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

Where did I say Democrats cut funding?
Of course, education is funded by property taxes and poorer neighborhoods pay less in property taxes. Voters must approve rates for taxes and school budgets.
This is a perfect example of Liberal Supremacy. I got to experience this first-hand in a region that had a strong majority Democrat population.
Liberal Supremacists use their political clout and affluence to keep the monies they paid in property taxes to fund the schools in their neighborhoods, leaving minority children from poor neighborhoods to fend for themselves. The benevolent liberal supremacist directs the money and resource flow to areas of their political interest, and it usually isn’t toward minority communities.

Why can’t the liberal supremacist divide school tax revenues in ways that benefit all of a district’s schools? I don’t see STEM or Vo-Tech educational opportunities pushed in lower-income minority neighborhoods. The school system will bus minority children to other locations that provide better (MAGNET program) opportunities.

And please, don’t get me started on IB, Honors, and MAGNET programs at predominantly minority schools that sequester primarily white/asian children in classrooms from the rest of the school population (in order to reduce segregation). These bright children have access to field trips, computers, software, and mentor-teachers that work one-on-one with the students so they can earn their IB/Honors diploma while the average minority student gets a typical classroom that may or may not have the supplies they need.

This was something that Dems in the south were wonderful at promoting. Republicans are about school choice while liberal supremacists make sure poor children, often minority, are stuck with crappy schools.

1 Like

I know Democrats try to raise funding for public transportation and I get that it’s difficult to do. Bus fares pay towards operating revenue and those revenues don’t usually cover the costs of running a public transit system in a community, so the remaining funds are often covered by federal, state, and local taxes.

Granted, in may people in cities use public transportation. But I’m talking about making public transportation safer in poor communities, you know, the ones where residents pay “less” in property taxes. Democrats in the urban areas need to make sure that riders are safe and that using public transportation is realistic and affordable. This might mean rapid transit/better buses, better lighting at bus/subway stops, enclosures/benches at stops, better lighting along roadways, security at terminals and problematic stops, better service quality (which could mean improved routes, stops and drivers), sidewalk repairs, focusing on the needs of frequent riders, and better advertising of services.

I know I might sound like I’m bashing liberals, but that isn’t it. I get frustrated with the “throw money at it mentality”. We need to take the funding and implement fundamental changes to systems on both the micro and macro levels. Doing so will generate realistic, quality results that improve the ability for people to live, work, and thrive.

1 Like

First of all, I must commend you on preparing your responses off-line and then pasting them into the response window of CAF. A very good practice.

Well, then don’t make such a point about corrupt Democrats. It gives that impression.

Isn’t that pretty much the way it is now? (except for the cap above a certain income, which I agree should be removed)

First of all, I agree with you about the injustice you cite here. Right on! But it is no more Democrats doing than Republicans. They all had a hand in crafting the law. Blame them all. As for Democrats wanting to keep a class of people underprivileged to “get their votes”, that makes about as much sense as me punching a women in the face to get her to like me.

Well, your exact words were:

Education is another area that Democrats refuse to adequately fund.

I guess you didn’t really mean it then.

The “school choice” you speak of that is favored by Republicans is charter schools that tend not to be located near underprivileged students. As a result the ones who benefit from charter schools are mostly the rich kids. There are some exceptions, but it is by no means clear that public education benefits everyone equally under a Republican administration.

1 Like

It sound like we mostly agree, which makes me wonder why we have been arguing.

One point I will dispute and that is the idea that it is easy to improve things like transportation or education without additional funding. It may not be everything, but it is very important.

Can’t let Republicans off the hook, either.
Why should some liberal city-slicker who doesn’t even own a car have to pay federal/ state taxes toward projects that fund improvements of federal/ state highways commonly used by rural areas?

I hear “let so and so pay for it, they use it” all the time out of Republican’s mouths when they are afforded benefit from many tax payers pay toward services/programs that don’t directly benefit those tax payers.

1 Like

I’m online. No offline responses.

I’m a registered democrat and I will point out flaws in the party, especially when those flaws reflect my lived experiences and those of my friends.

I really did mean it.


By refusing to divide school tax revenues in ways that benefit all of a district’s schools, democrats refuse to adequately fund schools. Liberal supremacists make sure that the children in their neighborhoods get the funding needed to provide quality education. Poor minority and white children from disadvantaged neighborhoods are left to fend for themselves.

Former VP Joe Biden’s gaffe about the poor children being as bright as white children wasn’t a blunder, it was Freudian slip. I get that Mr. Biden grew up in a different time, but this is how many liberal supremacists view minority and poor children. Minority and poor children are often seen as "others.

Of course not. I used to be a republican and this is very true. Republicans believe in keeping the resources they have paid into in their neighborhoods. They don’t see how racism has created inter-generational losses for blacks in particular. Blacks traditionally made less, and paid more in interest on mortgages toward properties that had a lower re-sale value. So even when selling or inheriting property in “black” neighborhoods, blacks face disproportionate (lower) levels of gains to their white counterparts.

MamaJewel in highschool: “Teacher, why do blacks drive in fancy cars, but their homes aren’t that fancy.”

Teacher (who was African American): “Because a car owned by a black person can easily be sold if it gets repossessed. However, people aren’t in a rush to by a home that’s been foreclosed on in a black neighborhood”.

Corruption isn’t unique to Democrats, but with the Democrats it is positively practiced as an art.


It ought to occur to you that the specifics surrounding public transportation in Minnesota might, on a theoretical level, lead any reasonable person to conclude that it is overfunded in Minnesota, so you cannot extrapolate from what Republicans in Minnesota oppose for very specific reasons to a generalization that Republicans everywhere are against public transportation.

To me people say ‘far right’ in two particular circumstances.

  1. If people are opposing the politically correct socialism movements. The more stridently they oppose it the more ‘far right’ they become. This is why Candance Owens is called ‘far right’ because she is successful at criticizing this movement especially within the black electorate. Many people on the political Left have been called ‘far right’ because they also have opposed the politically correct socialist movement that appears to have taken over. Here we have Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad and Bret Weinstein. I would also go back to Mussolini and Hitler who both opposed class based communism as unworkable and put forward their own Left wing politics. They became ‘far right’. I have even seen attempts to categorise Stalin as ‘far right’ and the Democrat’s support for slavery, segregation and the Ku Klux Klan as ‘far right’.

  2. If white people are being racist to non white people. This is also silly. Historically there has been more racism by whites on the Left side of politics. There is little racism in politics today and so the goalposts are continually moved to try and call someone racist because this is such a big part of the Leftist worldview. If someone does act in a racist way they are immediately branded as ‘far right’ without knowing anything of their politics. People are brainwashed to think of ‘far right’ and ‘white racism’ as the same thing. The goalposts have been moved so far that anyone resisting their country being made ‘receiving centres’ for the poor of the world are seen as racist and therefore ‘far right’. Yet when political groups do form to resist this such as Britain’s Brexit or Australia’s One Nation or some of the so called populist parties in Europe people are drawn from all over the political spectrum to support them. Half of the British Labour public voting bloc voted for Brexit for example. By definition this cannot be ‘far right’ and so another term ‘populist’ is invented to mean basically the same thing.

Maybe, but this points out the importance of division of powers.

It is exasperating, the misinformation about charter schools.
Recognizing, first off, that how public charter schools operate varies by state, generally they are required to accept students on a first come first served basis, using a lottery system if demand is greater than capacity. Public charter schools are often located in areas near underprivileged kids because they are the ones often underserved by traditional public schools.
But even those public charter schools in middle class areas are public schools. They are not stealing kids and money from public schools because they are public schools.
School choice is a good thing. It is amazing to me how some oppose public school choice.


Not in Illinois!

Chicago has had Democratic leaders for decades. The Democrats have to take full credit for Chicago. Republicans are rarer there than real doughnuts at a Weight Watchers meeting (I’m sure that there is a WW recipe for vegetable donuts made entirely from brocolli.)

Many of the suburbs have Republican elected officials, as do many of the small towns and cities in Illinois, but Chicago dwarfs everything, along with a few of the big college towns which generally vote Democratic because that’s what college kids do.

And our Congress in Springfield has been controlled by a Democratic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan for 30+ years!

Looking back at the history of Illinois, even a C student (if you can find one in Illinois–our school achievement test scores are among the lowest in the nation) would find it obvious that our slide down the hill of financial disaster and inevitable bankruptcy (we’ve come d___ close in the last few years!) began with the election of large numbers of Democrats to the State Government. Republican governors have been elected, too, but because of our State Constitution which has an amendment about pensions that can only be described as insane, they haven’t been able to do anything about our State budget that would reduce the back-breaking property taxes that so many of us pay like fools.

I would like to see a tax revolt by the citizens, along with a storming of the State Capitol during a session of Congress to demand that our Constitution be amended. But that’s not likely. It’s even less likely that any attempt to amend the Constitution will work as long as Speaker Madigan rules the roost and all his little chickens flock around him. If only THEY would rebel, but they don’'t.

And Chicago continues to experience multiple murders every week and horrific poverty, and our Illinois public schools continue to produce products that can’t even achieve a minimum score on the standardized testing and State employees continue to collect million-dollar pensions which are paid for by all the rest of us fools who continue to live in the State of Hellinois.

You CANNOT give the credit for the situation in Chicago to ANYONE except Democrats!! Don’t even try. Republicans and the few Conservative Democrats left in the Windy City can’t even get a hearing for their proposals.

I often wonder why Republicans even run for State Senator or State Representative here. I sometimes think they should just all just resign, and NO Republicans run for State office, and let the Democratic social policies have full sway, which they essentially already do.

Thousands of people have left the State of Illinois in the last few years–our city lost over 3000 people in one year who moved OUT of the State entirely.

My brother is one who moved out, but he still has a job in Northern Illinois.


But the question is could Republicans do any better if they ran Chicago? Many of the problems in such cites are beyond the control of any politician.

Say what you want,but when Giuliani was mayor ofNew York, things did get better. Things were better.


Which problems are these?

That’s why we Republicans favor a LIMITED government, as described in the U.S. Constitution. Freedom!

That’s my answer to the question about how to fix the cities–give the people freedom from the burdens of excessive government. Let us keep more of our money instead of handing over 30-40% (or more) to pay our taxes and watching the money wasted on programs that even Democrats like you confess are NOT WORKING and are beyond the scope of “government.”

I know some people would waste the extra money or spend it all on themselves (although their expenditures would keep many people employed making all the “stuff” purchased).

But many of us would have more money and more TIME (due to not having to work 2 or more jobs) to actually get involved with helping others, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoners, etc.

Right now, many private charitable organizations are doing more measurable GOOD for the people they serve with a skeleton crew of volunteers and a few low-pay staff members then all the “Big Government Programs” that we are all beginning to realize are FAILING!

Imagine how much more good these private charitable organizations could accomplish with more of us to get on board rolling up our sleeves and helping, without expecting any payment as the government employees do (which I don’t blame them for–they have to make a living, too).

Imagine how much better for the poor if less government actually produced MORE jobs because people would have more of their income left to spend on products and services, along with donating more to their favorite charities.

That’s your answer–reduce the government, reduce the taxes, and let us be FREE! That’s the original American Experiment.


So social problems are “beyond the control of any politician,” but the global climate is something that every politician can control?


The potentates are excusably impotent until it comes to a massive overhaul of the environment, then they suddenly come to life and vigour. Uh huh.


I will speak on my own experience.

I have a relative that got in trouble for narcotics. The lawyer told him that it was not going to be easy because he got caught in a conservative county and it was not looking good. But if he was caught a little more down the road, he would have been caught in the neighboring county that is liberal and he would have been let go. I would like to add that everything the county demanded, he did, and has changed him for the better.

Also. When I moved here a few years ago, a very liberal friend of mine told me that he always looked for the conservative areas to live, because they have better schools. I laugh and did not believed him, and I did not know this was a conservative district. Well after living here years now and looking at the schools my children attend. Wow, the schools in this area are indeed a lot better.

It was not till the last election that I learned I live in a conservative county. I have never experienced racism here, and there are a lot of non white people where I live.

My wife has experience black females treating her like crap because her skin is white. But me wife is Hispanic also. This has happen in the city.


Because most of the cities are governed by liberal democrats. These liberal mayor raise taxes on their people to pay for some good policies but also some very wasteful policies. They tax corporations out of the cities so there are less jobs. And they really don’t do anything to celebrate the working class families. They like to celebrate other bizarre events but not the common working family.

Unfortunately, the republicans who are in the majority state congresses don’t help the common working family that much either. They tend to let these city problems fester because they are afraid of not getting re-elected plus they believe in a one size fits all solution. “They need jobs” they say. No, they need jobs that pay a good wage so the people can pay their bills and still have money leftover to do something different than paying bills.

Sorry, I’m zoning out and not making much sense. Its been a long day already.

Read about Candace Owens’ brilliance and honesty really shining through in her April 2019 appearance before Congress.

“The hearing today is not about “white nationalism” or “hate crimes.” It’s about fear-mongering, power and control. It’s a preview of the 2020 Democrat election strategy… what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election.… White supremacy, racism, white nationalism, words that once held real meaning, have now become nothing more than election strategies.
Owens highlighted her point by describing genuine problems that beset the black community: The failure of the public school systems to teach black children to read and their equally appalling failure to teach minority students basic math skills. She went on to point out that the single motherhood rate in the black community has skyrocketed from 23 percent in the 1960s to 74 percent today, and that there are more black babies aborted than born alive in large cities like New York. She then dropped the hammer as follows: “My point is that white nationalism did not do any of those things that I just brought up. Democrat policies did.”
She continued by heaping scorn on the statistics the Democrats used to support their claims about white nationalist violence. “What they won’t tell you is that they have simply changed the data set by widening the definition of hate crimes… they are manipulating statistics.” She’s right, but it gets even worse. Breitbart notes that “Nadler used a report in his opening remarks on Tuesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism in the Donald Trump era that highlighted crimes that took place from 2008 to 2016, when Barack Obama was president.” Owens continued thus:
If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa, a far left violent white gang, who determined one day in Philadelphia last August that I, a black woman, was not fit to sit in a restaurant. They chased me out, yelled “race traitor” to a group of black and Hispanic police officers who formed a line to protect me from their ongoing assaults. They threw water at me. They threw eggs at me, and the leftist media remain silent on it.”


Candace Owens is entertaining because she’s always so much smarter than any Leftist she debates. {According to the 30% of Democrats who (supposedly) believe that criticizing ANY minority for ANY reason is racist, Jerry Nadler would be considered racist under their definition.}

“I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety,” Candace Owens told the Committee.
She was referring to a doctored clip, shown to the Committee by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), which the esteemed Congressman used to suggest that Owens – a black woman – was a Hitler-praising white nationalist. That should be enough to solidify that the Committee hearing was a total clown show, but then Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) stepped in and removed all doubt.
“The witness will suspend for a moment,” he said banging the gavel. “It is not proper to refer disparagingly to a member of the Committee. The witness will no do that again.
But Owens was not referring to Lieu when she used the word stupid. In any case, she agreed, and pointed out to Nadler that she was called “despicable,” earlier in the hearing.
“The witness may not refer to a member of the Committee as ‘stupid,’” Nadler said in response.
Then, Owens let him have it.
“I didn’t refer to him as stupid – that’s not what I said at all,” she told Nadler. “You didn’t listen to what I said. May I continue?”
Nadler shrugged embarrassedly as he was notified by some of his colleagues on the Committee that Owens had not, in fact, called Lieu stupid.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit