Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Why the media is having a meltdown over DACA

Published

on

14 Views

For three days now, the MSM has been screaming bloody murder about an alleged (and denied) vulgarity spoken by President Trump in a closed-door meeting about immigration reform and DACA.  We have covered this media meltdown extensively in pieces you can link to here and here. But now, let’s have a look into what the REAL news about DACA is, and we might even understand why the MSM is having such a meltdown.

On January 12th, the American radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh noted during his program that although there was not any detail about this known yet, the apparent issue was that President Trump was outraged over the Democrats trying to hand him a total nothing-burger deal about immigration.  We have to remember that one of President Trump’s wishes is to get the United States to adopt a “merit based” immigration position, where the US screens people who want to come to live in the USA in regards to what they can and will contribute to the well-being of this nation.

This is not a strange or barbarous position to take on immigration.  Canada does it. Australia does it, Germany, Hong Kong, Denmark, New Zealand and other nations in the world probably do it as well.  In fact, the United States itself ran with such a system up until the year 1952.  Such a vetting process may go far in reducing the chance that elements who get in to a given nation will then attack it and its people.

What was proposed by the Congressional representatives that started this?

From a January 11 piece run on Vox.com, this was the basic outline of the proposal. Please note that it is a framework, and not extremely specific (though it may appear so on first reading:)

Allowing young unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children to get legal status — and eventually citizenship:The deal would allow hundreds of thousands of unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children, and meet other requirements (which aren’t yet clear), to apply for provisional legal status in the US. After a certain number of years, they’d be eligible to apply for green cards — and after another three or five years, like other green card holders, they would be able to apply for US citizenship.

Legalization wouldn’t just be open to the 690,000 immigrants who were protected under the DACA program when Trump started winding it down in September; it would also include immigrants who qualified for DACA and never applied (or whose protections expired without renewal), or who meet the requirements set forward in the bill, as well as immigrants under 15 who weren’t able to apply for DACA. And unlike DACA, it would be permanent.

Preventing “chain migration” by preventing parents of DREAMers from becoming US citizens: In order to make it impossible for people legalized under this bill to sponsor their parents for citizenship, the bill would make parents of DREAMers ineligible to get green cards, making it impossible for them to naturalize. It would instead provide them with a form of legal status that could be renewed every three years.

By putting the restriction on parents of DREAMers, rather than directly restricting DREAMers’ ability to sponsor relatives after becoming citizens, the bill could avoid a constitutional pitfall. But it could end up locking out immigrant parents who have both a DREAMer and a native-born US citizen in the family — who would currently be eligible for green cards when their citizen children turned 21.

Eliminating the diversity visa lottery and reallocating the 50,000 visas currently used for it: As first reported by Politico’s Seung Min Kim, the proposed DACA deal would kill two birds with one stone. It would eliminate the visa lottery. But instead of just allowing 50,000 fewer immigrants into the US legally each year, it would reallocate those visas. Some of them would go to immigrants from underrepresented countries, just on some non-lottery basis; other visas would go to immigrants whose Temporary Protected Status is about to expire due to the Trump administration’s aggressive moves to end the program. (Right now, people with TPS can’t get green cards; under this deal, they could.)

A few billion dollars for the border: NBC’s Leigh Ann Caldwell reported that the deal as presented to Trump would have included $1.6 billion for physical barriers (which Caldwell called a fence but the White House would probably call a wall), surveillance tech, and agent training — and another $1.2 billion for “other priorities” on border security. Those numbers are roughly in line with what the White House asked for for a single year on the border in its 2017 supplemental funding requests.

But these sound like good proposals.  Why is President Trump so angry about them?

If we take each of these points at face value it is easy to see why President Trump would strenuously object to them.

The first proposal shows zero movement towards merit-based vetting. In fact is at the very least, DACA repeated and with possibly more liberality as there are “unknown” criteria used. The fact that it extends DACA provisions to people who have never applied for citizenship since the order was made in 2014, more than three years ago.  In other words, people who did not care enough about getting legal to even file are getting a chance they ought not have.

The second proposal does indeed prevent parents of “Dreamers” from receiving US citizenship, but it does provide them with a renewable permit to stay in the US, presumably with no change. This comes down to a formality-based amnesty.  No one gets deported from breaking the law in this scenario.

The third proposal again starts with the right words “eliminating the visa lottery”, but then offers it in a different way with “reallocate the 50,000 visas in some other way, to ‘underrepresented countries'” – well, so what are we saying?  Is it a lottery or a random giveaway? – in other words, there is NO difference here.  The move to merit based naturalization cannot involve free giveaways of American visas.  Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who would come here to take advantage the opportunity to do so and game the government who gave these out, but if we asked the question of “do you want to go to America to succeed, to build a good life and support your new land” in the process, most of these people would rather stay home.  This is still a freebie and utterly unchanged in the nature of the policy.

Finally for the fourth proposal, “a few billion dollars for the border.” While this would seem to be what President Trump wants, so he can complete the wall / fence along the Mexican border, the combined weight of the first three proposals makes the wall’s existence all but pointless. It is an expensive equivalent perhaps, of telling a grown man that he may go ahead and play with his blocks as long as everyone else gets what they want.

The net loser in this is the United States.  Her sovereignty is not supported in any possible way by these proposals.

And in that context, it would seem that even if Mr Trump did use a vulgarity, it was probably absolutely correct in context with what he was presented.  The Congressional salesmen and women tried to treat the President, an extremely astute businessman, like a chump, and he wasn’t having it and he let them know it.  Since it was a closed-door meeting, it would seem that it would have not been unseemly for plenty MORE expletive language to occur.  By the President’s own admission, there was indeed tough language.

CNN tries to stir up opposition to Trump by broadcasting illegal immigration protests… from Mexico!

Media and Trump opponents spin and spin…

The media has tried to portray this as racism and prejudice.  But it really is not.  It is a nothing-burger proposal that met a very blunt end, hopefully, and Trump’s call probably aggravated some bleeding hearts.  That is what this is.  When it comes down to it, probably 90% of adult Americans use this alleged language and far worse.  CNN made sure the whole world knew that they say things like this! As happened with Judge Roy Moore, the media has attempted a “moral” play, but hopefully the American people are wise to this nonsense and will reject it for the hypocrisy that it is. However, for those who dislike everything Trump, they will, and have, eagerly eaten the junk food the press has offered them these last three days.  And, in classic fashion, attention has been deflected from the immigration issue itself.

So, let’s take this a little farther.

What are the actual issues at hand?.

The liberal hold on American domestic policy has been very strong over the last several decades, most significantly so in the time of Presidents George W. Bush and Obama, with Obama in the clear lead in terms of liberalized policies that all “family based” immigration, which leads to the phenomenon of “chain migration,” where once a family sets up some foothold in the US in which to live and work, the other relatives come too, to try to find the same experience. This sometimes has a very bad side effect, in that it allows criminal elements in just because “they’re family” and sometimes those criminals commit crimes in their new home, like this one.  The story goes that after this point in the early 1950’s, the government authorities began to shift the policy on immigration toward “family” based ideology, which came to mean that if one member of a family emigrated to the USA the rest could more easily come, too.  However, this became “rigged” as a tool by the political party that supported it, because it could be used to manipulate the group of incoming immigrants to support that party which supported their own family migration into the country.  In recent years this has been held to be a Democrat mechanism for securing their own power whilst not really helping the American nation as a whole. Further breakdowns in American society and governance, for very interesting and subtle reasons, have led to an immigration policy that appears to be largely powerless to stop waves of illegal immigration, because people who get deported manage to get back in the country and live here while easily avoiding of the authorities.  This has led to sad stories such as this one, and there are far worse ones as well.

 

The State of Arizona fully supports California’s sanctuary state status.

What the United States has now appears to be a situation of near anarchy with regards to immigration.  California declared itself a “sanctuary state” and there are many US “sanctuary cities” where federal immigration law enforcement is disregarded.  There are many good people caught up in this because it has been drilled into the minds and hearts of many Americans that we must never turn away anyone who wants to come to this country, because to do so is not compassionate, or it is racist, or cruel in some other way; it’s not fair, after all, our ancestors or ourselves came in… and so on.

As the reader can see, this is truly an emotionally-charged political debate.  Sometimes it invites the desire to talk about issues that seem parallel, but are not (as printed in Russia Today here), but if we look at the situation without all the stormy emotions, it comes down to one or two real issues.

One issue is the concept of national sovereignty – that assumed right of any nation or state to define its own boundaries, and to make and enforce its own policies within those established boundaries.  The second issue is security – the execution of policies needed to keep said nation or state safe from intrusion, invasion or otherwise subversion. Both of these concepts are the true center of the debate.

But the emotional center is the matter titled “fairness and compassion.”  The alleged vulgarity by the president certainly would be seen as a terrible affront to the idea of being compassionate.  But it has gone much farther.  For decades now, the running narrative about immigrants coming into the United States was the repetition of “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free / the wretched refuse of your teeming shore…”, from Emma Lazarus’ historically important sonnet.  This is truly a noble sentiment. Further, though, the incredible luxury of American life has also been turned into a tool used to provoke a sense of guilt – and a sense that America does not have the right to enforce its own sovereignty over its borders because we have it so good that we owe the rest of the world something. We also get such heart-rending photos as this one:

Mexican-American mother and child, as caught on camera.

While no one who is sensible wants to be cruel, the notion that by enforcing the law we are being cruel is is a classic liberal trope, and it is based purely in emotionalism and not in logic.  It leads to very misleading comments like this one, taken from the New York Times’ recent piece on this matter (emphasis mine):

And lawmakers are already facing a difficult fight over the politically volatile subject of immigration, with the fates of hundreds of thousands of young immigrants hanging in the balance. Adding to the uncertain picture for those immigrants, the Trump administration resumed accepting renewals for the program over the weekend, under orders from a federal judge who is hearing a legal challenge to Mr. Trump’s dismantling of the program.

The emphasized line is a lie. It would be accurately presented if it said, “with the fates of hundreds of thousands of illegal alien immigrants hanging in the balance…”  Because these are not people that are going through the naturalization process.  They are people that have not done this, and may not be doing it now.  However, if they were in process of becoming citizens, or at least legal visiting workers, then this does not apply to them.  This is a prime example of misleading writing pulling heartstrings of people who are not being intellectually honest about this topic.

Now, there IS a place where these ideas must necessarily meet, and that meeting place is precisely what President Trump has been working towards achieving.  The televised meeting with the Congressional representatives showed this in an enormously successful way.  However, the next meeting featured the liberal elements giving Trump a proposal for how to deal with immigration and Trump was outraged because the offered idea was no kind of a solution at all.  Apparently it was a free-for all for simply continuing things as they were before, which has been the problem in the first place. Now, President Trump took fire for three days with reporters blasting him for the alleged vulgarity, only for him to make a statement simply saying he never said anything of the sort in the meeting.  But he also said this:

Continuing food for thought

As this piece draws to a close, the reader is invited to compare three ideas regarding immigration.

For most of us, when we think about allowing immigrants or refugees into our nation, we feel compassion and pity for the people who are fleeing some really bad place (any words come to mind?) and to come to our land which is a really lovely, prosperous nation.  It sounds great and right, we say; they should be able to come.

Then we start investigating where we will put them.  It still remains a kind and pleasant thought when we hear or read about the same refugees being located in Texas, or California, or New York, or Arkansas, or Wyoming.  It’s a great idea especially in the minds of people who do not live in these places.

Then we get to cities.  With a few exceptions, perhaps, this is where the resistance truly begins.  The idea of creating government housing in Chicago for a new set of 10,000 Syrian refugees is something that will not appeal to Chicago residents, for example.  And this disapproval will happen at street level even in Sanctuary Cities.

Although this is an improbable situation, it still begs thought:  Now, what about hosting these refugees in your own home.  After all, they need help, and we said we should be compassionate.  So, how can we show it?

Most of us do not want our lives interfered with by the influx of total strangers who may or may not be responsible for themselves, who may or may not be law-abiding people, who may or may not be safe for our wives and children to be around…

It is not to say that all immigrants are bad.  It IS to say that immigration should be conducted in such a way as to protect the nation they are immigrating to. That means vetting, interviews and that great question: “What will you do for your new nation to make it worth the while for us to adopt you?”

While this question may be repugnant to a liberal, I would ask that same liberal how many illegal aliens they support in their own home.  Probably not too many.

The saying is “liberals have great ideas about how to spend someone else’s money.” This seems to be true here.

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

2
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
franz kafkajohn vieira Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
john vieira
Guest
john vieira

It is absolutely fascinating how people can be ‘convinced’ to go all out to destroy their own country and put themselves and their neighbours in dire peril…but there is no ‘premium’ on stupidity now is there??? Way things appear to be going our descendants across the globe will be living the Afghani experience …or worse. We are ‘bulling’ ahead in full reverse….

franz kafka
Guest
franz kafka

The ‘come on in’ model never applied to the USA, except perhaps to the “Free Soviet Jew” hoax which saw highly undesireable people get access to US citizenship by simply lying and saying: “we were persecuted in the USSR. In reality, the jews ‘made’ the USSR what it was. Read this banned book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn about it as it appears (partly translated into English) on Nouveau Samizdat. PDF Two Hundred Years Together (Solzhenitsyn) – Mailstar http://www.mailstar.net/Solzhenitsyn-200YT.pdf The only other large group brought in en masse to The USA and Canada, with no positive qualites selected for and no negative… Read more »

Latest

Hillary and Holder are hurting Democrat Party with their rhetoric

Democrat-written opinion piece points out the fact that the party has radicalized so much it has left its own supporters behind.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Fox News ran an opinion piece written by Douglas E. Schoen early Sunday. It points out how radicalized the Democrat Party has become, and it is noteworthy because Douglas Schoen is a Democrat himself. He writes (emphasis added):

As Democrats campaign for the Nov. 6 midterm elections, they have plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at President Trump and Republicans who control the House and Senate. But Democrats were hurt in recent days by amazing and disgusting comments made by Hillary Clinton and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

As a Democrat, I want my party to win as many seats as possible in the House and Senate and to capture as many governorships and other state offices as it can. But the Clinton and Holder remarks do not advance that effort – they hurt it.

Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Clinton said Tuesday that “you cannot be civil with” the Republican Party because it “wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” She added that “if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

But even worse than Clinton’s comments were those of Eric Holder, who said at a recent campaign event in Georgia that Democrats should abandon the advice of former first lady Michelle Obama, who said at the 2016 Democratic National Convention that her party and mine should respond positively to negative attacks from the GOP.

Mrs. Obama said that “when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don’t stoop to their level. No, our motto is, when they go low, we go high.”

Holder argued just the opposite, saying: “When they go low, we kick them. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.” He later said he wasn’t advocating violence – not literal kicking.

I beg to differ with both Clinton and Holder.

The only way the Democrats can regain the majority in either or both houses of Congress is by being civil, and pointing out the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the issues.

This is the real issue that should govern elections. Rather than the politics of popularity, one needs to consider policy points and which side offers points that are actually achievable, believable, concrete, desirable and specific. Calling President Trump and his administration names does not offer any constructive dialogue on policy matters.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

Conservatives and Trump supporters know this and it is precisely because of this that Donald Trump won the White House.

While the mainstream media (and here we can include Fox News largely) tried every possible way to ridicule Donald Trump’s candidacy, the people that actually listened to what he had to say found him very impressive on policy as much as his ability to speak as the voice of the people. The recent hysteria around Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court was hysteria up front, driven by real policy fears from the deep core of liberals, as they know that this Justice is likely to form an effective wall against liberals ramming their agenda through the courts since their efforts fail legislatively so often.

Mr. Schoen continues:

As a centrist Democrat, the issue that strikes me most is the degree to which the national debt and the deficit are now out of control.

America faces uncertain and unstable times financially. Yet we are seeing a Republican-controlled Congress that has largely failed to do anything besides provide tax cuts for major corporations and the wealthiest individuals. This is by no means certain to have fundamentally altered the path of the economy or to provide economic growth.

Put another way, what the Trump administration has failed to do is to fix health care and cover pre-existing conditions more fundamentally; lead America in a fiscally responsible way; and pass tax cuts that help the average American. The Trump tax cuts have driven up the national debt and endangered funding for programs that benefit millions of people in our country.

So, here are policy points. Now we can begin to have a debate. Is Mr. Schoen right, or wrong in his information? This is far different than name-calling!

Democrats have long argued the need for a centrist agenda that focuses on:

  • Providing health-care benefits – whether private or public – to all Americans to cover expansively all pre-existing conditions.
  • Protecting the environment from the policies of the Trump administration that have only encouraged –and I dare say exacerbated – environmental degradation and climate change.
  • Promoting a pro-growth, inclusive agenda that seeks to put working people first, and the interests of Washington insiders and economic elites second. President Trump claims that he is doing this – he calls it “draining the swamp” – but this has not happened.

There is no justification for the angry rhetoric of Clinton and Holder, which only feeds into Republican claims that Democrats are an angry mob that can’t get over Clinton’s loss to Trump two years ago.

And Holder looks particularly bad because he was once the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, yet now sounds like he is effectively advocating what appears to be either illegal activities, or metaphorical initiatives that run counter to our traditions and our politics.

Hillary Clinton has said she won’t run for office again, but Holder has said he may run for president in 2020. Whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be needs to be a responsible and respectable opponent – not one who calls for kicking the GOP or for incivility.

We should have learned from the Senate confirmation hearing for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that resisting for the sake of resisting doesn’t work. In fact, Democratic attacks on Kavanaugh may well have backfired, recent polls show.

The Democratic Party itself is lost now, without a message, a direction, a strategy, or agenda to confront a Republican Party that is seen as in many ways as having let the American people down.

We need change – but it must be constructive change. This Democrat believes that the comments that Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton made are wrong, counterproductive, and deserve to be rejected by the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps Fox News ran this opinion piece because Douglas Schoen is the first rational Democrat contributor to say anything in some time. However, it also appears that Mr. Schoen is a minority in his own party. It is a greatly logical approach to argue policy, as he has and as anyone who really understands American government should. But it is unclear as to whether the bulk of the Democrat Party even has reasonable people remaining.

If they do, it may well be that they are being betrayed by their party’s increasingly leftist and radical positions. The Party apparatus seems focused, but it also seems to have left people like Mr. Schoen behind.

Who knows? Maybe that will bring them into the Trump camp.

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

Latest

Kavanaugh circus displayed how radicalized the Left is in America

Media begins to indicate concern for life-threatening acts of political outrage, as Alinsky-esque radicalization around Kavanaugh dominates.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

On Saturday, October 6, 2018, Brett Kavanaugh officially became Associate Justice Kavanaugh of the United States Supreme Court. His accession to the Court marked two extremely significant events in American history.

The first is the return of the Court to what is being called a “conservative majority”, where five of the justices are actually strict constitutional constructionists that accept the US Constitution as it stands without trying to “adapt it” to the present whims of society. The remaining justices are reputed to do precisely this, through their language of the Constitution as a “living document” that implies malleability.

In short, it appears that the days of imposing things, like legalized abortion and homosexual marriage through the manipulation of the Court System rather than through the passage of legislation, are probably over, or at least significantly hampered. We need one more liberal judge to retire or die for President Trump to seal the deal, but this is the first time the court has had a conservative majority in at least fifty years.

The second significant event is actually very interesting because its existence was largely brought on by the prevalence of the activist Court over these last fifty years. That is the extraordinarily aggressive and activist Left, which, rightly sensing their immediate doom, came out in droves and did everything possible to block and destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s chance at nomination.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

It should be known that they did have successes:

  • Breitbart.com, The New York Post and other sources on October 2 noted that Judge Kavanaugh will no longer be teaching at Harvard Law School. This came about after a reported “outcry” from hundreds of alumni:

Hundreds of alumni signed a letter calling on law school Dean John Manning to “rescind” Kavanaugh’s position as lecturer and prohibit him from teaching a three-week class titled “The Supreme Court Since 2005” this winter.

“We believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment as an HLS lecturer sends a message to law students, and in particular female students, that powerful men are above the law, and that obstructive, inappropriate behavior will be rewarded,” says the letter, which the newspaper said is available online. “Judge Kavanaugh is not leadership material, and he is not lectureship material. HLS would be tarnished to have him on campus in any position of authority.”

The Crimson reported that the letter had 700 signatures by Monday, including alumni who graduated from as far back as 1959.

“I understand the passions of the moment. But I would say to those senators, your words have meaning,” he said. “Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything, to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent email to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends, to blow me up and take me down.”

But the liberals also ran a significant risk of overplaying their hand. Indeed, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson of Fox News stated as much in their commentaries one can see by clicking the above linked names.

However, the question that is presently unanswered about American politics is “how deep does this go?”

We have seen blatant, outrageous and some would say, mindless, displays of leftist radicalism in regard to Judge Kavanaugh. For the first time, we even saw conservative leadership speak back with force, as done several times by Senator Lindsey Graham, who promises to continue to drive his points home about this. See his anger here:

And indeed both Democrats and Republicans claim that the Kavanaugh controversy has energized the voters as the final month before the November Congressional midterms approaches. At the present time, the GOP side appears to be enjoying the larger boost in voter interest and committment, but there is still a full month to go.

That means that there is a great deal of time for the liberal activist side to cook something up to try to discredit and dissuade GOP and Trump supporters while at the same time ginning up the liberal / Democrat base.

However, the level of unhinged radicalism on display through the Kavanaugh proceedings was very high, and honestly, untested for its approval among the average American voters. The media was all for it with comments coming from late night show writers like Ariel Dumas, who writes for the Stephen Colbert program:

This is only one sample. All of Hollywood went in against Kavanaugh, feminists did, many deluded men (probably cowed into it by the feminists in their lives; for more on that read Paul Craig Roberts’ opinion piece here) and women who appeared to use their own real or perceived traumas as the basis for some sort of attempt at a logical argument against the judge, whose allegations proved 100% uncorroborated. 

The craziest thing about this is that the allegations and ensuing circus got very far indeed. What is not known yet is if this is strong enough to make it to the ballot boxes in November. If it does, then the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” has been swept aside by the court of public opinion, or more honestly speaking, the mob.

Mobs are fickle. A mob greeted Christ and wanted to make him king, only to be successfully turned against him five days later, screaming for his crucifixion. Mobs destroyed books in Hitler’s Germany and in the early days of the Communist Revolution, and manipulation of the masses sent hundreds of thousands of people, even tens of millions, to the death camps and to the grave. It is easy to say it cannot happen in the United States, but there is plenty of evidence to show that it not only can happen, but that it is presently happening. It may look civilized now, but death threats are often followed up, and there have been plenty of these going around lately.

Rush Limbaugh was asked months ago about how he thought these midterms would go, and his response at the time was to say that the issue that determines the outcome of the midterms had not occurred yet, so he didn’t know. Last week on Mr. Limbaugh’s radio program, the talk-show host noted that he believed the Kavanaugh issue was in fact that determining issue:

I just need to ask if any of you remember who it was who’s been saying all these months that the issues that would decide the midterm elections hadn’t happened yet. That would be me back in April, May, June, July, August. That’s right, Mr. Snerdley. That would be me. Now, here is Harwood. I think… Folks, I think just based on the way I’m watching liberal reporters talk about this today, I’m getting a sense of a bit of panic setting in.

I really believe that they thought that no matter how this Kavanaugh thing went, they would win. I think they thought they’d persuade people Kavanaugh was a reprobate and if he got confirmed it was really firepower their base that a mugger and a rapist and all this stuff’s on the court. If they lost it, ditto, same thing. I think the one thing they didn’t count on is rejuvenating and reviving the Republican base they think is happening, they think it’s happening. Here’s Harwood. He went out and talked to some voters, and this is that report.

He also noted that the level of threats against Senators supporting Kavanaugh’s confirmation have been relentless:

I have been made privy to some of the comments, not just on social media, but to the offices that many Republican senators are getting. They are being deluged, their entire families are being threatened. Their grandchildren are being threatened. Their wives, their husbands, barmaids, everybody they know being threatened.

It’s enormous; it is never ending; the phones don’t stop ringing; the threatening emails and tweets do not stop arriving; it is unhinged; it is vile, and it is evil. And it’s not just Flake and Collins and Manchin. It’s all the Republicans are hearing. It is one of the most disgusting things many of these people say they’ve ever seen. In that regard, Jeff Flake and Susan Collins, I think they have to be credited for doing the right thing.

…It’s unhinged. Much of it is insane and deranged and is made up of the psychological disorders that I believe constitute now the mainstream of the Democrat Party. The protesters are paid. Their signs are all the identically manufactured, the same phrases all over them. And these people… I don’t know if you’ve received threats and I don’t know if you’ve been barraged by them, but if you have and if you believe them, they can unnerve you.

There is still a whole month to go, and only patience and dedication will win the day.

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

Latest

Paul Craig Roberts: The White Heterosexual Male Has Been Renditioned To The Punishment Hole

Female accusation of male abuse is now a powerful political, social and personal weapon.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:


American feminists have finally broken the spirit of the American white heterosexual male. I have been watching for some time the American male, or what little is left of him, meekly accept feminists’ definitions of words and male behavior.

First the feminists turned the male respect for, and politeness toward, women, respect inculcated into my generation, into “sexism.” Today men no longer stand when a woman enter’s a room, and they don’t open doors for them unless it is an elderly and feeble relative. Feminists insisted on getting women off the pedestal and into the rough and tumble world of men.

Feminists also pushed the sexual revolution, especially Cosmopolitan magazine, until women became as sexually promiscuous as men. As sex became casual and as the constraints on male behavior toward women were discredited as “sexist,” boundaries became blurred, and there is plenty of room for confusion. University student sex codes acknowledge the confusion. We see it in the requirements that the male must ask permission for each piece of female clothing he removes from his willing partner.

All of this was entirely the work of feminists.

But today it is the feminist redefinition of words and their substitution of feelings for factual evidence that catch men off guard. What convinced me that the era of the male is over is what just happened to University of Massachusettes football coach Mark Whipple. On paper Whipple does not have the profile of a whimp. He was a NFL assistant coach. He led UMass to five winning seasons, elevated the team to the highest level of Division I, and garnered for UMass a Division I-AA national title.

Last Saturday he unknowingly undid himself when outraged by what he saw as a non-penalty call on pass interference that he thought cost UMass the game, he said: “we had a chance and they rape us.”

All hell broke lose. Whipple was publicly denounced by UMass athletic director Ryan Bamford, a male trained to jump through feminist hoops:

“On behalf of our department, I deeply apologize for the comments made by head coach Mark Whipple on Saturday after our game at Ohio. His reference to rape was highly inappropriate, insensitive and inexcusable under any circumstance.”

Whipple groveled:

“I am deeply sorry for the word I used on Saturday to describe the play in our game. It is unacceptable to make use of the word ‘rape’ in the way I did and I am very sorry for doing so. It represents a lack of responsibility on my part as a leader of the program and a member of this university’s community, and I am disappointed with myself that I made this comparison when commenting after our game.” http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/24853120/umass-suspends-coach-mark-whipple-one-week-pay-rape-reference

What are we to make of this? Have feminists appropriated the definition of rape to mean only what they say it means: male sexual abuse (undefined) of women? If a male uses the word in any of its other senses, why does he have to grovel and beg forgiveness?

Whipple is a football coach, not an English professor who could have come up with a word better fitting Whipple’s outrage. Nevertheless, “rape” has meanings other than forced sexual penetration of a female. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary gives this meaning:

“The wanton destruction or spoiling of a place: the rape of the countryside.”

There are a number of book titles that use “rape” in the sense of “ruin,” “despoil.” For example:

The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War by Lynn H. Nicholas

The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art by Roger Kimball

Are we now to expect scholars Lynn Nicholas and Roger Kimball to grovel like Whipple in the face of feminist tyranny?

I suppose so.

Compare Whipple’s public rebuke by his boss, his abject apology, and his temporary suspension from his job for using correctly a word with no intention of offending anyone with Georgetown University associate professor Christine Fair, who intended to offend the Senate Judiciary Committee with her tweeted outrage about Kavanaugh:

“Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement. 
All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”

There are a number of sources for this extraordinary quote:

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/01/georgetown-christine-fair-white-men-swine/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36532/georgetown-professor-says-white-republicans-should-joseph-curl

https://www.foxnews.com/us/georgetown-professor-says-white-gop-senators-deserve-miserable-deaths-after-kavanaugh-hearing

https://www.thecollegefix.com/georgetown-professor-calls-for-white-male-republican-senators-to-suffer-miserable-deaths-and-be-castrated/

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/georgetown-wont-discipline-professor-who-wants-to-castrate-corpses-of-white-men-and-feed-them-to-swine/

Did professor Fair get sent to sensitivity training? Of course not. Georgetown University quickly rushed to her defense on freedom of speech grounds. In universities, free speech is only denied to heterosexual males and football coaches.

Linger a bit with Professor Fair. A professor is supposed to be a scholar with respect for facts and evidence, but all Christine Fair is capable of is an outburst of blind hatred. She has no way of knowing who is telling the truth. Clearly the charge is a political one even if true. The Senate Judiciary Committee permitted Kavanaugh’s accuser to present her case. To protect the female accuser from being questioned by male senators, the committee hired a female attorney to question the accuser. The female attorney concluded that Kavanaugh’s accuser did not have a case that could be prosecuted.

What does this tell us about Christine Fair. It tells us that the only reason that a person who relies on emotion instead of evidence is a tenured member of the Georgetown University faculty is that she is female and was hired in place of several dozen better qualified males to fill a female quota.

As I have written so often, the American population is insouciant, and that word is an euphemism. They have no awareness of what is happening in front of their eyes as they are eased into a mindset that accepts as fact that the male/female relationship is one of male abuse of the female. Try to imagine what it is like for a male to have a female boss who has been brainwashed by feminism. Try to imagine what it is like for a male to have female subordinates (or colleagues). His very survival depends on many things, such as having the Human Resource Department evaluate the females’ job performance. Even at this distance, most likely the task would have to be performed by a female.

Female accusation of male abuse is now a powerful political, social and personal weapon. We currently have a porn star accusing President Trump of having consensual sex with her. Why is she doing this? She has already been paid off. Are her ratings dropping? Is this for notoriety? Is she being paid as part of the military/industrial complex/Democratic Party/feminist attack on Trump?

Look at what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh once he was nominated to the Supreme Court. A woman appears. She partially remembers an incident of three or four decades ago in an unchaparoned home where teenagers were drinking, what house and where it was she does not remember, but she remembers a drunk Kavanaugh throwing her on a bed and tussling with her fully clothed.

She wasn’t raped. She wasn’t injured. The question totally uninteresting to feminists is: “What was she, a 15-year old, doing there?”

By the 1980s teenage females in unchaperoned houses with teenage males with harmones on full boil and alcohol present were assumed to be sexually available. Why else were they there? Were her parents uninterested in her whereabouts? Did she lie to her parents about where she was going?

But to raise such obvious questions is proof that you are a misogynist. Females bear no fault. Only males.

The main problem with feminism is that it is so totally unscientific that it must assault science. At the University of Durham in the UK, where I was once in distant times interviewed for an appointment, a male has been punished for re-tweeting an article that states that females do not have a penis. https://www.rt.com/news/439797-icymi-get-woke-grandad-rules/

Such a factual statement goes against the feminist ideology that there are no differences between women and men—not even physical differences. In Sweden a professor is being investigated for saying in a lecture that there are anatomical and biological differences between men and women. A feminist student objected, and so a professor of neurophysiology is being held accountable for stating a scientific fact. https://www.rt.com/news/439797-icymi-get-woke-grandad-rules/


Anyone who does not realize that feminists are crazed far beyond the meaning of the word crazy, should read this:

“A Swedish university is investigating a professor for ‘anti-feminism’ and ‘transphobia’ after he said there are biological differences between men and women. He is being urged to retract his comments.”
https://www.rt.com/news/438638-swedish-professor-biologically-different/

In the assault on Kavanaugh, we are witnessing an Identity Politics assault on the White Heterosexual Male, an assault whose purpose is less to block Kavanaugh than to discourage white heterosexual males from standing for office as it is so easy for feminists to ruin a man’s reputation. The plan is to put the “victim groups” of the white male in office so that retribution can be handed out to white males in keeping with feminist professor Christine Fair’s agenda of killing them, castrating their dead bodies and feeding them to swine.

Perhaps white males have understood this. You see them increasingly with Asian and Hispanic women, not with white women who are increasingly seen with black men. In another generation or two, perhaps the white ethnicities will have disappeared.

Then to whom will Identity Politics assign the hated role?

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

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

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...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending