It appears local liberal activists have their new common enemy….Councilman Josh McBroom.
They were originally gaslit because of his ties to parent rights advocate Shannon Adcock.
Then McBroom made local liberals turn red when he suggested those who wanted migrants to stay in town should themselves sign up to take them into their homes.
Most recently he has been critical of DEI spending and questioned the utility of such programs. McBroom daring to question DEI has led to public forum speakers and Letters to the Editor bashing him as insensitive. Yawn…their false outrage is as tired as it is predictable.
The Watchdog gives a hat tip to McBroom. We don’t always agree with McBroom but his fight and gumption is refreshing and needed.
Local liberal obsession with Shannon Adcock is ridiculous. She’s a conservative mom that speaks her mind. She’s the devil to the Left because they don’t agree with her and Josh is guilty by association. Aren’t liberals suppose to embrace differing views and debate? Not anymore it appears. Sad.
McBroom’s migrant sheet might have been over the top. But no more so than millionaire downtown Naperville housewives sanctimoniously writing in suggesting any migrants who come to Naperville be kept here. What do they care what it costs? Those who wanted migrants here should have been expected to pay for them. That was a fair suggestion for McBroom to offer.
Now it’s DEI. Apparently local liberals believe council should just ignore the reality that even progressive colleges and companies coast to coast are bailing on DEI as it’s proving to be expensive, ineffectual and counter productive. Our tax bills are high enough without blatant political pork spending.
The Watchdog says thank you to McBroom for repeatedly asking the tough questions….no matter the blowback he may receive for doing so. We need more McBrooms in government.
Churchill would have appreciated McBroom’s fighting spirit. Keep going Josh!
Agree! The bus exhaust from the Left about their pet sleeper pill/obsession (DEI) only serves to highlight their divisiveness and intolerance. So Boomer, so sad.
Anyone with common sense and a brain would support Josh and his positions on illegals and DEI.
Agree with you 100%. Josh isn’t afraid to ask the tough questions, he’s a true leader who doesn’t stick his finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing. He is fair and a good critical thinker. We need a lot more of his types in government today.
Does that mean Ian is Chamberlain then?
More of a Quisling.
McBroom would have been an isolationist and not want to get involved in foreign nations wars in Europe. He would have complained about who would house the migrants of WW2 era. Charles Lindbergh would have loved McBroom.
So does that mean you won’t object if Naperville builds some low cost housing next to your home?
No one is talking about building low-cost housing in Naperville. Because of property values, it simply can’t be done.
What they are talking about is affordable housing, which is a completely different type of house, which can and has been done in Naperville.
There are no doubt people living in Naperville next to affordable housing that don’t even know it.
That’s because “Affordable Housing” is just a politically correct way of saying entitlement and subsidy. When we require so many units of the new studio apartment development to be “set-aside” for certain classes, where the costs are both controlled and paid for for by the government it does nothing to make housing more affordable, it provides narrow benefits to a very limited number of recipients. It’s an artificial construct so that Progressives can feel good about themselves pretending that equity is real.
Again you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of what affordable housing is (it is not low cost or low income housing). Affordable housing does not require any subsidies, set asides or cost controls to make happen, it simply requires changing local ordnance and policies to make affordable houses more economically practical for developer to do. Yes, our city council has discussed using subsidies and requirements to include affordable housing in new development, but they have rejected these as not necessary.
As to entitlement. As I have repeatedly pointed out our community is blessed with many young people welling to donate their time and resources to activities and charitable organizations in our community that play a significant role in making our community the desirable community it is. These young people have earned the right to live in our city when they enter the workforce as much as,if not more then, many of the people currently live here. Providing affordable housing that make this possible is not only the right way to treat our communities young people, but also the morally responsible choice.
The old manager of this website would never have published so biased and inaccurate an article on these people and the issues surrounding them. Doing so only proves that the divisive right political agenda has infected the Watchdog.
First, as to Shannon Adcock. People on the left have no issues with parental rights. In fact, many of them are also parents and very much care about making sure these rights are not infringed. The problem the left has with Adcock is that she “wrapped” herself in the “flag” of parental rights to promote her woke agenda and her “Awake Illinois” politically divisive movement.
Second, as to McBroom on immigrants. He publicly admitted to using the authority of his office to direct staff to spend time and resources on a project he had no intention of ever following through with. That it was simply a way of taking a dig at the left. He justified doing this by basically “wrapping” himself in the “flag” of social justice to promote the politically divisive action of the Governor of Texas, who, by the way, conveniently “forgot” to ship any of these immigrants to any of the cities in Texas that have stated a pro-sanctuary city stance.
Further, when the city staff report, he requested, pointed out there were already organizations in Naperville that maintain the list he proposed and that the city duplicating these efforts would be a waste of resources and only create confusion. He ignored this fact and continued to promote the idea that Naperville citizens don’t want immigrants housed in our community.
And what was McBroom’s justification for all this waste of city resources and promotion of political divisiveness in our city government? Two, not even half full, buses of immigrants that were dropped off at the Metra station where they were met by a person that quickly placed them on a train to Chicago. There was never any effort made by Governor Abbott or his hired flunkies, involved with this divisive political waste of millions of Texas taxpayer dollars, to contact anyone in Naperville about housing any of these immigrants in our community.
Finally, on DEI, the fact is, despite the Watchdogs claim that “progressive colleges and companies coast to coast are bailing on DEI”, intended to give the impression of a mass exodus by these organizations out of DEI, the majority of these institutions still have DEI programs that are continually evolving to better meet the goals of DEI.
Jim you have a bad memory. This watchdog has always had favorites and always had councilmen he beat up regularly. He was in love Steve chirico and Kevin Coyne. He beat up brodhead, gustin, and Grant wehrli constantly. Seems like the same guy writing to me and I’ve followed this page since the smart meter wars.
I did not say otherwise, but this article does not support these individual based on their actions that directly benefited citizens (bipartisan issues like – city budget, utility rates, developments, redevelopments, etc.). It supports them based solely on partisan national political issues that have no proven direct benefit to Naperville citizens or our community.
Both Adcock (who is not a member of city council) and McBroom have based their behavior and elected office credentials on partisan right-leaning political issues and have made a point of being more about divisive political positions then what best serves the needs of our community and it citizens.
Finally, you clearly have not been following the Watchdog consistently because if you had you would know the person originally behind this website announce they were retiring over a year ago and would be turning it over to new management. I have posted about this many times (most don’t make it through moderation and on to the website) and if it were not true it would be easy enough for the person operating this site to post a denial on this site, which they have not.
How insightful to have a mouthpiece who can speak to original intent and thought behind the entire history of the Watchdog! You should consider a career as a carnival sideshow barker, guessing ages and weights along original intent and the careful research behind the thought pieces the Watchdog publishes. Could we all chip in to get you one of those swell silk turbans so you could be Swami Jimmy, The All-Commenting, All-Thinking-He-Is-Knowing-Everything Seer? That’d be cool, sitting in a little glass box all day and for the very reasonable contribution of 25 cents you could pontificate, prognosticate and epistilize on how important and valuable your utterly warped view of life is.
DEI is so much misdirected grift. Pure and simple. It is a fabricated issue, that is absolutely racist to the core, and the idea that there is a group of “professionals” who are able to see to the actual issues behind everything as being due to the levels of melanin expressed in skin color is just cringey. Any politician who buys into this racist extortion is no longer qualified for consideration for public service.
McBroom used his public office to draw official attention to the issue of the illegal border violators. That the sociopaths that support sheltering these criminals within our borders already had internal documents listing who would shelter these counterfeit Democratic voting imports is just more napalm on the fire. Actually kind of super effective in getting the issue into public debate, instead of being rushed through in executive session as you would prefer. And bottom line- the vast majority of Naperville residents do not support the housing of criminal invaders in our community, nor do they support the unchecked invasion that the Left welcomes.
Have you seen the Watchdog post challenging any of my claims about the Watchdog? If my “pontificate, prognosticate and epistilize” were off base, the Watchdog would have said so, but the lack of such comments tells the truth of the matter.
Its interesting how enchanted and enthralled the right has become with the terms “grifter” and “grifts” considering how common these two have become in the GOP over the last couple of decades. I would suggest the right start with cleaning the “grifters” and “grifting” out of their own house before telling others to do the same.
The offices of the city council exist to directly support and act to benefit the city and its citizens. The reality is there is zero data showing that anything happening at the border or with immigrants has had any impact (positive or negative) on our community, as well as no indication they will at anytime in the future. McBroom’s actions were solely intended to serve his own self-interests and not those of every citizen in our city, which is what the oath of office he took stated he would do. There is not denying he violated the oath he took with his immigration housing “grift” as well as wasting city resources.
The only people talking about adcock is adcock and local republicans. It interesting how local conservatives have distanced themselves from her and her group. She has no power and is not an elected official so not sure why watchdog even brings them up.
Haselhorst can’t stand it he was rejected by voters but voters love McBroom!
It was actually a complete rejection of his fascist daydreams. And the fact that any meeting he spoke at would run 17 hours overtime so he could get the last word in.
Not sure where you get the basis for any of your claims about me. If they are based solely on comments posted on this website, then your statement applies just as equally to you as me.
But at least I accept responsibility for my statements and actions while you hide behind some anonymous group, claiming your posts are some type of compilation of statement by this anonymous group’s members at some “smoke-filled room” meeting.
Can’t help but laugh at people that call me both a leftist and a fascist. You’re hilarious. You should take your act on the road.
Well- if you support rigid narrow authoritarian governance rife with top heavy oppression, a nanny state that has to control every aspect of our lives to comply with your personal standards and leadership by diktat, as you do, you are a Fascist. Your love of liberal talking points and embrace of failed policy shows us your liberal failings. Enjoy the laughs. The act is already on the road I’ll sign you up for the fanboy mailing list so you can get VIP tickets the next time we play your side of town.
You are aware that Fascism is a far-right political activity, making using it in reference to leftists or liberals an oxymoron.
Now, if you had said I was a socialist, which is a far-left political activity and a leftist, or a liberal, then you would have been making a statement that makes sense.
You have been listening to too many of the speeches by MAGA politicians who tend to make rambling, non-nonsensical statements like this regularly, and it is starting to affect your own ability to make rational statements.
Nipples Ian is upset because he won’t get credit for pushing 5th Ave forward. Grifter White can’t push it forward because he isn’t smart enough to do it. Then of course the left winger liberals that constantly scream about affordable housing in Naperville will not support it if it’s next to their mansion! Oh the irony!
I will start by pointing out the fact that the 5th Ave project was a Mayor Chirico initiative that started before 2017 (the RFQ for this project was issued in 2017). This is prior to both Ian and Benny being sworn in to city council for their first times.
Further, the failure of this project was the direct result of two things; lack of transparency and overreach. Affordable housing was not even part of the conversation during this project. Affordable housing did start being discussed as a problem by city council until after this project efforts had failed (two council election cycles later).
Finally, in 2017, there were no “mansions” in the area around the 5th Ave project. The closest thing were the townhouses west of the DuPage Children’s Museum. The major issue all the homeowners in this area had with this proposed development was the height of the buildings, which is the issue that could never be overcome (no compromise reached or even in sight). And it was for this reason that Mayor Chirico pulled the plug on this project.
Lots of lovely new million+ row homes there now. With lots of participation from business interests of some very notable public names in town. Please don’t pretend that you think that there isn’t a “Chicago way” to get things done here in Naperville. It’s just that these deals tend to get wonky when there are lights shined on them.
The only recent development of multi-building, multi-homes in this area (developments approved and built since the 5th Ave project ended) has been those built at the site of the old mansion. This project had lots of “lights shined” on it. Any claim that this project was not done with full transparency is delusional at best.
As to your “Chicago way” claim, please clarify exactly what this would be? I see and hear a lot of conservatives making these kinds of statements, but they never say exactly what this is.
This just seems to be another attempt at “scaring” people into supporting the people making these statements and their political agenda, using the big bad boogeyman of Chicago to make people afraid and get them to act out of fear.
The fact is, no one on Naperville city council or in city government has been criminally charged with abusing the authority of their office or taking any bribes. No member of the NPD has been criminally charged. The same applies to the Naperville Fire Department.
Implying the people in these positions can be bought dishonors them and their service. If you have so little respect for this city and its officials, perhaps you would be happier elsewhere. But I doubt it, since people like you, tend to like to find things to bitch about and will do so no matter where you call home.
That’s right, no criminal charges… YET. Not spending any time bitching about anything, we’ve been too busy working with law enforcement on the local, state and Federal level to root out the criminal organizations that have rooted themselves in Naperville. If you read the news, tracked the FOIA requests that Naperville has been processing, or paid attention to the public debate for the past 12 months you would know who and what this is going to affect. Note how effective the various FBI Taskforces have been in keeping you in the dark about the investigations that are happening in Naperville right now. Perhaps your vast National Security and Border Protection background would have been useful in the prosecution of the 4 illegal “asylum seekers trying to make a better life for their transgendered children” who were sent back to Venezuela three weeks ago after the seizure of 140 assault weapons here in DuPage County. But no, your answer is to go for the easy racist demand that we move because you are uncomfortable that we don’t prostrate ourselves before your gods.
Swami Red-lining Jimmy, Guardian of Naperville Purity, deciding who is pure enough in their thoughts to live in Naperville. That’s an interesting look. Get your quarters ready folks… The Swami gonna tell you.
DuPage County is not Naperville. Just because part of Naperville is in DuPage County does not mean Naperville is DuPage County.
You’re sounding more and more like Kevin Coyne every day. Taking about crimes that happened in other cities in DuPage County (like these 5 in Oak Brook) and trying somehow to tie that to a supposed “crime wave” in Naperville. Coyne has had to backtrack on this position more than once over the last few years.
What public debate? Where is this supposed public debate happening? Because it is not happening in city council meeting or, for that matter, in any of the meetings associated with Naperville city government.
A self-affirming collection of posts on some obscure Internet site does not constitute a public debate.
As to FOIA request, the city of Naperville hands dozens of these a year and has for the last couple of decades. There is nothing unusual about the city receiving and processing FOIA requests.
As to FBI task forces operating in Naperville. Under federal law, any government law enforcement agency conducting operations in a city’s jurisdiction must notify the city police department of their operation. So how exactly is the FBI operating in the “Dark” in Naperville?
I will end by point out, once again, you have provided no actually proof that any of your claims are true.
Jim, Does that make your behavior any better? You are a shill for the Left. Hey, that’s politics, but you are most definitely NOT objective. You are an apologist for some not great ideas, while you think you are on the side of MLK and civil rights, or whatever the fantasy is. Because of that misguided belief, you reflexively just support whatever Left idea is in the air and downplay anything from the right. That’s the way to go? Oh well.
WOW, you really have no idea who I am. If you did, you would know just how full of BS your claim that I “reflexively just support whatever Left idea” comes along, truly is.
I have posted against all bans of any kind, they just don’t work. That includes “assault rifle” bans. I have also spoken out against the movement to get the city council to issue a proclamation demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. Again, this is because I believe the city council needs to focus its time and resources on its duty, doing what most benefits our community and its citizens and engaging in national or even state politics simply fails in this area.
Not only have I posted on various websites and media outlets on these issues, I have also spoken before the city council on them. These are just two of the most recent liberal-supported issues I have actively spoken out against.
In fact, I have repeatedly posted how both the left and the right in our country are guilty of using misleading information, divisive political speech, claims of censorship, and fearmongering to promote their political agendas.
The right currently does these things with immigration, the southern border, education, DEI, religion, to name just a few.
The left currently does these things with gun control, free college education, the environment, ESG, again to name a few.
Starting with Reagan, it has become the norm for political parties to “sell” political ideologies using 5th Avenue marketing techniques (populism, slogans, labels, fear, divisiveness, negative campaigning, etc.) rather than to engage in rational discussions of the issues and the pros and cons of each party’s solutions to these issues.
In the current election, both parties have candidates that have not provided solutions to the various issues they are promising to resolve when in office. They are only making promises to fix things, and we all have learned, all too well, how good politicians are at keeping their promises. The most likely reason they failed to keep these promises is because they never had a workable solution to these problems to begin with. If we, the voters, demanded politicians provide actual workable plans for doing what they promised then maybe we would be a nation of problem solvers rather than a nation that just kicks the can down the road.
If anyone is being a “shill” for any political party, it is you. You consistently rely on the very political tactics I mentioned in the above paragraph to justify the political agendas you support. You never provide any actual information to support anything you say, you just attack everyone that you disagree with as being “apologists”, “boomers”, “Marxists”, “communists” and a long list of other labels, mostly divisive, you use in the “misguided belief” these actually do more to help your cause then hurt it. Your wrong.
I wasn’t able to get through your response, but if you say you are not just an apologist then we’ll keep an eye out for that as we go forward.
You couldn’t get through my response? That the lamest justification for your divisive post yet!!!
Progressive Authoritarianism is mostly driven by activists and True Believers. Jim falls in that category. But make no mistake, the ultimate goal of Progressive Authoritarianism is state power. As they say, “Our ideas are So Good they MUST be mandatory.” When one calls them on it the response is, “Whhhaaaat, that’s not happening!” Then you show them it is and they say, “It’s good that it’s happening!” If you then say, “Yeah, but it’s screwed up,” the response is, “Well, that’s the Rights fault!!!” Same playbook of the progressive authoritarians: Nothing to see here, move on!
The most recent example of Authoritarianism in the US was January 6th, which was promoted by far-right leaning leadership and has been reaffirmed by these same right wing leaders while being carried out by “true believers”. Based on your first sentence, the enter MAGA movement is an Authoritarian movement.
I will further remind you that is was Trump who tried, repeatedly, to use his office to try to make his ideas mandatory, only to have the courts rule his actions a violation of the US Constitution. Trump doubled down on his authoritarian efforts by using inciteful language that resulted in his MAGA supporters making death threats against these judges. And Trump is the one talking about suspending parts of the Constitution as well as congress, not anyone on the left and definitely not me.
Again, while you throw out a lot of divisive labels and political slogans, you have failed to provide any facts or information that supports a single claim you have made. All you have provided is divisive generalities.
As to the denial of actual events that have happened, one only needs to look to the right where people have denied Trump lost the 2020 election, being found to have committed rape (words of the judge in this trial not mine) and being convicted of felony criminal fraud. Of course, the right’s response to all of this is your favorite conspiracy theory, this is proof the left has weaponized the government, when in fact it was Trump that tried, and failed, to use the authority of the federal government against his political rivals, like with Hilary Clinton.
Finally, it is the MAGA crowd that is actually pushing to make their ideas mandatory, like abortion, which the majority of citizens agree should be legal (latest polls put support at over 70%). This sentiment runs so strong that even in red states, where legalizing abortion has been put on the ballot, have voted to make it legal.
Jim, Fascism is the centralization of power. The left says that the centralization is under a single person. But is that really the point? Like that’s even a remote possibility is the US.
In the US the centralization of power is under the party and the government. You know, controlling the bureaucracy, controlling the media, controlling the institutions. Is that starting to sound like a certain party you might be familiar with?
Fascism is not solely under a single person. Yes, this is the most common form but is has also existed under oligarchies (like political parties).
As to controlling the media, it was the Reagan administration which ended the federal fairness doctrine which prevented any group or individual from censoring information related to an issue, allowing prevention of any opposing positions from being presented. You remember Reagan, the guy who created the divisive label RINO and the political slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), right?
It was also the right, that when they could not push legislation limiting freedoms through the federal government started pushing the “state’s rights” agenda (except, of course, in states that disagreed with them or their agenda). You do remember it was right-leaning politicians like DeSantos that pushed to control higher education institutions and used government authority to retaliate when they did not comply, right?
As I stated in previous posts, some on the far left are just as guilty of this behavior as those on the right, but claiming this behavior only exists on the left is simply not supported by any data or study out there.
We, at least I, do NOT care about Trump. We care about Naperville. And it is critical to keep the inherent disorder and chaos of Progressive ideas and concepts OUT of Naperville. Naperville should always be Pro-family, Pro-Business, less government, the rule of law and the spirit of liberty as espoused in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Maybe we can agree on that. What we do not need is Progressive Authoritarianism under the cloak of Virtuous Empathy all put forth in protection of “Our Democracy.” Whenever you hear that term put the emphasis on the word Our, as in Dems in power forever. The ideas and concepts of the Progressives – NOT Liberals – do not work. They are extreme and bad for the people of Naperville. As for positions on the far right, no place for those either. Maybe we can agree on those two things.
*As far as abortion goes, what happened to “Safe, legal, and rare”?? And may I remind you, we all have a moral obligation to defend those that can’t defend themselves. The 70% number is nonsense. Stay away from the leftist polls. America is divided on the issue and the numbers have traditionally been pretty close, probably because Americans anbhor anborting human beings, but have concerns for the complicating rare exceptions. Again, we can probably agree on that, because to be otherwise is morally terrifying.
Again, where is your proof of any anti-family, anti-business agenda by the left?
I will remind you it was the right, not the left, that was against allowing dispensary businesses in Naperville, businesses that have brought jobs and economic growth to our city along with millions in additional city revenue.
I will remind you that it was the right, not the left, that supported eliminating the city’s liquor regulation that required alcohol to be displayed only in contained areas of stores with restricted access to make it possible to keep minors out. It was the right, not the left, that changed the liquor regulations to allow the display of alcohol throughout the store with promotions that target everyone that passes by them, including minors. Is this your idea of “pro-family”?
Yes, both the right and left in Naperville have voted to implement ordinances that place restrictions on business, most notably in the downtown area of the city. The ordinance banning “assault rifle” sales was supported by both the right and left-leaning members of the council, as was the ban on breeders-sourced puppies in pet stores.
As I have previously posted, I spoke out against both of these bans because bans don’t work. The “puppy mill” ordnance has proven ineffective at preventing Naperville residents from purchasing puppies from sources that the anti-puppy mill group said would stop under this ordnance. And the “assault rifle” ban will prove just as ineffective (as did the 10 year federal ban – which is why it was not reauthorized by congress). Yes, these useless bans have hurt businesses in Naperville, but they were bipartisan ordnances and not “progressive authoritarianism”.
As to my mentioning of Trump. I did this to provide examples of the behavior you claim is leftist (or progressive) but is actually regularly practiced by movements on the right. I did not provide examples of this in our local government because none of the things you post about are actually happening in our local government (which is why you can’t provide examples of this behavior in our local government).
On abortion, your quote “safe, legal and rare”. Not sure where you got the rare part of this quote from, but it is true that abortion is the rarest method used to prevent unwanted births, with condoms, birth control pills, vasectomies, tubal ligation, morning after pills, etc., being by far the major means of preventing these unwanted births. And the 70% number comes from pollsters that span across the political and religious spectrum. But if you can actually provide a link to a poll from a reputable, accepted authority on these types of polls, I would be happy to see it.
Finally, your post once again demonstrates your limitless ability to use divisive labels and generalities to push your political agenda, which you can not support with any actual facts, data or relevant information from any reputable and knowledgeable source. Sorry but the citizens of this city, as well as this country, are tired of people using bullying, fearmongering and hate to promote their political agenda. So if you want to stay relevant I suggest you find a new act.
It is 100 percent that all those sophisticated liberals with their Blue campaign signs proudly posted in front of their house will go absolutely nuclear if an affordable housing project of any size is considered for 5th Ave. They love their feel good liberal bs until those policies arrive on their doorsteps.
Actually not true. Again there have been several affordable housing project in many areas of the city and no one has gone “nuclear”.
The city actually adopted an ordnance that relaxed property development requirements for any projects that meets the affordable housing standard over a year ago and no one went “nuclear”. This new ordnance makes it possible to do developments in Naperville that would normally require a variance to be done without this requirement. This is because under this ordnance they would be conforming use developments requiring only city staff approval.
Jim, We actually are probably closer than one would think. Within your dissembling, bad “facts” and reflexive apologies for the Left, and your seeming tolerance for the ever creeping progressive agenda, which condones, turns a blind eye, whatever you want to call it, to the disordered and extreme nature of the Left, you occasionally make a good point on some issues. We’ll leave it there – for now!
I doubt we are anywhere near to being close.
I have supported issues promoted by both the political right and left in our community based on their merits, while you clearly discredit any issue supported by the left as part of a “creeping progressive agenda”.
Your statement that the left is “disordered and extreme nature” indicates that you blindly reject anything labeled as “coming from the left” as bad if not evil in nature, without taking anytime to actually review the matter and weigh its pros and cons.
Your posts also indicate a willingness on your part to be the one who “condones, turns a blind eye, whatever you want to call it” in support of any agenda promoted by the right, again without bothering to evaluate its pros and cons.
Jim, You got me! Just kidding. No, I read your stuff. Occasionally there’s some good stuff in there, but overall you’re basically an apologist. I usually don’t think about being on ‘’the political spectrum,” however, if we use that analogy, I cut off the extremes on the right and the Left. My feeling is they are basically the same, unreasonable, doctrinaire, and illiberal. While I cut off any extreme positions to the right, because they are not Classically Liberal, where exactly does the Left cut off the extreme positions? When has the Left gone too far? My answer is Equity. Once they start talking about “Equity,” then what they really mean is taking from some to give to others to make things, you know, more “fair.” While positioning yourself as some kind of moderate, you basically apologize and condone whatever smells of “Equity.” Still, while your posts are too long and unfocused, there are sometimes decent points in there. I can acknowledge that!! In the meantime, here’s for a more conservative, pro-family, pro-business (did you really bring up pot dispensaries as your example of “pro-business”? LoL) Naperville – Our Home!
When you say something positive about a person, then describe them using a divisive label like apologist, that is what is known as a backhand compliment. Nice try, but it is still just another attempt to marginalize the content of my posts and thus justify not providing any facts or information to refute my point or support you own.
Further you can’t seriously be claiming to be a moderate while always posting negatives about liberals and the left while never criticizing anything done by anyone on the right. I have yet to see you post anything that could be considered a a criticism of the right.
As to “Equity”, this is not a new theme. It actually goes back to the early 1900’s and was the whole underlying theme of the Civil Rights movement. Are you saying the entire Civil Rights movement was about taking from some to give to others?
What is your problem with dispensaries? If you have a problem with dispensaries but don’t have a problem with alcohol being displayed throughout a store and sold at every seat-down restaurant, every grocery store, every Walmart, ect, then you are the one that can’t be serious. Teenage alcoholism is a far greater problem in this country than cannabis abuse. And you don’t want to get me started on tobacco products that push nicotine, the original gateway drug (the first study to use this term was about nicotine addiction and how it permanently changes brain chemistry, leading to abuse of other drugs). Researchers today still consider nicotine to be the most addictive and habit-forming drug on the planet. Sorry but if you consider tobacco stores and liquor stores businesses, then so are dispensaries. And any ordnance making this business possible is a pro-business ordnance.
Jim, You clearly don’t want to be my friend, but I’m trying! We live in the same town! We gotta make this work!! But anywho…Equity. NO, 100% NO, the early Civil Rights movement, especially as lead by MLK was NEVER about Equity. It was about Equality, the right to an opportunity in society, and the rule of law in which all are held equal. MLK was Christian minister and the entire thrust of his movement was that government enforced segregation and other racial enforced modes was 1) Un-Christian, and 2) Un-American. That of course was captured in the colorblind plea in his 1963 Washington DC speech. THAT approach was overtaken in the middle 60s by the Marxist victim v oppressor ideology as espoused by the Black Panthers and quickly co-opted by white elites, like the Weathermen and the academic intelligentsia. THAT was when Equity won the day. MLK colorblind, un-Christian, un-American OUT and hardcore Equity in. You are on the wrong side again.
MLK’s message was that everyone should be treated fairly and impartially. As you pointed out in your reference to his “I have a Dream” speech (which is generally considered to not be “colorblind plea” but a “content of their character” speech as he states in this speech).
To claim all MLK wanted was segregation gone and jim crow laws gone, is a gross misrepresentation of this goals.
Twisting statements like judging people based on the “content of their character” to mean “colorblind plea” only makes sense if you consider the man making these statements is black, which is the exact opposite of his point.
Further the Black Panthers were about black nationalism (verses white nationalism) not Marxism (stop confusing Socialism with Marxism, they are not the same thing, although the radical right keeps pushing this narrative, there are several democratic socialist governments in Europe that proves this equality to be BS).
To call organizations like the Weatherman “academic intelligentsia” is another BS statement. Almost all the members of these organizations were college dropout, not member of the academic community (being a college student does not make you an academician). And you have definitely misused the term white elites, who were the people actually behind the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
And racism was consider “Un-human” long before it was considered “Un-Christian” or “Un-American”, which is why it has a long history of being against the laws in European countries (long before the US) and why European countries never needed civil rights laws like in the US.
Jim,
When you gaslight people, try and hide the hose. Your response is nonsense. Yeah, Black Panthers weren’t Marxist. Righto. MLK wasn’t about downplaying the significance of race, and that content of character didn’t evoke the ethos of “color-blindness” (a term Lefties today, BTW, hate because of course everyone and everything MUST be about!! How can we fund our DEI boondoggle as, you know, “just being fair,” if everything is NOT about race!).
Yeah, the Weathermen, at least those that didn’t blow themselves up, and were the leaders of that wretched movement didn’t end up in Academia. Sure, sure.
Your history is warped (Oh so very Howard Zinn!!). It WAS white Christians that led the charge to end slavery.
Hide the hose a little better next time. My guess is that you get away with your alternative history and facts because people just give up reading your rambling misinformation, disinformation, apologies for the excesses of The Left.
Not sure of your source that the Black Panthers were communists, since you haven’t provided one, but not even the FBI considered the Black Panthers communists.
The Black Panthers were a militant off-shoot of the Black Power movement, which dates back to WWII. They were founded by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale as a Black community self defense group based on the teaching of Malcolm X and operated mostly in California.
Yes, they did adopt some things promoted by Mao Zedong. Like his community survival programs, which was the inspiration for the BP Free Breakfast for Children. But this and other such programs are actually social programs which are now common today.
The Panthers had an education program they pushed that included a lengthy reading list of books and other publications. None of the writings of Marx, Mao or any other “communist” literature is on this list.
Were they “revolutionaries”? Yes, but revolutionaries for civil rights. It was the practice of open carry of loaded firearms in public that inspired then Governor Reagan to sign into law legislation that outlawed carrying a loaded firearm in public without a permit. A permit denied to blacks even MLK who was the target of multiple credible death threats.
As to your statement about Weatherman coming from academia, it was incorrect. Yes, two members did, decades later, become professors. But this was long after their time as Weatherman and only after decades spent working with local leaders like Chicago Mayor Daley helping to build a better communities. Any claim they were anything other than students when they became Weatherman is blatantly false.
What is your source for the claim the movement to end slavery was started by white Christians? Historically, the movement to end slavery was not started by white Christians, but by a government. Specifically, the British Government, which not only banned all forms of slavery in all the lands it controlled but also engaged in a global blockade of slave ships.
It was this aggressive act by Britain to end slavery that resulted in Southern states shifting from relying on shipments of new slaves from Africa to local slave breeding programs. This is how the roughly 300,000 slaves shipped to the US from Africa became over 3 million slaves freed after the war.
What is true is that the US slave trade was started by white Christians and all the slave owners in the US were white Christians, many of whom fought to the death to keep slavery alive in the US. It was also white Christian preachers who justified slavery by preaching that blacks were not humans.