Connect with us

Red Pill


Trump and CPAC rejoice in the red-pill frame of mind [VIDEO]




Can a political speech actually be based in reality? This question seems to be one that many cynics of the mainstream media are forced to answer “no” to. The reason is simple enough – the MSM largely concerns itself with rhetoric and opinion more than it concerns itself with facts and plans. While it is often the case that strictly the facts is not an attractive source of speechmaking material, the showmanship of sheer political rhetoric also is discouraging because it creates lots of emotion but no direction and hence, no practical plan of action.

So when a speaker involved, not only in politics, but actual policy, speaks, and is able to make the material interesting, entertaining and engaging, this is quite an accomplishment.

President Donald Trump did this in style and he delivered an amazing speech that delighted attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, on Friday, February 23, 2018.

Speaking for about 74 minutes, the American president started with a speech that appeared to be more or less following the scripted plan, but after about 20 minutes, the President, already engaged with the crowd greatly, decided to forego the scripted speech, simply saying, “it’s boring.” From this point on, the already relaxed President setlled into a policy-laden, yet utterly engaging talk with his crowd, and point after point reinforced the necessity of keeping the work that he has been able to do going.

At times, the speech was broken by campaign-style chants like “USA!! USA!!”, or “Lock her up!!” referring to former candidate Hillary Clinton, and of course “Build the wall!” referring to the standing plan (that the President re-affirmed will happen, in fact already is, as shown here).

In the speech, President Trump detailed the accomplishments of the first year of his first term, and also very successfully and clearly made the case for the Conservatives to be vigilant and to be at least as energetic in the 2018 midterm elections as they were for his election in 2016.

Naturally, the media on the left completely denigrated the speech. Vox said that Mr. Trump’s departure from the script showed that he is not “really in charge of the White House”. NBC  News decided to fact check Trump’s off-script statements against his scripted ones and, of course, made every attempt to find fault and misleading comments. The Guardian gave the best screamer headline with “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers Is Complete“, editorializing about how the populist president has somehow corrupted the conservative movement by his involvement in it. The list, no doubt, goes on and on, as the left is consistently unable to accept the reality of the situation it faces.

That situation is that the new President has scored some major successes. Money talks, and a great deal of money has been earned, created and brought back to the United States in just the first year alone. The financial markets have risen by some 37% in one year, far more than was predicted by quite respected financial analysts. This has brought even committed Democrat business leaders into at least tacit agreement with Mr. Trump’s policy decisions.

Being “red pill” in this matter is interesting because one might be led to associate “red pill” with strict, discursive truth, and lists of facts. However, to limit the Trump phenomenon to this is what the MSM has tried to do, and this is one reason that they fail to understand what is happening (in addition to the fact that they just don’t want to understand and accept it).

The Trump phenomenon is for conservatives much like Barack Obama’s alleged lofty speaking style was for liberals. Personal political bias prevented me from being able to absorb or be moved by Mr. Obama’s speeches – for me they seemed good examples of deceptive honesty, because Mr. Obama was able to successfully lay out many of his policy positions that it turned out many people did not like, but he did it in a way that made his listeners think that they were actually getting what they wanted. Obama, like most liberals, was a man that attempted to appeal to emotions of cynicism, self-doubt, self-recrimination and therefore guilt and discouragement, and somehow, he managed to make such a worldview seem like a moral obligation for Americans to carry. And to his credit, the American nation carried it for eight years. It came really close to making that at least 12 years, because Hillary almost won the presidency.

Trump appeals to emotions as well, but he appeals to the “can do” attitude that made the United States the most successful nation on earth, while yet less than 250 years old. Mr. Trump tapped into this attitude, and he augmented it with amazing support for the can-do attitude of the American people themselves, independent of government. His policy, if it could be distilled into three words, is “let ’em loose!”. This is not a new, false attitude that the American people have been deluded by. It is the real energy that Americans have had through their whole history, which decades of liberalism had squelched to the point where many of us no longer believed it even existed.

Finally, in listening to the CPAC speech, we see something so simple that the intellgentsia of the elite media class and liberals once again, just miss.

President Trump talked to the American people as an American talking to other countrymen. In other words, he was real and himself. Not a stilted statesman and not a rhetoric-filled politician. While the United States has benefitted at times from great statesmen and even rhetoric-filled politcians, this is not what the American nation needs at the present time. For many Americans, we feel as though we have one of our own in the White House – fallible, honest, brash, and courageous, and a man who is unfettered by what others think of him. In other words, we have an American in the White House and those who see this as it is are delighted and refreshed by this experience.



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

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Lori Loughlin’s daughter was aboard USC official’s yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was on the yacht of USC’s Board of Trustees when her mom was accused in scheme.

The Duran



Via Fox News

Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli was spending spring break on a University of Southern California official’s yacht when her mother was accused Tuesday of involvement in a college admissions scheme, reports said.

Giannulli, 19, was on Rick Caruso’s luxury yacht Invictus in the Bahamas, a report said. Caruso is chairman of USC’s Board of Trustees.

Giannulli, who currently attends USC, was with Caruso’s daughter Gianna and several other friends, the outlet reported.

“My daughter and a group of students left for spring break prior to the government’s announcement yesterday,” Caruso told TMZ. “Once we became aware of the investigation, the young woman decided it would be in her best interests to return home.”

Loughlin’s daughter has since returned to Los Angeles to face the allegations that could result in her getting expelled from USC.

USC’s Board of Trustees will not decide the status of Giannulli and the other students involved in the case, but rather, the university’s president will make the decisions, according to TMZ.

Business deals in jeopardy?

Giannulli is a YouTube beauty vlogger and social media star, but in the midst of her mother’s charges, she may lose the lucrative brand-sponsorship deals she has landed over the years, Variety reported.

HP, having cut ties with Giannulli, said in a statement, “HP worked with Lori Loughlin and Olivia Jade in 2017 for a one-time product campaign. HP has removed the content from its properties.”

Giannulli also cut brand deals with partners including Amazon, Dolce & Gabbana, Lulus, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Sephora, Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, Smile Direct Club, Too Faced Cosmetics, Boohoo, and Unilever’s TRESemmé, the report said.

Giannulli’s rep declined to comment, Variety reported. Estée Lauder Companies, which owns Smashbox and Too Faced, also declined to comment, while the other brands or companies the magazine reached out to did not immediately respond to their requests for comment.

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


$250M Lawsuit Against CNN Imminent; Covington High MAGA Student Suffered “Direct Attacks”

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February. 



Via Zerohedge

CNN is about to be sued for more than $250 million for spreading fake news about 16-year-old Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann.

Sandmann was viciously attacked by left-leaning news outlets over a deceptively edited video clip from the January March for Life rally at the Lincoln Memorial, in which the MAGA-hat-wearing teenager appeared to be mocking a Native American man beating a drum. Around a day later, a longer version of the video revealed that Sandmann did absolutely nothing wrong – after the media had played judge, jury and executioner of Sandmann’s reputation.

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February.

Speaking with Fox News host Mark Levin in an interview set to air Sunday, Sandmann’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, said “CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes. It’s broadcast into their homes.”

They really went after Nicholas with the idea that he was part of a mob that was attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites, yelling racist slurs at the Black Hebrew Israelites,” continued Wood. “Totally false. Saying things like that Nicholas was part of a group that was threatening the Black Hebrew Israelites, that they thought it was going to be a lynching.”

Why didn’t they stop and just take an hour and look through the internet and find the truth and then report it?” Wood asked. “Maybe do that before you report the lies. They didn’t do it. They were vicious. It was false. CNN will be sued next week, and the dollar figure in the CNN case may be higher than it was [against] The Washington Post.”


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


Rand Paul refuses to support emergency declaration, deepening problem

Rand Paul gives a principled reason for his refusal, and he cannot be faulted for that, but it leaves the borders open and unsafe.

Seraphim Hanisch



Senator Rand Paul indicated he will vote to terminate President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration on Sunday. This continues a story that seems to want no resolution.

Weeks ago, the seed to this news piece started this way:

One 35-day partial government shutdown and almost three weeks later, the debate over a statistically tiny amount of money in the US budget for the building of a border wall drags on with no solution. On February 15th, if there is no agreement that is to President Trump’s satisfaction, the government will once again descend into a partial shutdown.

And on February 15th, the President signed a continuing resolution to keep the government open through the rest of the fiscal year. This CR gave sharply limited authority of funds with regards to the border wall. This prompted the President to take it a step farther and declare a National Emergency.

This is because very few people in the US government actually desire a solution to close and secure the American-Mexican border. In fact, what we see is a government that is largely aligned against the will of its citizens.

President Trump has made repeated statements and speeches in which he outlines a fair array of facts concerning the problems experienced in the US by illegal border crossings of both people and controlled substances.

However, the issue of border security remains something that Congress only supports with words. We saw this in action both last week and the week before with the Democrat led House of Representatives voting 245-182 to terminate the National Emergency declaration. While this was to be expected in the House, on March 3rd, libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a known strong supporter of President Trump, nonetheless penned an Op-Ed piece on Fox News in which he said he planned to also vote against the National Emergency in the Republican-led Senate (emphasis added):

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: “The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must.’

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power…

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding:

  • First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders,
  • and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?

As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

This statement by Rand Paul is extremely – and painfully – fair. It marks not the actions of a liberal but of someone who is trying to do things truly “by the book.” He cannot be faulted for this.

But his “Nay” is very poorly placed because it comes in the context of a Congress that is full of people far less committed to the vision of America and its sovereignty than he or the President are. One of the reasons stated for lax border security is that cutting off illegal immigration also cuts off very cheap labor for several industries. Some of those industry leaders donate lavishly to political campaigns, ergo, corruption.

Rand Paul, in trying to fight for what is right by the letter of the law, may be correct, but in the short term it appears to exacerbate the problem of the porous US-Mexico border.

President Trump is trying to do the right thing in the company of a Congress who does not want this, for various reasons. Some of it is because some Congressmen and women are petty, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer being the crabby National Grandparents in this aspect. But add to the “resist Trump because he is Trump” lobby those people who gain from illegal immigration in the short term, and those like the new socialist crop of Congressional members who are ready to change the very nature of the United States into something like their cannabis-induced dream of Sweden (which didn’t even work in Sweden!) and we see that border security is every bit the uphill climb that President Trump has shown it to be.

The government shutdown did one very good thing: It got the American focus on the border and some opinions on the matter moved – at least among the American people.

But since when did our representatives and senators really represent us, the American people?

It has been a long, long time.


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