Connect with us


Identity Politics

Politically Correct

How Liberals are Defeating Liberty in America

There is a clear connection between lack of knowledge of the Constitution and the present craziness and the loss of liberty in the US today.

Seraphim Hanisch




It is a fact, but also an utter contradiction in terms, that “liberals” are completely against “liberty” in the United States. While this is a contradiction in theory, in practice it is absolutely normative in the nation’s culture.

Starting with the disintegration of a robust education in the nation’s history and Constitutional principles, the notion of what “freedom” means has been increasingly warped, and for the most part Americans are content to allow their freedoms to be subtly whittled away in the name of “progress”, “tolerance”, “equality” or any number of other buzzwords.

The effects are profound.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

The responses here are fascinating, and in fact this stunning lack of knowledge of the rights upheld in the First Amendment is the chief tool used by liberals to violate one’s personal liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution.

Here is the Amendment’s text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The five freedoms therefore are:

  1. Congress may not regulate religious practice by passage of any laws
  2. Freedom of speech
  3. Freedom of the press
  4. The right of people to assemble peaceably and
  5. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is worth noting these in contrast to the things the students in the video discuss as the video progresses.

Freedom of religion

It is very significant that the first liberty kept out of Congress’ grip is freedom to worship God according to one’s faith and practice without fear of sanction from the government.

Very few students mention it in the video, and it is not surprising that cases brought against businesses run by Christian owners have come under serious fire from legal levels, as happened with the Colorado baker Jack Phillips to the extent that his business was barely saved by an acknowledgement, even from liberal US Supreme Court justices that his religious liberty was deliberately attacked.

This case should have never left the town in which it happened, and it got all the way to the highest court in the nation before it was stopped.

Freedom of speech

We presently experience massive amounts of political mudslinging, but there is a clear bias as to whose opinions are “acceptable” in the public arena and whose are not. Supporters of President Trump have first hand experience with this problem as they have been almost unilaterally shouted down, harangued, even physically attacked and beaten, for supporting a man who went on the record saying that the United States Court system ought to be comprised of judges and justices who interpret the Constitution as written, and not according to the latest activist whim.

The Tea Party site noted the incredible hypocrisy surrounding the decision of one Candace Owens to retweet the racist, white-hating tweets of the New York Times’ new media darling Sarah Jeong, but simply replacing the word “white” with “black” or “Jew” – this action got Owens a 12 hour suspension on Twitter, while Ms Jeong’s public rants went unchecked:

This tweet was the only one found without foul and inappropriate language, all of which were allowed to remain on Twitter without comment or sanctions. But change the word from “white” to “black” and… instant outrage and suspension:

Freedom of the press

While it would seem that the press in the USA is indeed free – just mostly liberal – this is not really the case. The government and most of the mainstream media could be justifiably termed as being in collusion – for the government and mass media narratives on many subjects are all but identical.

Topics included in that are: President Trump, Russia, border security, climate change and healthcare, as well as general foreign policy views. In these areas, there is almost monolithic agreement of opinion and worldview. When taken objectively, it becomes very clear that there is not really a free press, but one that is complicit with the worldview of the powerful. This was most notably manifested on the Tuesday, August 7th report that Big Tech concerns Apple and Facebook deleted Alex Jones’ links and media from their sites:

While there may be no government-directed “control” of the media per se, there is very little room for “going off the reservation.” It is for this reason that President Trump was almost unanimously vilified by all prominent news agencies (including many at Fox) for his willingness to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on 16 July.

There is great power behind the attempt to defame Russia, and there is apparently a great deal of resistance at many levels to anyone in the US coming clean with just how false and full of lies the American “official” narrative about Russia actually is.

The right of people to assemble peaceably

This again is not something that the government itself has directly seized control of. However the level of intolerance on the part of the Left, mostly, to all things conservative mean that sometimes peaceful assemblies of conservatives attract attacks. The accusation of the Left is that Trump supporters are neo-Nazis, which is outrageously false. There might be a few such people but they are as likely to be on one side as on the other.

The right of people to petition their government for redress of grievances

This phrase refers to the right of citizens to petition their government without being blocked in any way from doing so. According to the Heritage Foundation, this right has largely been subsumed into the general idea of freedom of speech, but it still has an independent standing as a way for people to bring their concerns before the government directly.

Part of the reason this right may be presently considered just a part of the right to free speech is because of lack of education in how the Constitution works, allowing the government to be merely “those people we elect to help us from on high” but without a clear understanding of the nation as a representative Republic.

The students in the video knew almost nothing of the First Amendment, and when they were asked various questions, such as “how do you define the right to free speech?” they responded, not from the standpoint of the law as given by the Law of the Land, but from how they personally thought and felt about various issues. In that regard, their response was “whatever doesn’t offend people; whatever doesn’t hurt anyone; we have to be careful of what we say…”

All of which is fine, but it is without law. 

This notion of lawlessness is significant.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

7 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
tomGio ConPRsonlosdurosStop Bush and Clintonvoza0db Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances” seems pretty meaningless to me. You can petition anyone you like for anything you want, but that doesn’t mean you will get it. It doesn’t even mean they have to listen to you.

And I can’t see the slightest difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which is just a special case of freedom of speech.

Gio Con
Gio Con

Not surprised to see these clueless student responses. The US educational system is dismal — it simply follows trends like identity politics. Hence, “not saying anything that will hurt someone” is identity politics, not constitutional law.


This is so sad…!

Stop Bush and Clinton
Stop Bush and Clinton

Good points, but pinning the blame on the wrong culprit. It’s too easy to blame everything on the opposing political side. Dick Cheney is absolutely not a liberal – but he’s very much part of the anti-liberty movement – and a number of anti-Clinton liberals aren’t part of the problem. I also find it hard to see “liberal bias” in the very same media that supported Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld’s wars and Patriot Act. “Left” and “right”, “liberal and “conservative” have become meaningless in most ways. The Anti-Liberty movement (for lack of a better name) is made up of criminals from far “left”/”liberal”… Read more »


The video sure is funny! Asking slaves what are the “freedoms” they have the privilege to use… And most of them don’t know a single one… Well they sure are free to be dumb modern salves!


On one hand we as a people can challange the status que, we can boycott we can protest WE the people have control and can Force Google to put this guy back up. But.. There will be a Price if the people act to quickly. the powers that control the Media must not be underestimated and do not expect this guy to come back tomorow, this is going to take weeks. What I do advise ALL people to do, is to not play by their rules. Take the war of the minds of the Masses to them with “Word of… Read more »


it seems that the author is making the argument that it is ok to be prejudiced against someones sexuality but not their religion. How is prejudice against gays any better than prejudice against a religion? Isn’t prejudice itself the enemy of man? A business which is freely open to the public cannot prejudice against any who it has, by dint of being open for business, invited onto its’ premises to conduct business.


European Court of Justice rules Britain free to revoke Brexit unilaterally

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Britain can reverse Article 50.





Via RT…

The UK is free to unilaterally revoke a notification to depart from the EU, the European Court has ruled. The judicial body said this could be done without changing the terms of London’s membership in the bloc.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) opined in a document issued on Monday that Britain can reverse Article 50, which stipulates the way a member state leaves the bloc. The potentially important ruling comes only one day before the House of Commons votes on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal with the EU.

“When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that Member State is free to revoke unilaterally that notification,” the court’s decision reads.

By doing so, the respective state “reflects a sovereign decision to retain its status as a Member State of the European Union.”

That said, this possibility remains in place “as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that Member State has not entered into force.” Another condition is: “If no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU.”

The case was opened when a cross-party group of British politicians asked the court whether an EU member such as the UK can decide on its own to revoke the withdrawal process. It included Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, Scottish MPs Joanna Cherry Alyn Smith, along with Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer.

They argued that unilateral revocation is possible and believe it could provide an opening to an alternative to Brexit, namely holding another popular vote to allow the UK to remain in the EU.

“If the UK chooses to change their minds on Brexit, then revoking Article 50 is an option and the European side should make every effort to welcome the UK back with open arms,” Smith, the SNP member, was quoted by Reuters.

However, May’s environment minister, Michael Gove, a staunch Brexit supporter, denounced the ECJ ruling, insisting the cabinet will not reverse its decision to leave. “We will leave on March 29, [2019]” he said, referring to the date set out in the UK-EU Brexit deal.

In the wake of the landmark vote on the Brexit deal, a group of senior ministers threatened to step down en masse if May does not try to negotiate a better deal in Brussels, according to the Telegraph. The ministers demanded that an alternative deal does not leave the UK trapped within the EU customs union indefinitely.

On Sunday, Will Quince resigned as parliamentary private secretary in the Ministry of Defense, saying in a Telegraph editorial that “I do not want to be explaining to my constituents why Brexit is still not over and we are still obeying EU rules in the early 2020s or beyond.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Seven Days of Failures for the American Empire

The American-led world system is experiencing setbacks at every turn.



Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

On November 25, two artillery boats of the Gyurza-M class, the Berdiansk and Nikopol, one tugboat, the Yany Kapu, as well as 24 crew members of the Ukrainian Navy, including two SBU counterintelligence officers, were detained by Russian border forces. In the incident, the Russian Federation employed Sobol-class patrol boats Izumrud and Don, as  well as two Ka-52, two Su-25 and one Su-30 aircraft.

Ukraine’s provocation follows the advice of several American think-tanks like the Atlantic Council, which have been calling for NATO involvement in the Sea of Azov for months. The area is strategically important for Moscow, which views its southern borders, above all the Sea of Azov, as a potential flash point for conflict due to the Kiev’s NATO-backed provocations.

To deter such adventurism, Moscow has deployed to the Kerch Strait and the surrounding coastal area S-400 batteries, modernized S-300s, anti-ship Bal missile systems, as well as numerous electronic-warfare systems, not to mention the Russian assets and personnel arrayed in the military districts abutting Ukraine. Such provocations, egged on by NATO and American policy makers, are meant to provide a pretext for further sanctions against Moscow and further sabotage Russia’s relations with European countries like Germany, France and Italy, as well as, quite naturally, to frustrate any personal interaction between Trump and Putin.

This last objective seems to have been achieved, with the planned meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 in Buenos Aires being cancelled. As to the the other objectives, they seem to have failed miserably, with Berlin, Paris and Rome showing no intention of imposing additional sanctions against Russia, recognizing the Ukrainian provocation fow what it is. The intention to further isolate Moscow by the neocons, neoliberals and most of the Anglo-Saxon establishment seems to have failed, demonstrated in Buenos Aires with the meeting between the BRICS countries on the sidelines and the bilateral meetings between Putin and Merkel.

On November 30, following almost two-and-a-half months of silence, the Israeli air force bombed Syria with three waves of cruise missiles. The first and second waves were repulsed over southern Syria, and the third, composed of surface-to-surface missiles, were also downed. At the same time, a loud explosion was heard in al-Kiswah, resulting in the blackout of Israeli positions in the area.

The Israeli attack was fully repulsed, with possibly two IDF drones being downed as well. This effectiveness of Syria’s air defenses corresponds with Russia’s integration of Syria’s air defenses with its own systems, manifestly improving the Syrians’ kill ratios even without employing the new S-300 systems delivered to Damascus, let alone Russia’s own S-400s. The Pantsirs and S-200s are enough for the moment, confirming my hypothesis more than two months ago that the modernized S-300 in the hands of the Syrian army is a potentially lethal weapon even for the F-35, forbidding the Israelis from employing their F-35s.

With the failed Israeli attack testifying to effectiveness of Russian air-defense measures recently deployed to the country, even the United States is finding it difficult to operate in the country. As the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War confirms:

“Russia has finished an advanced anti-access/area denial (A2AD) network in Syria that combines its own air defense and electronic warfare systems with modernized equipment. Russia can use these capabilities to mount the long-term strategic challenge of the US and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East, significantly widen the geographic reach of Russia’s air defense network. Russia stands to gain a long-term strategic advantage over NATO through its new capabilities in Syria. The US and NATO must now account for the risk of a dangerous escalation in the Middle East amidst any confrontation with Russia in Eastern Europe.”

The final blow in a decidedly negative week for Washington’s ambitions came in Buenos Aires during the G20, where Xi Jinping was clearly the most awaited guest, bringing in his wake investments and opportunities for cooperation and mutual benefit, as opposed to Washington’s sanctions and tariffs for its own benefit to the detriment of others. The key event of the summit was the dinner between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump that signalled Washington’s defeat in the trade war with Beijing. Donald Trump fired the first shot of the economic war, only to succumb just 12 months later with GM closing five plants and leaving 14,000 unemployed at home as Trump tweeted about his economic achievements.

Trump was forced to suspend any new tariffs for a period of ninety days, with his Chinese counterpart intent on demonstrating how an economic war between the two greatest commercial powers had always been a pointless propagandistic exercise. Trump’s backtracking highlights Washington’s vulnerability to de-dollarization, the Achilles’ heel of US hegemony.

The American-led world system is experiencing setbacks at every turn. The struggle between the Western elites seems to be reaching a boil, with Frau Merkel ever more isolated and seeing her 14-year political dominance as chancellor petering out. Macron seems to be vying for the honor of being the most unpopular French leader in history, provoking violent protests that have lasted now for weeks, involving every sector of the population. Macron will probably be able to survive this political storm, but his political future looks dire.

The neocons/neoliberals have played one of the last cards available to them using the Ukrainian provocation, with Kiev only useful as the West’s cannon fodder against Russia. In Syria, with the conflict coming to a close and Turkey only able to look on even as it maintains a strong foothold in Idlib, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States are similarly unable to affect the course of the conflict. The latest Israeli aggression proved to be a humiliation for Tel Aviv and may have signalled a clear, possibly definitive warning from Moscow, Tehran and Damascus to all the forces in the region. The message seems to be that there is no longer any possibility of changing the course of the conflict in Syria, and every provocation from here on will be decisively slapped down. Idlib is going to be liberated and America’s illegal presence in the north of Syria will have to be dealt with at the right time.

Ukraine’s provocation has only strengthened Russia’s military footprint in Crimea and reinforced Russia’s sovereign control over the region. Israel’s recent failure in Syria only highlights how the various interventions of the US, the UK, France and Turkey over the years have only obliged the imposition of an almost unparalleled A2AD space that severely limits the range of options available to Damascus’s opponents.

The G20 also served to confirm Washington’s economic diminution commensurate with its military one in the face of an encroaching multipolar environment. The constant attempts to delegitimize the Trump administration by America’s elites, also declared an enemy by the European establishment, creates a picture of confusion in the West that benefits capitals like New Delhi, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran who offer instead stability, cooperation and dialogue.

As stated in previous articles, the confusion reigning amongst the Western elites only accelerates the transition to a multipolar world, progressively eroding the military and economic power of the US.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Is Silicon Valley Morphing Into The Morality Police?

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

The Duran



Authored by Adrian Cohen via

Silicon Valley used to be technology companies. But it has become the “morality police,” controlling free speech on its platforms.

What could go wrong?

In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said:

“Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That’s why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms.”

Here’s the goliath problem:

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

Will Christians who don’t support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It’s already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond.

Their crime?

Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won’t tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.

For context, consider that in oppressive Islamist regimes throughout the Middle East, the “morality police” take it upon themselves to judge women’s appearance, and if a woman doesn’t conform with their mandatory and highly restrictive dress code — e.g., wearing an identity-cloaking burqa — she could be publicly shamed, arrested or even stoned in the town square.

In modern-day America, powerful technology companies are actively taking the role of the de facto morality police — not when it comes to dress but when it comes to speech — affecting millions. Yes, to date, those affected are not getting stoned, but they are being blocked in the digital town square, where billions around the globe do their business, cultivate their livelihoods, connect with others and get news.

That is a powerful cudgel to levy against individuals and groups of people. Wouldn’t you say?

Right now, unelected tech billionaires living in a bubble in Palo Alto — when they’re not flying private to cushy climate summits in Davos — are deciding who gets to enjoy the freedom of speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and who does not based on whether they agree with people’s political views and opinions or not.

You see how dangerous this can get — real fast — as partisan liberal elites running Twitter, Facebook, Google (including YouTube), Apple and the like are now dictating to Americans what they can and cannot say online.

In communist regimes, these types of folks are known as central planners.

The election of Donald Trump was supposed to safeguard our freedoms, especially regarding speech — a foundational pillar of a democracy. It’s disappointing that hasn’t happened, as the censorship of conservative thought online has gotten so extreme and out of control many are simply logging off for good.

A failure to address this mammoth issue could cost Trump in 2020. If his supporters are blocked online — where most voters get their news — he’ll be a one-term president.

It’s time for Congress to act before the morality police use political correctness as a Trojan horse to decide our next election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter