.

Weve got a lot of new legislators. They want a long career, she said. And they know this can be a deal-breaker for their political future.

melanie.mason@latimes.com

Follow @melmason on Twitter for the latest on California politics.

ALSO

What would single-payer healthcare look like in California? Lawmakers release new details

With Obamacare's future uncertain, hundreds rally at state Capitol for single-payer healthcare in California

Updates from Sacramento

Read more:

Will California's surge of liberal activism pull legislators to the left? - Los Angeles Times

In a recent interview, Jake Tapper asked Samantha Bee on CNNs State of the Unionhow she felt being the face of the liberal problem, essentially asking: how does it feel to be the reason Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election?

Tapper was referencing a recent New York Times article where conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, squarely framedSamantha Bee as embodying the the rapid colonization of new cultural territory by an ascendant social liberalism. Generally speaking, Douthat is claiming that the Left, while winning the culture wars as evidenced by an alleged media dominance, the surge in LGBTQA+ acceptance, etc., and relishing in those victories, has turned progressives into smug liberals. Its that smugness, Douthat and others claim, that has created strong counter-liberal-culture that not only rejects liberal ideas, but is willing to accept bad candidates, currently President Trump, to represent their ire against the constant smarter-than-thou attitudes of costal elites.

Theres quite a bit to unpack in those assertions. First, its important to know that Douthat is not the first person to make mention of liberal smugness. Just after the election of President Trump, D.C. conservative veteran Rob Hoffman, was published in Politico making the case for how the Left created Trump, or better said, how the Left created the environment for Trump to win the election. It was based on a similar thesis: The Right has had enough of the liberal smugness that makes it seem as though if youre not Liberal, youre probably racist, xenophobic, sexist, bigoted or all of the above.

Then you have Dave Rubin, once a regular liberal commentator, now doing Prager U. videos on YouTube explaining why he no longer identifies as a progressive liberal. He references statistics revealing how intolerant Liberal college campuses are and how students can now walk out on lectures over trigger warnings.

Rubin, like others, paint the Left these days simply as smug bullies. According to Rubin, if someone or a group finds your language offensive, youre branded a misogynist, bigot, homophobe, or transphobe, and are shunned by the more civilized Leftist society. White men are especially noted for their privileged status, giving the impression that they above everyone else have not earned whatever they have achieved, rather it is the outcome of the historical preference for white male dominance.

Right leaning pundits and commentators have latched on to this idea. The Right has adopted the term oppression olympics, oddly enough a term coined by the Left as response towards White trans-women overshadowing the plights of Black/Brown Muslim lesbians. The exemplary case here being how Caitlyn Jenner managed to highjack the conversation of trans-rights over the large number of minority women who have endured and still endure much harsher treatments from society.

In this term, oppression olympics, the Right has found a quick and snide way to describe a certain one-upmanship among minority groups who, according to the Right, compete with each other to claim most victimized status. The Right appropriately wont accept this dynamic as a political reality framing the Leftist ideology as a race to the bottom. Caught in a cycle of infighting, arguing over who is the oppressor and who is the victim; the Left often come off as their own worst enemy.

David French, senior writer at the National Review, further expanded on Douthats idea of cultural supremacy and said, Liberal dogma is rapidly becoming a secular religion. His assertion comes from his observations regarding the political discussion surrounding the science of climate change. He holds as an examplehow Bret Stephens was tarred and feathered for his piece in the New York Times regarding the uncertainty behind climate change models and how those who point at the uncertainty behind the science are mocked. French highlights that in spite of Stephens being an anti-Trump conservative, he was still lambasted for not only questioning the certainty the Left has over climate change, but also how the Left smugly claims moral superiority over anyone who thinks otherwise.

Rubin, Douthat, and French are not alone in thinking that the Lefts smugness is problematic in the entirety of the political spectrum. There are several on the Left who have joined the growing voices decrying liberal smugness.

Sam Harris, a vocal critic of religion, supporter of raising taxes on the very wealthy, and the decriminalizing of drugs and same-sex marriage, has joined the American Right in decrying how the Left makes excuses for Islam and Islamic terrorism. In a podcast with noted conservative Douglas Murray, Harris supported former conservative presidential candidate Ted Cruzs ideas to accept only Christians versus Muslim refugees during the Syrian refugee crisis, saying the position is not at all xenophobic. Harriss rationale was stated in its entirety for the sake of full context:

Is it crazy to express, as Ted Cruz did, a preference for Christians over Muslims in this process? Of course not. What percentage of Christians will be jihadists or want to live under Sharia law? Zero. And this is a massive, in fact the only, concern when talking about security. We know that some percentage of Muslims will be jihadists inevitably. [.] So it is not mere bigotry or mere xenophobia to express that preference. I hope you understand that I am expressing no sympathy at all with Ted Cruzs politics or with Ted Cruz. But it is totally unhelpful to treat him though he actually is a religious maniac like a bigot on this point. This is a quite reasonable concern to voice.

In making these claims, Harris has pointed out that other Liberals cant sever their feelings for inclusion and tolerance from the very real threat that not only religion, but Islam specifically, poses to civil society. To him, it is in this inability to separate the two that leaves Liberals confused, upset, and irrationally lash out against him.

His remarks came to a head when Harris joined Bill Maher on Mahers show. Maher voiced how Liberals need to stand up for liberal values, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to leave a religion without fear of violence, equality for women, equality for minorities including homosexuals, yet dont stand up for these same values when the need to criticize Islam arises. Harris nodded in approval. Maher alluded to liberal smugness as the reason why the incongruity isnt resolved. That in being smug about their position, other Liberals can all at once claim authority over what is proper to criticize, but remain blind to their own hypocrisy as they call out conservative efforts to suppress criticism of traditional structures.

Bill Maher, comedian and political commentator, recently became the talk of the conservative sphere when remarking on the cancelation of Ann Coulters speech at Berkeley after protests from students. He said, Berkeley used to be the cradle of free speech, and now its just the cradle for fucking babies. Maher on many occasions has said that he and many other comedians dont do the college circuit anymore because, liberal college students only want to hear exactly what Liberals want to hear, and they want to shutter [Conservative ideas].

Bill Maher invited Caitlin Flanagan on his show to speak on the suppression of freedom of speech on college campuses. In a 2015 article, Flanagan argued that in college campuses, young people have decided that some subjectsamong them rape and raceare so serious that they shouldnt be fodder for comics, and that the PC police has all but banned the speech of people who disagree with them. She claims that other Liberals making a living off of making light of their sacred subjects of race, class, gender, and many other political minefields are unacceptable and must be shutdown. In a smug and condescending way, Liberals have made themselves the judges of what is proper and cultured and disparage anything that hurts these sensibilities.

An interesting aside here is that liberal students claim that it is their student activities fees paid to the college which are the honorariums paid to invited speakers. Since it is ultimately their money, they are voting with their money whom they would like to hear speak. This is a traditionally conservative position to takevoting with your money. Let the free market of ideas demonstrate which are the ones to be heard and which shall disappear. Yet, it still draws criticism from the Right and the Left doesnt see the irony.

Caitlin Flanagan, a writer for The Atlantic and self proclaimed Liberal, argued how the left-leaning late night show circuit made it possible for the Trump presidency. Her humanizing anecdote regarding an incident when Samantha Bees show ridiculed a young boy for having Nazi hair at the Western Conservative Summit, when in fact he was just a hopeful God-loving child with stage 3 cancer feels like a sharp sting. She says:

Ive thought about that a lotbut Ive also thought a good deal about the boy on Samantha Bees program. I thought about the moment her producer approached the childs mother to sign a release so that the womans young son could be humiliated on television. Was it a satisfying moment, or was it accompanied by a small glint of recognition that embarrassing children is a crappy way to make a living? I thought about the boy waiting eagerly to see himself on television, feeling a surge of pride that hed talked about church and Bible study. And I thought about the moment when he realized that it had all been a trickthat the grown-up who had seemed so nice had only wanted to hurt him.

My God, I thought. What have we become?

Samantha Bee: There Is No Smug Liberal Problem [VIDEO] https://t.co/fqqLdWsE8L pic.twitter.com/7ZQ6sfpJMe

The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 30, 2017

Bee, probably wasnt thinking of that point when she flippantly dismissed Tappers question of whether shes a smug Liberal or that if theres a smug Liberal problem.

Samantha Bee apologized to the child and his family. Her show donated money to the childs GoFundMe account. Yet, as helpful as it is to acknowledge the mistake and attempt to make amends, the whole episode does reek of a patronizing condescension.

Bee, reminiscent of Stewart disciples, such as Noah, Oliver, and others in the late night show circuit, such as Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, and Stephen Colbert have gleefully taken the worst and most glaring of the Right and mockingly tear it down and for the Left to enjoy. These jokes come back in the morning talk circuit and all the while people who espouse those ideas, those beliefs, seethe with anger because they are being disregarded and mocked. Douthat characterizes the whole enterprise as a series of hectoring monologues, where comedians are less comics than propagandists liberal explanatory journalists with laugh lines.

It makes sense that there are media outlets to cater solely to them. If there is anything weve learned about economics is that where theres an unmet mainstream demand, theres bound to be an alternative supply.

Some would argue that wrongheaded points of view are only worthy of mockery, and to position them with any level of respect is placing them in the same vein of validity as those who are obviously correct. In other words, to talk about bad ideas with any respect is to elevate them to an unmerited position.

Yet, who gets to be the judge of what is correct or what has merit? This is the fight that is played out across all media, social and otherwise, every second of every day to the detriment of all.

The Right resents having to endure challenges and changes to their family values, American values, and work ethics. This an important point because it is in how these values were traditionally framed is how we as a nation and western civilization came to be exceptional, as how the Right sees it. Even so its more important to recognize that the Right resents being mocked for holding on to these values. The Right would say, they are lampooning not only what we believe to be right, but also what has made us great, where my family comes from and me. They are making fun of our way of life.

So, why then with all this evidence, is Liberal smugness a myth? Before exploring that, its important to look at the myth of the angry Conservative.

[To be continued in Part 2]

Jose Robledo, Political Correspondent, Lima Charlie News

Jose Robledo is a former Army Staff Sergeant still Army Infantry Officer. After completing two combat tours, to Afghanistan and Iraq, he studied Political Economy at Columbia University, where he successfully led the student initiative to bring back ROTC to the campus.

Lima Charlie provides global news, insight & analysis by military veterans and service members Worldwide.

For up-to-date news, please follow us on twitter at@LimaCharlieNews

See the original post here:

The myth of the smug liberal - Lima Charlie News

A month before the 2016 US presidential election, Colin Waugh and his wife bought their first firearm.

Donald Trumps campaign was taking an unprecedented turn, with the candidate baiting gun-rights supporters to exert their influence and suggesting that a loss in November would be evidence of a rigged system. The gun, as Waugh frames it, was a form of insurance in case American democracy dissolved into a quasi-Mad Max society, and liberals became the hunted.

When Trump won, Waugh felt numb. His wife was catatonic. They both feared for their lives. The couple, liberal Mississippians and stalwart Obama supporters, were not the primary targets of the right-wing vitriol directed primarily at Latino immigrants and Muslims during Trumps campaign. But from Waughs liberal perch, seeing the new presidents supporters on the news screaming Well take back our country! and hearing similar sentiments from conservatives in his home state, even from friends, felt like a genuine threat.

For the first time in my life, I realized my own freedom was my own responsibility, says Waugh. I could no longer trust Trump, or Congress, to reassure my rights and liberties would remain in place.

But even though he sought self-sufficiency in his new America, Waugh realized he would need a new community of sorts. So on Nov. 10, 2016, Waugh logged onto Facebook and set up the Liberal Prepper.

As the groups name suggests, the Liberal Preppers 2,500 members are united by two things: their political leanings, and a desire to learn how to prepto learn the various skills and tactics that would help an individual survive catastrophic events within ones community. It was founded with the following disclaimer, penned by Waugh: We welcome all individuals who are center and left of center politically. We do not knowingly accept conservatives, Trump supporters, into this group.

If somebodys a dick, we boot themPrior to accepting members, the groups administrators typically vet requestors for alt-right iconography. According to Kenny Stabler, the current moderator, any anti-liberal users that get past the vetting process usually are ejected not long after their first snowflake comment. If somebodys a dick, we boot them, he says.

Despite their shared politics, members individual reasons for prepping vary. Some fear a Trump-triggered nuclear war; others are worried about economic collapse. Nicole Pilt is a Liberal Prepper who says that the nationalist rhetoric now coursing through Western society fuelled her desire to prep. She says shes worried about the plethora of natural and social disasters that are occurring. Many of the Preppers reasons for joining are underlined by a distrust of governmenta new sentiment for many Democratsand the resulting fear for ones safety.

Trump is a clown, but with the idiot congress we have, I am concerned that well have an economic collapse, says Stabler. The election freaked me out because after all this time, people are still voting Republican. Jobs pay so little and the economy is so fragile. That scares me more than some redneck morons.

Until recently, prepping has primarily been associated with right-wing, second-amendment survivalists. Since the 2016 election, as well as the rise of nationalism and anti-globalist sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic, more folks on the left end of the political spectrum have begun to believe that disaster is impending. In response to this epiphany, Facebook groups such as the Liberal Prepper have gained steam, operating as educational platforms for liberals interested in prepping.

The terms survivalists and preppers are occasionally used interchangeably, but Chad Huddleston, a professor of anthropology at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville who has studied prepping, believes ideology plays a significant role in distinguishing the two.

Survivalism, he says, is a term largely associated with doomsday conspiracy theorists and right-wing extremists seen from the 1970s to the 1990s, including anti-government militias, fundamentalists, and terrorists. According to Huddleston, historic figures like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh continue to be mythologized among some survivalists. More recent incarnations of survivalism include far-right patriot movements like the 3 Percenters, founded in response to Barack Obamas 2008 electoral win, and the Oath Keepers, comprised of both current and former military veterans as well as law-enforcement officials whose stated mission is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Both organizations have caught the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which lists them as extremist antigovernment groups.

Prepping, on the other hand, is a relatively new term adopted by practitioners who wanted to distance themselves from those radical ideologies. It was meant to be the apolitical version of survivalist, though by now the term has become a bit of a catchall. Nobody wants to call themselves a survivalist because of the baggage, says Huddleston. They call themselves preppers but when you talk to them, you realize theyre [often] old-school, anti-government militias. They just put on a new category.

The genesis event for many nonpartisan preppers, says Huddleston, was Hurricane Katrina in 2005. At the time, both the citizens of New Orleans as well as news-watchers around the nation witnessed the governments fallibility. The Bush administration, it seemed, could not (or would not) react to the disaster with the level of commitment and haste needed, exacerbating the suffering of thousands in the wake of the deadly storm.. The 2008 financial crisis stoked additional fear, as Americans began to see the deep vulnerabilities in the US housing market and the nations financial system.

The Liberal Preppers and others like them may seem fringe-y or unreasonably paranoid at first glance, but prepping is starting to move more and more into the mainstream. On Facebook alone, there are hundreds prepping-focused groups searchable with the phrase Preppers (and plenty of others with Survivalists); some have memberships as large as 60,000.

Over 50% of Silicon Valleys upper class owns hideaway property in either the US or abroad.Some of the countrys most influential people have latched onto the trend. Though they might not consider themselves preppers, Silicon Valleys rich and elite are clearly thinking along the same lines as Waugh and Stabler. Earlier this year, LinkedIn co-founder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman told the New Yorker that he estimates over 50% of Silicon Valleys upper class owns hideaway property in either the US or abroad (New Zealand is a popular choice among the tech community, with new residents including the likes of Peter Thiel); and Steve Huffman, the co-founder and CEO of Reddit, has said he got LASIK so he wouldnt be burdened by his deficiency come societal collapse. And then, of course, theres SpaceXs Elon Musk, who wants to help humanity populate Mars as fast as possible as an answer to mans inevitable extinction on Earth.

Prepping is not a uniquely US phenomenon, although it has different flavors in different parts of the world. A scale of peoples trust in their [nations] government probably reflects how people prep, Huddleston says. Preppers in Scandinavian countries differ from their Stateside counterparts, predominantly because they wholeheartedly believe their government would eventually save them in a time of danger. According to Huddleston, in that region of the world, preppers focus on surviving disaster in the short-term. Weapons are also not a typical feature of Scandinavian prepping, because there, prepping is less about defending property and person, but rather being able to get away from danger quickly and safely.

Despite the trend, it took Trump and one worried Mississippian to trigger the formation of the first large, out-in-the-open left-leaning community. Of the hundreds of prepper groups on Facebook, there are still only handfuls that outwardly promote themselves as liberal or welcoming of similar politicsand most are offshoots from the Liberal Prepper, which seems to be the biggest left-leaning prepper community to date. It grew rapidly: Stabler says it had only 30 or so members in the early days, then itd jump to 100 or so, then more each time it got a mention in the media.

Many of the more experienced Liberal Preppers members are refugees from other survivalist groups who sought out a more politically like-minded community. Now, they are educating people such as ourselvesliberals, who you never think would prep, says Waugh. Some members have shared seemingly advanced techniques, like how evacuate from ones home without leaving a trail; others offer more rudimentary (but probably more useful) survival skills like fire-starting and water-purification methods. They are helping newbies daily, who are noticing whats going on and think its really scary; who think I want to protect my family regardless of the type of disaster, says Waugh.

Seth Hammond, an outdoorsman now living in Washington state, has been prepping for a decade or so, long before Trump entered the White House. While living in Massachusetts during the Blizzard of 1978, Hammond learned that the government cantand maybe even wontalways help you out. To this day, he remembers the hundreds of New England residents left in freezing temperatures without heat, water, or electricity for over a week. If people ran out of food, they couldnt get groceries for days; Hammond decided it was essential to learn to survive without modern amenities.

Despite his years of prepping, Hammond, too, says he has become wiser since joining the group. But really what amazes Hammond about the Liberal Prepper is the level of respect and open-mindedness maintained in group discussions, compared to other online prepper and survivalist forums. He says that if theres any sort of silver lining to Trumps election for the prepping community, its this: Suddenly there are a lot more like-minded individuals adding new perspectives to these niche discussions. Things that are verboten elsewhereliberals in metropolitan communities who want to learn how to use guns, for exampleare welcome at groups like the Liberal Prepper, which offer the space to ask these questions.

There are not a lot of places where youll get a rational discussion where people can disagree about firearms in America but you can among this group, says Hammond. So its like this dialogue going on between this group of adults who may have different levels of skill sets in the thing theyre trying to figure outbut [are] having [an] adult conversation about the politics around it. Thats an interesting dynamic.

It may seem strange that thousands across the nation are deciding to learn horticulture and how to clean a rifle because they think there might be an economic collapse sometime in the future. But Art Markman, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas-Austin who researches decision-making, says prepping isnt outside the bounds of normal human responses to fear.

Its an extreme reaction on their part, but not an inappropriate oneThere is enough news out there now that can be frightening that its an extreme reaction on their part, but not an inappropriate one, he says. People are forever trying to wrest control over situations that feel beyond their own control or understanding. This might involve focusing on aspects of their lives where they feel they are taking charge, or ascribing responsibility to a higher power, like religion.

The preppers are doing the thing that fits with their belief system that makes sense for taking control over the situation, Markman says. And because it emerges from a deep belief that we just cant trust the institutions around us, it is a rational response to that set of beliefs.

Learning the survival techniques that are core to prepping might even provide long-term health benefits, Markman says.

In the short term, stress can be a good thing: The sudden surge of adrenaline, as well as the increase of cortisol, can help us in situations like potentially violent conflicts. But experiencing stress for a long period of time is damaging. Markman uses the case of a divorce that drags on for six months as an example: the divorcees might self-medicate with alcohol, but a healthier response is to take up projects like learning to play an instrument or remodeling a house, which essentially shelters them from the stress response. He says that for members of the Liberal Prepper, whose long-term stressor is the helplessness they feel about the threat (whether real or not) of apocalyptic war or economic collapse, learning some homesteading techniques might actually help to remove their stressors.

In the long term, Markman says, if prepping becomes this way of life, it keeps the fearful stuff at baybecause as far as youre concerned, unlike everybody else, youre doing something concrete.

According to Stabler, liberals were learning how to ensure their safety in case of a disaster long before Trumps presidency. For years, left-leaning Americans interested in survival practicespicking up outdoor skills, learning how to can and preserve food properly, even taking notes on how to use a gun without hurting ones selflurked on places like the red-hued Survivalist Boards. But they were cautious about their encroachment on right-wing territory, as these discussion boards were not exactly welcoming of liberal perspectives.

[Wed] have to skip past threads where we were either a bunch of vile and horrible liberals, or how were a bunch of pussy snowflakes, says Stabler. A big draw of the Liberal Prepper, he says, is knowing that somewhere on the internet, there is a bit of peaceful alternative where everybodys not a giant dickhole praying for the end of the world. He believes that whether members join because theyre terrified of Trump, or war, or a financial meltdown, what they really get out of the Liberal Prepper is a safe space for liberals to explore a potentially unpopular worldview.

Capitalism is getting more brutal, and war is big business, Stabler says. So probably peoplegoing on the internet, getting educated, understanding a little bit more whats going on, isnt such a bad idea.

The idea of a community where people could learn these sorts of skills from others is what got Stabler to take prepping seriously in the first place. I had plans and a space, some land to go to if it gets ugly in the city, says Stabler. And a group of people with a variety of skills that are able to actually contribute, thats important. So I was more into the community than actual prepping itself.

The community vibe has attracted all sorts of people, some with backgrounds nothing like youd expectlike Zachary, a lawyer and mindfulness instructor in Lexington, Kentucky. Although he says he hasnt committed to purchasing backup water or food supplies just yet, since joining, Zachary (who asked that his full name be withheld) bought some silver and gold on other preppers advice. Its a financial security measure, he says, in case the global stock market crashes, paper money becomes worthless, and mass panic ensues.

Occasionally, Zachary engages in ethics debates with other Liberal Preppers. Recently, he asked whether the group members would be okay shooting another human during a civil war or nuclear holocaust. (He says that the answer is, more often than not, yes.)

Stabler says the group he moderates has not organized any meet-ups in the real world, but over the past few months, Zachary has connected with a handful of members offline, and has guided several through mindfulness sessions over the phone. Some of them [have] been absolutely traumatized, Zachary says. They know somethings bad, that somethings coming, but also the fear is compounded by a world just in agonytheyre afraid.

Preppers and survivalists are detailing their story with a smile.Not everyone is so sympathetic. Richard Mitchell, author of the 2002 book Dancing at Armageddon, an in-depth expos of survivalist culture in America, is skeptical that members of the Liberal Prepper are motivated to accumulate survival gear by a legitimate concern for their safety. Having embedded himself with survivalists for over a dozen years, he believes that fear is not the initial impetus at allthats the materialist narrative. In his eyes, preppers and survivalists are detailing their story with a smile.

Theyre having fun doing this, says Mitchell. Its more than just fun. Its a kind of actualization. He describes a survivalist he interviewed, whose employment involved maintaining the citys sewage system. In his garage, he had stored disinfectant, odor treatment, and iodine treatment, among other chemicals. According to Mitchell, the sanitation expert claimed all of this was for some future crisis, when, inevitably, a terrorist group will fry the citys computers, causing a flooding of the metropolitan community that would leave people to their armpits in shit water, and hell be there ready to fix it.

Mr. Poop was not terrified, says Mitchell. He was very satisfied with his solutions to these problems.

Whether or not Mitchell is right about the underlying motivations behind prepping, the vast majority of preppers are not attracted to the media spotlight, even as their worldview gains more and more mainstream acceptance. Waugh, who appeared on a segment of Fox News Watters World this past March, says he left the Facebook group after receiving death threats from right-wing survivalists for being a liberal doomsday prepper, while the exposure made some members of the Liberal Preppers feel paranoid; others thought that Waugh was just narcissistic. A number of the Liberal Preppers members, including an administrator, declined requests for interviews; one member posted a warning regarding the presence of a Quartz reporter in the group.

Stabler says many in the group keep a low-profile because, if a crisis occurs, a person who reveals their status as a prepper will have unintentionally tipped his hand, saying Heres a grocery list, heres everything I have, and could wind up cornered into sharing his carefully rationed canned-goods with someone who never saw the end coming. Many also want to avoid having to explain to non-preppers why theyve taken up the task of preparing for disastersnobody wants to be called crazy or invite the negative attention that Waugh endured.

Some are ready to fight, though, if it comes to it.

Theyre laughing at us, thinking that were people with no guns, Stabler says of right-wing survivalists. But theres an attitude with some of us who are like, Bitch, bring it. Come see the snowflake.

See the article here:

The new doomsayers taking up arms and preparing for catastrophe: American liberals - Quartz

If you've lived in British Columbia for your entire life, this article probably isn't for you.

But if you're new to the province, or live elsewhere in Canada, it's a political question you'll inevitably ask: why do people argue over whether the B.C. Liberals are liberals or conservatives?

According toGooglesearch data, the third most common question people ask about the B.C. Liberals is: "Why are conservatives called B.C. Liberals?"and anumber ofcolumns andarticleshave been published on the topic in the last month.

But the reason the B.C. Liberals are an amalgam of people who support the Liberals and Conservatives federally without a fixed ideology in B.C. beyond "free enterprise" has less to do with themand more to do with the NDP.

Because while the names of the parties have changed, B.C. politics have been defined the same way for over 75 years.

"The primary dynamic in B.C. politics goes back to the second World War era," saidDavid Mitchell, a historian who has written multiple books about the province's political history.

The first era of political parties in British Columbia saw the Liberal and Conservative parties trade places in government, much like at the federal level. But when theCo-operative Commonwealth Federation which changed its name to the NDP in 1961 began to rise, the two establishment parties decided to combine forces in a coalition government.

"It was ostensively to have a united war effort, but the reality was the Liberals and Conservatives, the old line parties of that day, bandied together to prevent the CCF ... from forming the government," said Mitchell.

The coalition ruled B.C. from 1941 to 1952, but when itbroke up because of infighting, the Social Credit party under W.A.C. Bennett upended the old order and quickly usurpedthem as the dominant choice for non-NDPsupporters.

Former British Columbia premier Bill Bennett was one of four Social Credit premiers who led B.C. for 36 of 39 years between 1952 and 1991. (The Canadian Press)

"Social Credit then became the small-c coalition of the centre-right,"said Mitchell. "The old Liberals and Conservatives stayed on, but they became minor fringe parties for a couple generations."

First led by W.A.C. Bennett and then by his son Bill, the Social Credit Party ruled B.C. for 36 of the next 39 years.

But by 1991 and with an election looming, the party was mired in scandal, andvoters and businesses who didn't have a home in the NDP began looking for a new option.

"The NDP had come to government in 1991 for the second time, and if not Social Credit, what was going to be the united non-socialist, non-social democratic alternative?" said Mitchell.

Mitchell himself was one 17 MLAs elected under the B.C. Liberal banner in that 1991 election. The formerly fringe party had formally split from the federal organization prior to the election, andbecame the official opposition primarily through the strength of leader Gordon Wilson's campaigning.

WATCH: Gordon Wilson's famous 1991 debate performance

B.C. Elections: 1991: Gordon Wilson's debate triumph3:42

"The Liberals re-emerged as a force in the opposition, but was not yet that vehicle. It took a few years for them to emerge as the single, centre-right alternative," said Mitchell.

It happened over the course of many years for a variety of reasons:the election of Gordon Campbell as leader, the complete collapse of the Social Credit party, and the failure of other options like the Reform Party and Progressive Democratic Alliance to make inroads.

But by 2001 they were the preferred option for all non-NDP voters, and won a historic 77 and 79 seats in B.C.'s legislature.

"The Liberals were anything but Liberal in the large L, centre-left sense ... but it became uniquely in the British Columbia context: necessary to become the single vessel to serve as an alternative to the NDP," said Mitchell.

The party's nameis theLiberals,but they're really the third iteration of what has been the dominant group in B.C. for decades: the sometimes right-wing, sometimes-centrist, always against the NDP, free enterprise party.

It may be why longtime B.C. residents accept the differencewith ease. But it doesn't make it any easier for outsiders to intuitively grasp.

"When people think of Liberals in British Columbia, they need to check their biases about what is a liberal," said Mitchell.

"To be a liberal in B.C. is a very different thing indeed."

Here is the original post:

Why the BC Liberals are sometimes liberal and sometimes not - CBC.ca

The Liberal government is set to begin tackling mandatory minimum sentences this spring, but advocates for reform have been waiting a long time for the promise to play out.

"It's something the government promised long ago and its delivery is overdue," said Eric Gottardi, a Vancouver defence lawyer and past chair of the criminal justice section at the Canadian Bar Association.

"We are all kind of looking forward to it with bated breath."

The Liberal campaign platform was silent on mandatory minimum sentences, but then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tasked Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould with reviewing changes to the criminal justice system and sentencing reforms the previous Conservative government brought in as part of its tough-on-crime agenda.

Many of those changes involved imposing or increasing mandatory minimum penalties for dozens of offences, which critics decried for taking away the ability of judges to use their discretion in handing down a punishment that fits not only the crime, but also the person convicted of committing it.

The push to finally begin introducing legislative amendments on that front came as part of the response to the worsening problem of backlogs in the courts, which took on new urgency after the Supreme Court of Canada last year imposed strict limits on the length time an accused can wait to stand trial.

Changes to bail, preliminary inquiries and the reclassification of offences are other policy areas where the federal government is looking for solutions to that problem.

"Was it a kick in the butt?" Wilson-Raybould said after an April 28 meeting with provincial justice ministers on whether the ruling accelerated plans for reform.

"I think it was a call to action for all of us, absolutely."

Yvon Dandurand, a criminologist at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, B.C., said the Liberals could bring back some more flexibility to judges by creating special exceptions to some mandatory minimum penalties, an option he outlined in a report provided to the Justice Department last year.

Dandurand said he suspects the coming legislation will include a mix of adding special exceptions to some mandatory minimum sentences while abolishing others.

He said he also thinks, based on what he has heard from Wilson-Raybould and her officials during consultations, that they will go beyond reversing the last decade of changes.

"(They) said this sentencing reform they are contemplating is not just a matter of setting back the clock and changing what has happened during the Conservative government... but going back to principles and more fundamental changes to the sentencing regime that we have," Dandurand said.

The last overhaul of the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code happened in 1996.

Conservative MP Rob Nicholson, who spent more than five years as justice minister under former prime minister Stephen Harper, said he does not want the Liberals to touch any of the mandatory minimum penalties.

"We were targeting very serious crimes," including the sexual exploitation of children, said Nicholson, who is now Opposition justice critic.

"If some of them are going to be getting a break in the next couple of weeks here, I mean obviously we'll oppose that."

Conservative MP Rob Nicholson, a former justice minister, said he does not want the Liberals to touch any of the mandatory minimum penalties. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The Supreme Court, however, has already struck down two of the Conservative sentencing reforms last year, including a mandatory minimum penalty of one year behind bars for anyone convicted of a drug offence. That measure was introduced in 2012 as part of an omnibus crime bill.

Alistair MacGregor, the NDP justice critic, said he would like to see the Liberals allow for more judicial discretion in some cases, such as for non-violent offences and first-time offenders, especially if the judge sees hope for rehabilitation.

A federal government source said it is too early to get into detail, but noted Wilson-Raybould was asked to look at all mandatory minimum penalties.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss matters not yet made public, said choosing which ones to amend is a matter of finding a political consensus over what will work.

Trudeau on Supreme Court Ruling on Mandatory Minimum Sentences1:22

Gottardi said he remembers leaving consultations with Wilson-Raybould feeling "buoyed and inspired" by the bold vision and encouragement to think outside the box when it comes to criminal justice reforms.

Now, he said, he suspects the Liberals might end up disappointing him.

"I have the sinking feeling that the reality of politics is quickly seeping in and we will see a much more muted response to mandatory minimum sentences than a lot of us are hoping for," Gottardi said.

That view stems from how much time has passed and the fact that the Liberal government ended up taking a "pretty careful and cautious approach" to legislation on difficult issues such as medically assisted dying and the proposed legalization of marijuana for recreational use.

Barry Stuart, a director with the Smart Justice Network of Canada, said he believes the circle around Wilson-Raybould is open to a "sea change" and he is willing to wait as long as it takes for the federal government to get it right.

"I don't want another quick bandage on the system I'm patient," said Stuart, a retired Yukon judge.

Read more:

Liberals eye changes to mandatory minimum sentences - CBC.ca

PUBLISHED: 19:51 07 May 2017 | UPDATED: 19:51 07 May 2017

Kim Briscoe

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat candidate for the North Norfolk constituency. Picture: DENISE BRADLEY

Archant

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

But the party will strip wealthier pensioners of the winter fuel allowance, at a cost of up to 300 a year to older people.

An estimated 600,000 pensioners with annual incomes above about 45,000 would lose the allowance under the Lib Dem plans, saving the Treasury around 105m.

But the party said all of those receiving the full state pension would enjoy a rise from 122.30 to at least 137.15 a week by 2021, the equivalent of an extra 772 a year.

The manifesto plans have been welcomed by Norman Lamb, former Liberal Democrat MP and prospective parliamentary candidate for North Norfolk, the constituency with the eleventh highest number of pensioners in the country.

Mr Lamb said: The Liberal Democrats are making a clear commitment to older people in Norfolk, unlike the Conservatives who have repeatedly refused to give this guarantee.

The triple lock has succeeded in lifting thousands of pensioners out of poverty, but many are still struggling to get by.

He added: This commitment will ensure older people are able to meet their basic needs and that their living standards will be protected, especially with prices set to rise in the coming years.

The triple lock was a feature of the Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2010 and a key demand in coalition negotiations. Since its introduction in 2010, it has seen pensioner incomes rise faster than average earnings, sparking warnings from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies that it will swallow up an ever greater share of state spending.

A cross-party House of Commons select committee report earlier this year described it as inherently unsustainable and recommended it should not be continued beyond 2020.

Labour has also pledged to retain the triple lock, which guarantees the state pension will rise in line with inflation, average earnings or 2.5pc, whichever is the highest.

But speculation is rife that Conservatives will ditch the guarantee, after Prime Minister Theresa May declined opportunities to confirm it would feature in her manifesto for the June 8 General Election.

A Conservative spokesman said: Because of the strong economy we have delivered, Theresa May and her Conservative team have increased the basic state pension by 1,250.

The real risk to pensions comes from Jeremy Corbyn propped up in a coalition of chaos by the Lib Dems and the SNP.

A Labour Treasury spokesman said: You cant trust the Liberal Democrats.

They broke their promises and would do it again.

Only in September their former leader Nick Clegg called for the triple lock to be dropped.

For a party with so few MPs, they cannot agree with each other on anything, as we saw with tuition fees in the last parliament, you just cannot trust what the Lib Dems say.

See the original post here:

Liberal Democrats promise to protect 'triple lock' for state pensions - Norfolk Eastern Daily Press

A political columnist who voted for then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in last years presidential election has some blunt advice for the twice failed presidential candidate after she announced her intentions this week to remain involved in politics.

Hey, Hillary Clinton, shut the f up and go away already, wrote Gersh Kuntzman, a columnist at the New York Daily News, in a column earlier this week.

I voted for Clinton on Nov. 8 and thought shed be a good president, he explained. But she lost. And she still wants us to feel bad about that. And, worse, shes still blaming everyone else.

In an interview earlier this week, Clinton said she takes absolute responsibility for her loss to President Donald Trump. But during the same interview, Clinton said she would be president if it werent for a myriad of reasons, such as: Russian meddling and FBI Director James Comey sending a letter to Congress just days before the election.

If the election had been on Oct. 27, I would be your president, she declared.

During the interview, Clinton also announced that she is writing a book about her 2016 loss, which she said is painful to relive.

But Kuntzman disagrees with Clinton adamantly. His column, titled, Hillary Clinton shouldnt be writing a book she should be drafting a long apology to America, lays out the reasons why Clinton lost the election, despite her failure to admit even one.

Boo hoo, he wrote. Simon & Schuster may want Hillary Clinton to write the history, but Im not about to let her re-write it. No one deserves more blame for the election debacle than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

According to Kuntzman, there are four specific reasons Clinton lost the election: her untrustworthiness, a poorly run campaign, her private email server and her Goldman-Sachs speeches.

On Clintons untrustworthiness, Kuntzman wrote:

Remember her fainting spell at the 9/11 ceremony? Remember how long it took for her to tell the truth? Remember how that reminded every voter in America that Hillary Clintons first instinct is to lie?

Just like she did when she claimed she had taken sniper fire during a First Lady trip to Bosnia. Just as she did when she said she never sent classified documents over her private email server.

Second, Kuntzman hit Clinton for her very poor campaign. Kuntzman said that once Clinton labeled Trump supporters a basket of deplorables, the election was was pretty much over.

Third, Kuntzman cited Clintons decision to use a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state: Its basic. The only reason to set up a private email server and delete some of the emails on it is because you want to hide something from the public. Clinton never provided a good answer to the simple question, Why would you do that?'

Lastly, Clinton can blame her tight relationship with Wall Street as a reason she lost to Trump, according to Kuntzman.

You cant be a prostitute on Wall Street and then go to church on Main Street, he wrote.

The American public does not want a book from Hillary Clinton. It wants an abject apology. And it wants it for free. She got what she deserved: She lost, Kuntzman concluded. Now she needs to shut up and go home.

View post:

Liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton has blunt advice for her: 'Shut ... - TheBlaze.com

Photo: Michael Tran /FilmMagic

Ann Coulter believes in the free exchanges of ideas. Her enemies do not.

Ann Coulter believes in the free exchanges of ideas. Her enemies do not.

Because the California National Guard couldnt be mobilized in time, Ann Coulter had to withdraw from giving a speech at Berkeley.

If you take it seriously, thats the import of UC Berkeleys decision to do everything it could to keep the conservative provocateur from speaking on campus over safety concerns.

If somebody brings weapons, theres no way to block off the site or to screen them, the chancellor of the university said of Coulters plan to go ahead and speak at an open-air forum after the school canceled a scheduled talk.

The administrator made it sound as if Coulter would have been about as safe at Berkeley as she would have been addressing a meeting of the international criminal gang MS-13 and he might have been right.

We have entered a new, much less metaphorical phase of the campus-speech wars. Were beyond hissing or disinviting. Were no longer talking about the hecklers veto but the masked-thugs-who-will-burn-trash-cans-and-assault-you-and-your-entourage veto.

Coulter is a rhetorical bomb thrower, which is an entirely different thing from being a real bomb thrower. Coulter has never tried to shout down a speaker she doesnt like. She hasnt thrown rocks at cops. She isnt an arsonist. She offers up provocations that she gamely defends in almost any setting with arguments that people are free to accept, or reject, or attempt to correct.

In other words, in the Berkeley context, shes the liberal. She believes in the efficacy of reason and in the free exchanges of ideas. Her enemies do not.

Indeed, the budding fascism that progressives feared in the Trump years is upon us, although not in the form they expected. It is represented by the black-clad shock troops of the anti-fa movement who are violent, intolerant and easily could be mistaken for the street fighters of the extreme right in 1930s Europe. That they call themselves anti-fascist speaks to a colossal lack of self-awareness.

It is incumbent on all responsible progressives to reject this movement, and just as important the broader effort to suppress controversial speech. This is why former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Deans comments about hate speech not being protected by the First Amendment were so alarming. In Deans defense, he had no idea what he was talking about, but he was effectively making himself the respectable voice of the rock throwers.

Deans view was that Berkeley is within its rights to make the decision that it puts their campus in danger if they have her there. This justification, advanced by the school itself, is profoundly wrongheaded.

It is an inherently discriminatory standard, since the Berkeley College Republicans arent given to smashing windows and throwing things when an extreme lefty shows up on campus, which is a near-daily occurrence.

It would deny Coulter something she has a right to do (speak her mind on the campus of a public university) in reaction to agitators doing things they dont have a right to do (destroy property, among other acts of mayhem).

It would suppress an intellectual threat, i.e., a dissenting viewpoint, and reward a physical threat. This is perverse.

For now there is a consensus in favor of free speech in the country that is especially entrenched in the judiciary. The anti-fa and other agitators arent going to change that anytime soon. But they could effectively make it too burdensome for certain speakers to show up on campus, and over time more Democrats like Dean could rationalize this fact by arguing that so-called hate speech doesnt deserve First Amendment protection.

So, it isnt enough for schools like UC Berkeley to say that they value free speech, yet do nothing to punish disrupters and throw up their hands at the task of providing security for controversial speakers. If everyone else gets safe space at UC Berkeley, Coulter deserves one. If the anti-fa are willing to attack free speech through illegal force, the authorities should be willing to defend it by lawful force.

Heck, if necessary, call out the National Guard.

comments.lowry@nationalreview.com

Visit link:

Ann Coulter, the liberal - mySanAntonio.com

Whats the most liberal city in America?

Would you say San Francisco?

Berkeley? New York? Los Angeles? Chicago? Washington, D.C.?

You could say, All the urban areas in America are liberal. Take those cities out of America and youve got a very genuine conservative America with lots of open space, no smog, few commuting problems, a Republican utopia.

Of course, I didnt say that. But I know what you were thinking.

But arguably the most liberal city in America is none of those I previously mentioned. It could very well be Boston. When you factor in nearby Provincetown, Cambridge and Amherst, its solidly progressive, which, to me, is a misnomer. Liberalism and leftism has nothing to do with progress. It is a throwback to the idea that government knows best. Government is God to liberals.

What we shouldnt expect in such a bastion of liberalism as Boston is crude, disgusting, boorish, indecent racism.

Yet that is exactly what we witnessed last weekend in Boston when the Red Sox hosted the Baltimore Orioles.

Some Red Sox fans threw bags of peanuts at the Orioles black star center fielder Adam Jones while shouting racial epithets.

This is 2017, by the way. Its a long time after Jackie Robinson endured this kind of treatment back in 1947 70 years ago when he broke Major League Baseballs color barrier.

I suppose you could say this stuff can happen anywhere and thats fair. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel. And one cannot condemn an entire city because of the actions of a few racist freaks.

But, as a baseball fan, I can tell you even black Boston players have said theyve heard these slurs. Its bizarre. But it confirms my theory that the most racist constituency in America is actually found among liberals. Anecdotally, Ive seen it all my life.

It comes in three forms black racism, standard anti-black racism and, perhaps most insidious of all, is the kind of white paternalism that manifests itself as what my colleague Erik Rush has dubbed Negrophilia.

(This is a theory that has never been fully appreciated. Rush Limbaugh has recently been making the case that Barack Obama won two terms as president largely because white voters were so sick of hearing about their own racism. They wanted to end that talk, but found only that they heard more of it.)

In any case, it seems strange that Boston baseball fans would be so abusive to star black players when some of their most beloved players have been black like the recently retired David Ortiz, or Big Papi, as he was affectionately known.

Yet, its undeniable that its there right under the surface. All it takes is a few beers and a few defeats at the hands of an opposing rival for it to manifest itself.

Anyway, let me conclude by saying the behavior in Boston was inexcusable.

As Jones tweeted after the game: Boo me, tell me I suck just leave the racial stuff out of it.

Thats good advice for Boston baseball fans, and its equally good advice for the Democratic Party, which has done nothing to end racism in America with all its finger-pointing and hand-wringing. Not since the Ku Klux Klan served as the military wing of the party has Americas racial divide been more obvious and pronounced.

Get Joseph Farahs new book, The Restitution of All Things: Israel, Christians, and the End of the Age, and learn about the Hebrew roots of the Christian faith and your future in Gods Kingdom

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact media@wnd.com.

Read the original here:

BETWEEN THE LINES - WND.com