Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Red Pill

Why the media is having a meltdown over DACA

Avatar

Published

on

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 //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
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

Frankenstein Designer Kids: What You Don’t Know About Gender-Transitioning Will Blow Your Mind

Following the ‘affirmative care’ approach, the doctor is required to follow the child’s lead, not vice-versa, as many people believe the doctor-patient relationship in this particular case would best work.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Puberty-blocking drugs, mastectomies, vaginal surgery and fake penises – all with zero chance of reversal – these are just some of the radical experimental methods being used on children. The madness must stop.

Imagine that you are the parent of a five-year-old boy who innocently informs you one day that he is a girl. Of course, the natural reaction would be to laugh, not phone up the nearest gender transitioning clinic. You have no idea how your little boy came to believe such a thing; possibly it was through something he heard at the daycare center, or maybe a program he saw on television. In any case, he insists that he ‘identifies’ as a female.

Eventually, possibly at the encouragement of your local school, you pay a visit to a physician. You hope this medical professional will be able to provide you and your child with some sound counseling to clear up his confusion. Prepare yourself to be disappointed. Your doctor will be forced, according to state and medical dictate, to follow the professional guidelines known as ‘affirmative care.’ It sounds nice and harmless, doesn’t it? In fact, the program could be best described as nothing short of diabolical.

The Medical Harms of Hormonal and Surgical Interventions for Gender Dysphoric Children

Following the ‘affirmative care’ approach, the doctor is required to follow the child’s lead, not vice-versa, as many people believe the doctor-patient relationship in this particular case would best work. In other words, if the child tells the doctor that he believes he is a girl, the doctor must comply with that ‘reality’ no matter what biology tells him or her to be the case. But this is just the beginning of the madness.

As the child’s parent, you will be encouraged to start referring to your son as your ‘daughter,’ and even permit him to choose a feminine name, as well as matching clothes. Teachers will be instructed to let your son use the girl’s bathroom while at school. The question of the social stigma attached to such a lifestyle change, complete with bullying, is rarely brought into the equation. Therapists will seldom discuss with the parents the social implications of such a mental and physical change; indeed, many will insist the changes are ‘reversible’ should the child one day have a change of heart. If only things were that easy.

Let’s pause for a moment and ask what should be the most obvious question, especially among medical professionals: ‘Is it not terribly naive to support the fleeting belief of a child, who still believes in Santa Claus, that he/she is the opposite sex? Isn’t there a very high possibility that the child is just confused and the thought will pass? Moreover, why did we never hear about such episodes just 10 years ago, yet today we are led to believe it is some sort of epidemic?’ Instead of working with the child and his newfound identity from such an obvious approach, in the majority of cases the child will be placed on the fast-track to gender transitioning. This is where the horror story begins.

One parent, ‘Elaine,’ a member of the advocacy group Kelsey Coalition whose daughter underwent “life-altering medical interventions,” came to understand that the transition is immensely harmful to the future health and well-being of her child.

“Once the teenage years begin, affirmative care means giving young people cross-sex hormones,” Elaine said during a panel discussion organized by the Heritage Foundation. “Girls as young as twelve are prescribed testosterone for lifetime usage, while boys are given estrogen. These are serious hormonal treatments that impact brain development, cardiovascular health and may increase the risk of cancer.”

This leads us to the operating table, where adolescents, lacking the mental maturity necessary to make such a huge life-altering choice, are exposed to the knife of irreversible surgical manipulation. Double mastectomies on girls, for example, as well as the fashioning of false penises derived from flesh borrowed from other parts of the body, are just some of the unprecedented procedures now available.

Elaine mentioned the high-profile story of one Jazz Jennings, who was diagnosed with ‘gender dysphoria’ and raised as a girl since the age of five. He was treated with hormones at the age of eleven, and at the age of 17, Jazz underwent surgery to remove his penis and create a simulated vagina out of his stomach lining.

“After surgery, Jazz’s wounds began separating and a blood blister began to form. An emergency surgery was performed. According to Jazz’s doctor, ‘As I was getting her on the bed, I heard something go ‘pop.’ When I looked, the whole thing has split open.’”

Elaine called the case of Jazz a “medical experiment on a child” that “has been playing out on television for the past 12 years.” It should be noted that a similar drama-packed scenario captivated the nation with the high-profile, made-for-television sexual transition of Caitlyn Jenner, born Bruce Jenner, the former Olympic gold medalist, who was quite possibly the greatest American athlete of all time.

The obvious question is ‘how many impressionable children, many experiencing their own bodily changes in the form of puberty, were persuaded to decide in favor of gender transitioning (something that a child could have only heard about from some external media or source, unless the parents engage in such odd discussion topics at the dinner table) after watching these celebrity persona?’ By now, few people would doubt the powerful influence that TV celebrities have over people, and especially adolescents. In fact, that is the entire notion behind the idea of a ‘positive role model.’ I am not sure Caitlin Jenner would qualify for such a part.

According to Michael Laidlaw, M.D., these children, who are experiencing what the medical community has dubbed ‘gender dysphoria,’ will move beyond their condition either naturally or with the assistance of a therapist. Meanwhile, according to Laidlaw, citing studies, many of the girls and boys who display symptoms have neuro-psychiatric conditions and autism. “Social media and YouTube, things like that, binge-watching YouTube videos of transitioners seem to be playing a role…as well as contagion” in popularizing the idea among the masses.

The movement is predicated upon the modern liberal idea of ‘gender identity,’ which has been defined as a “person’s core internal sense of their own gender,” regardless as to what the biological facts of their sex prove.

Dr. Laidlaw presented perhaps the best case against parents and their children rushing to the conclusion that their children need puberty blockers, for example, or extreme doses of hormones, when he discussed what happens when a person is diagnosed with cancer.

“If a child or somebody you knew had cancer, would you want pathology results, would you want imaging to prove [the condition] before you give harmful chemotherapeutics,” he asked. Yet we are allowing children and adolescents to undergo irreversible chemical and surgical procedures without being able to see any evidence that shows the presence of ‘the opposite sex’ in the patient.

In other words, the medical community is monkey-wrenching with not only Mother Nature, but with the lives of children, with radical and irreversible experiments that have not been proven to promote the happiness and wellbeing of those on the receiving (or subtracting) end.

“We are giving very harmful therapies on the basis of no objective diagnosis,” Dr. Laidlaw said.

Laidlaw was forced to repeat what has been widely known for millennia.

“There are only two sexes,” he said. “Sex is identified at birth, nobody assigns it. Doctors don’t arbitrarily assign this person to be a boy and this person to be a girl. We all know how to identify it.

“I would say ‘ask your grandmother who doesn’t read the scientific journals, and they will tell you exactly how to identify boys from girls.’”

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

Latest

Candace Owens calls out lying Democrat narrative machine [Video]

Candace Owens was the latest near-casualty in the Democrat liberal globalists’ attempt to increase anger and division in the US.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

In a Congressional hearing led by House Democrats, Candace Owens represented the Republican party’s viewpoints in a conference that was supposed to be about “hate crimes” and their perpetration through Internet social media outlets. She was treated with a despicable level of disgust.

It would actually be very difficult for anyone but the most prejudiced liberal Democrat to not see the blatant use of out of context remarks and spin to try to destroy a person for political gain.

A well known conservative commentator, Candace Owens got a clip played of her own statement about nationalism by Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA), which she supports. She made a statement about how the perception of “nationalist” leaders is commonly held to be people like Adolf Hitler, but that this in fact is not true. Here is the exact text of what she said:

I actually don’t have any problems at all with the word “nationalism”. I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want. … Whenever we say “nationalism”, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That’s not, to me, that’s not nationalism.[59]

Where the Democrats went with this was astounding in its reach into both fiction and insanity. The allegation did not address in any regard what Ms. Owens actually said, but rather, the “concern” over her saying the name “Adolf Hitler” and also that “if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great… fine.”

For the next four minutes Candace sat quietly as the Democrats used this foil to prattle on their narrative about the “hatefulness of conservatives” and underlined indirectly Owens’ alleged prejudice. But finally, Ms Owens got a chance to speak. And speak, she did:

Here is the video. It is instructive to watch the whole thing, but if you want only Candace’s response, go to [05:29] to see and hear what she has to say.

The body of what Ms Owens said in response to this farce is here below (we added emphasis and edited a mistaken phrase that Ms Owens corrected as she spoke – she was very angry as she fiercely defended herself and called the Democrats to account):

“I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety. He purposely presented an extract, an extracted clip…”

Here, Rep. Jerry Nadler interrupted, trying to correct Ms Owens for calling Rep. Lieu stupid, which she actually did not, as one can see in the text.

“As I said, he is assuming that black people will not go pursue the full two-hour clip. And he purposefully extracted; he cut off — and you didn’t hear the question that was asked of me. He’s trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler in Germany, when in fact the question that was asked of me was pertaining to whether … or not I believed in nationalism, and that nationalism was bad…

And what I responded to, is that I do not believe we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist. He was a homicidal, psychopathic maniac that killed his own people. A nationalist would not kill their own people. That is exactly what I was referring to in the clip and he purposely wanted to give you a cut-up, similar to what they do to Donald Trump, to create a different narrative. That was unbelievably dishonest, and he did not allow me to respond to it, which is worrisome, and and to tell you a lot about where people are today in terms of people trying to drum up narratives.

By the way, I would like to also add that I work for Prager University, which is run by an Orthodox Jew. Not a single Democrat showed up to the Embassy opening in Jerusalem. I sat on a plane for 18 hours to make sure that I was there. I am deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me.”

Ms. Owens was not finished. Fox News reported further:

Turning to her 75-year old grandfather seated behind her, Owens remarked, “My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like ‘racism’ and ‘white nationalism’ held real meaning.”

Though Owens stood up for truth, a deeper problem still exists

The hearing in which this took place was one in which executives from Facebook and Google answer lawmakers’ questions about the companies’ spread of “hate crimes” and the mythical issue of “white nationalism” in the United States.

This “white nationalism” is a total farce and only exists in the minds of woke liberals and Democrats. Further, there is nothing illegal about what has popularly come to be called “hate speech”, though of course as Christians we are taught not to speak hatefully about anyone, even our enemies.

Of course, since Christianity is rejected in the US, with more and more people saying they do not believe in the traditionally held concept of God, and an increasing number of outright atheists, who deliberately believe there is no such thing as God. Concurrent with this breakdown is the inability for people to handle themselves, and a corresponding increase in unrestrained rage over social media and even face to face.

The mainstream media will not report this, but we will. One of the biggest factors in this madness is the use of social media as a “blasting point” from which anyone can say anything, no matter how vile, to anyone else or to everyone else. Even religious discussion groups, such as Facebook’s various groups on Orthodox Christianity (the oldest and purest Christian confession on earth) swiftly devolve into accusations, name calling and enough invective to turn any inquirer into Christianity completely off.

As a matter of fact, the live streaming of this Congressional hearing had to have its comments disabled, and Representative Nadler showed a copy of the transcribed comments to the people in the meeting and read it, perhaps blissfully unaware of how his own dishonesty added to it.

This is a problem. While it is refreshing to many people that Candace Owens stuck up for herself and did so with strength and self-restraint at the same time, the circus antics do reveal exactly what she talked about and further how serious it is.

It is unclear how far this goes. Google and YouTube and Facebook are probably not themselves to blame for the breakdown, but their services are certainly highly employable by people who are energized with self-righteous rage in any direction, and all of that is helping separate us all from one another.

It should be noted that Russia did not have to do one single thing to cause this. This is totally Made In USA.

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

Latest

The Number Of Americans With “No Religion” Has Soared 266% Over The Last 3 Decades

There is no doubt that Christianity is in decline throughout the western world, and churches are dying one after another.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog:


Over the last 30 years, there has been a mass exodus out of organized religion in the United States.  Each year the needle has only moved a little bit, but over the long-term what we have witnessed has been nothing short of a seismic shift.  Never before in American history have we seen such dramatic movement away from the Christian faith, and this has enormous implications for the future of our nation.  According to a survey that was just released, the percentage of Americans that claim to have “no religion” has increased by 266 percent since 1991…

The number of Americans who identify as having no religion has risen 266 percent since 1991, to now tie statistically with the number of Catholics and Evangelicals, according to a new survey.

People with no religion – known as ‘nones’ among statisticians – account for 23.1 percent of the U.S. population, while Catholics make up 23 percent and Evangelicals account for 22.5 percent, according to the General Social Survey.

In other words, the “nones” are now officially the largest religious group in the United States.

At one time it would have been extremely difficult to imagine that one day the “nones” would someday surpass evangelical Christians, but it has actually happened.

And the biggest movement that we have seen has been among our young people.  According to a different survey, two-thirds of Christian young adults say that they stopped going to church at some point between the ages of 18 and 22

Large numbers of young adults who frequently attended Protestant worship services in high school are dropping out of church.

Two-thirds of young people say they stopped regularly going to church for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22, a new LifeWay Research surveyshows.

These are the exact same patterns that we saw happen in Europe, and now most of those countries are considered to be “post-Christian societies”.

The young adults of today are going to be the leaders of tomorrow, and they have a much higher percentage of “nones” than the population as a whole.  According to a study that was conducted a while back by PRRI, 39 percent of our young adults are “religiously unaffiliated” at this point…

Today, nearly four in ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated—three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among seniors (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation.

To go from 10 percent during Ronald Reagan’s second term to 39 percent today is an absolutely colossal shift.

Right now, only about 27 percent of U.S. Millennials attend church on a regular basis.  Most of them simply have no interest in being heavily involved in organized religion.

And even the young people that are involved in church do not seem very keen on sharing their faith with others.  According to one of the most shocking surveys that I have seen in a long time, 47 percent of Millennials that consider themselves to be “practicing Christians” believe that it is “wrong” to share the gospel with others

A new study from the California-based firm Barna Group, which compiles data on Christian trends in American culture, has revealed a staggering number of American millennials think evangelism is wrong.

The report, commissioned by the discipleship group Alpha USA, showed a whopping 47 percent of millennials — born between 1984 and 1998 — “agree at least somewhat that it is wrong to share one’s personal beliefs with someone of a different faith in hopes that they will one day share the same faith.”

These numbers are hard to believe, but they are from some of the most respected pollsters in the entire country.

Politically, these trends indicate that America is likely to continue to move to the left.  Those that have no religious affiliation are much, much more likely to be Democrats, and so this exodus away from organized religion is tremendous news for the Democratic Party.

In a previous article, I documented the fact that somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 churches in the United States are dying each year.

That means that more than 100 will die this week.

And thousands more are teetering on the brink.  In fact, most churches in America have less than 100 people attending each Sunday

A majority of churches have fewer than 100 people attending services each Sunday and have declined or nearly flatlined in membership growth, according to a new study from Exponential by LifeWay Research.

The study, which was conducted to help churches better understand growth in the pews, showed that most Protestant churches are not doing well attracting new Christian converts, reporting an average of less than one each month.

But even among all the bad news, there are some promising signs for the Christian faith.  The home church movement if flourishing all over the country, and many of those home fellowships are focused on getting back to the roots of the Christian faith.  All throughout history there have been relentless attempts to destroy the Christian faith, and yet it is still the largest faith in the entire world.

However, there is no doubt that Christianity is in decline throughout the western world, and churches are dying one after another.

This is what one pastor had to say about the slow death of his church

‘My church is on the decline,’ he said. ‘We had 50 (congregants) in 2005 and now we have 15. We’re probably going to have to close (in a few years).’

‘Mainline Christianity is dying,’ he added. ‘It’s at least going away. It makes me feel more comfortable that it’s not my fault or my church’s fault. It’s part of a bigger trend that’s happening.’

John Adams, the second president of the United States, once said the following about our form of government…

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

As America has turned away from the Christian faith, we have become steadily less moral and steadily less religious.

If we continue down this path, many believe that the future of our nation is going to be quite bleak indeed.


About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared NowThe Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dreamand The Most Important News.

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

Videos

Trending