Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Canadian MP suggests Parliament members wear a body camera at all times to prevent false accusations. Quickly retracts his statement

Canadian MP Peter Goldring advised fellow members of Parliament to wear body cameras at all times for “risk protection” and to “prevent besmirchment.” He now says he deeply regrets that statement even though in today’s world it’s very sound advice.

Published

on

0 Views

Regardless of the political correctness at play, the comments/advice of Edmonton East MP Peter Goldring is absolutely solid, especially for men in high power positions. Unfortunately he is now “retracting” (i.e. forced to take back) his statements.

Given all the new legislation, and widening definitions regarding consent, rape and sexual assault, does it surprise anyone that men in prominent positions would feel a need to start wearing body cameras. Men have no other option.

CBC News reports:

Edmonton East MP Peter Goldring now says he deeply regrets a statement he issued Wednesday that advised fellow members of Parliament to wear body cameras at all times for “risk protection” and to “prevent besmirchment.”

The statement drew immediate and widespread criticism from other parties and shocked political pundits.

Hours later, a second statement was issued on Goldring’s behalf through the Prime Minister’s Office.

“Earlier today I issued a press release that I now recognize was completely inappropriate,” the second statement read. “I retract that press release unconditionally and deeply regret it.”

The sixty-nine-year-old Conservative MP’s original statement appears to have been prompted by the allegations of harassment made recently by two female New Democrat MPs against two male Liberal MPs, who have since been suspended from their caucus.

“It will not be good enough to simply say that your intentions were honourable and you were just inviting a colleague to your apartment at two in the morning to play a game of Scrabble at the end of a day of playing sports and drinking,” said Goldring’s statement, issued from a parliamentary email address.

“MPs must learn, as I have from encounters with authority figures in the past, that all do not tell the truth. I now wear ‘protection’ in the form of body-worn video recording equipment,” the statement said.

“I suggest that others do so too, particularly because some accusers hide behind a shield of supposed credibility which many times is not, and sometimes even hide behind a cloak of anonymity, which conceals their shameful indiscretion and complicity.”

NDP MP Megan Leslie called Goldring’s comments “preposterous” during an interview on CBC News Network’s Power & Politics Wednesday evening. She said his statement trivializes a very serious issue.

“I’ll take a deep breath and say that ‘accusers’ is code for ‘women.’ This is slut-shaming at its finest … the idea of ‘she asked for it,’ a lack of credibility about a woman coming forward,” she said.

Liberal MP Ralph Goodale told Power & Politics host Evan Solomon he thinks the “rather strange ramble” doesn’t add much to the “serious examination of a serious topic.”

“I think it reflects a pretty archaic point of view and I would think members of the government would want to distance themselves pretty quickly from that statement of policy, if that’s what Mr. Goldring intended it to be,” Goodale said.

I would think feminists would love Mr. Goldrings idea, and push the whole “men wearing a camera” thing into law.

If men are forced to wear a camera than they will think twice before making any inappropriate advances towards female colleagues. Think about it, it’s the ultimate deterrent. Mens’ advances will be recorded, so no more ambiguity on the whole “she asked for it” debate.

Women, knowing that the man has a camera, will also never dare to falsely accuse men of sexual assault anymore. Mr. Goldring may be on to something, a real win-win for the sexes.

The entire western world is already CCTV’ed up and NSA spied on from top to bottom, so why not just take the surveillance, police state thing one notch higher.

After all feminists were totally cool about the whole 10 hours in New York, catcalling youtube video exposing the pigs men are. Why not video tape more day to day interaction between the genders…what could women possibly have to lose?

References:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-goldring-retracts-statement-advising-mps-to-wear-body-cameras-1.2851472

 

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

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
TommyFunebojohnjoechadbrainspirationsSaySandraAgenturRU Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
TommyFunebo
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Canadian MP suggests Parliament members wear body camera to prevent false accusations. Quickly retracts http://t.co/LCawa…

johnjoechad
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Canadian MP suggests Parliament members wear body camera to prevent false accusations. Quickly retracts http://t.co/LCawa…

brainspirations
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Canadian MP suggests Parliament members wear body camera to prevent false accusations. Quickly retracts http://t.co/LCawa…

SaySandra
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Canadian MP suggests Parliament members wear body camera to prevent false accusations. Quickly retracts http://t.co/LCawa…

AgenturRU
Guest

Canadian MP suggests Parliament members wear a body camera at all times to prevent false accusations. Quickly … http://t.co/zM3PL5QvgC

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

Latest

Media in ‘drive by’ mode as they fail to take down Kavanaugh (VIDEO)

With nary a pause the media coverage switched back to Trump-Russia collusion and Trump taxes as attack continues apace.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The Democrats and the media lost on Thursday, as the seventh FBI investigation related to Judge Brett Kavanaugh turned up no corroboration of accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that the Judge sexually assaulted her in 1982.

To the logical thinker this comes as no surprise, simply because there is nowhere to go with a story without specific time, date, or place. However, the media and a whole lot of Americans threw logic out with God many years ago, so this news was greeted with the typical yelling and screaming. However, additionally, the embittered Democrat opposition to Brett Kavanaugh (and anything of Trump) took their accustomed place in front of the cameras and gave several very lame excuses as “statements” as to their reaction to the results of the FBI findings. Most lame was Chuck Schumer’s statement:

Both he and Diane Feinstein were stunningly partisan and illogical in their criticism of the report, saying that it was incomplete because the FBI did not interview either the Judge or Dr Ford.

But this is a moot point. The FBI had no need to interview these two because they already gave extensive testimony under oath. What the FBI check was purposed for was to attempt to corroborate “witness” accounts regarding the sexual assault allegations. For this, they interviewed the best friend of Dr Ford, other witnesses she referred to, and in addition, several more possible witnesses. The original agreement was for the FBI to interview four people, and they doubled that and then some. It didn’t change a thing.

It was resoundingly clear that the Democrat Senators lost their bid here. It was also abundantly clear to the media that this was lost as early as Thursday morning, for already the reports began to pivot with no further comment.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

The Guardian (UK) and CNN both ran reports about the Justice Department indicting seven new Russians as spies. The Guardian tried to put some zing into their story, placing the terms “Russian spies” and “chemical weapons” in the same sentence:

The US government has announced criminal charges against seven Russian intelligence officersdeclaring a “lengthy and wide-ranging conspiracy” ordered by the Kremlin to hack into private computers and networks around the world that aimed at a wide range of targets.

The announcement from the justice department’s national security division on Thursday comes after Dutch officials said they had disrupted a Russian cyberattack on the global chemical weapons watchdog.

Four of the officers were charged with targeting the watchdog…

(What does that even mean?)

All seven of the officers were indicted on cyber-hacking charges linked to the leaking of Olympic athletes’ drug test data, in an alleged attempt to undermine efforts to tackle Russian doping.

Russia’s GRU military intelligence was blamed for the failed operation in the Netherlands, which allegedly targeted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and was thwarted by Dutch military intelligence with the help of the UK. The international organization was investigating the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the poisoning of former GRU officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in the English city of Salisbury in March.

This latest attempt to finger Russia is the second recent piece to point at the GRU, historically held to be far more brutal than the KGB during the Soviet era, but in modern times this sort of viewpoint doesn’t necessarily apply. Indeed, the photos in the Guardian’s article reveal people that look more like kids than evil communist henchmen.

In further news, New York City’s mayor Tom DeBlasio was reported to have joined the chorus call alleging that President Donald Trump’s father left his son more money than previously known, and that the Trump family hid this money in shell corporations and other tax-shelters.

This story, run by The New York Times (surprised?) and Time Magazine offers the reader the hopefully tantalizing notion that the real-estate mogul-turned-President is actually a swindler against the government of the country he is president of, by hiding money from the government. Here is a little of that story according to one of the Times pieces, co-written by David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, whose headline is so blatantly assertive we thought it should also be reproduced:

Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father

The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s.

President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help.

But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.

Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.

These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances.

The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show.

In other words, this family was smart. Much of what is written is more opinion than fact, and follows the typical left-wing screed of class-envy. Perhaps this is intended to be the new attempt the separate Trump supporters from their man, but it is doubtful that this will work.

We would also like to note that “The equivalent of $413 million” is about $272 million in 1999 dollars. While significant, it certainly doesn’t look like Trump got a half-billion to start. And that of course is assuming this story is even true. The New York Times has not had the best reputation for telling the truth about anything Trump for a couple years now.)

The reason?

Kavanaugh.

The press and Democrat Party may have executed a supremely stunning overreach with their attempt to take down President Trump’s hand-picked appointee to the the US Supreme Court. Kavanaugh not only turned out to be clean, his case for confirmation seems to have been massively helped, not hurt, by his honesty in response to the withering blast of the mainstream media and Democrats.

He handled his “official” confirmation hearings with grace and aplomb, while remaining steely-eyed in focus on showing his qualification for the post. He handled the eleventh-hour smear hit with raw and righteous rage, defending his family and his name against one of the nastiest (but flimsiest) smear campaigns in recent history. His defense was unequivocal because he could be unequivocal, since he lived an upstanding life and spoke honestly about it.

This truth was verified by the FBI and there is no way around it.

But what is left is a Democrat Party that has discredited itself. What is significant is that this time got the attention of the nation, and it probably got some people who traditionally vote Democrat to thinking a second time about this choice. It does appear to have galvanized Republican voters.

The press will be on to try to discourage this heat before November’s midterm elections. However, the Press and the Democrats cried wolf one too many times here, and only the most clever media manipulation and maneuvering will allow them to recover.

There are many that hope this happens, but probably now, many more that will not accept their stories going forward.

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