Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Drunk with power, the feminist cabal has forced the cancellation of Bill Cosby’s appearance on CBS’ “Late Show with David Letterman”

Bill Cosby’s upcoming appearance on CBS’ “Late Show with David Letterman” has been canceled amid a growing uproar over allegations that he sexually assaulted several women in past decades. Cosby spokesman David Brokaw confirmed Friday night that Cosby would not appear next Wednesday as previously scheduled. Another great man being chopped down.

Published

on

0 Views

The full story about Bowman’s allegations and her claims can be found here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/14/showbiz/tv/bill-cosby-rape-allegations/

In summary…

Bowman claims she was drugged then raped, though she said she never saw drugs.

“I woke up out of a very confused state not in my clothes.” She said she knew her body had been touched without her permission. This occurred several times in the course of their contact, she said.

She said to CNN that Cosby told her she had been drunk.

Bowman was 17 and an aspiring actress when she met Cosby in 1985. She considered him to be her mentor.

She spent time in his home, which included dinners with the star.

She said the abuse began after she turned 18.

Despite what she said was happening to her, she kept coming back. And Cosby and her agent financed her apartment in addition to supporting her acting ambitions, she said.

She was afraid to talk to her agent about her concerns, and she felt Cosby’s influence over her was too powerful.

“I was terrified of him,” she said.

“As a teenager, I tried to convince myself I had imagined it. I even tried to rationalize it: Bill Cosby was going to make me a star and this was part of the deal,” she wrote in her Washington Post article.

The Letterman cancellation follows on the heels of Bowman’s coming out interview, as reported by AP:

Bill Cosby’s upcoming appearance on CBS’ “Late Show with David Letterman” has been canceled amid a growing uproar over allegations that he sexually assaulted several women in past decades.

Cosby spokesman David Brokaw confirmed Friday night that Cosby would not appear next Wednesday as previously scheduled. He did not say why.

“Late Show” representative Kimberly Izzo-Emmet said, “We can’t comment on the guest booking process.” She said Regis Philbin would be the replacement guest.

Another canceled engagement, on “The Queen Latifah Show” on Oct. 30, was characterized by that show as a postponement granted at Cosby’s request.

Barbara Bowman, one of Cosby’s accusers, has recently leveled allegations of sexual assault by the comic in interviews and in a Washington Post online column, writing that “Cosby won my trust as a 17-year-old aspiring actress in 1985, brainwashed me into viewing him as a father figure, and then assaulted me multiple times.”

The standup comedian Hannibal Buress last month brought heat on Cosby at a performance in Philadelphia. His routine, during which he assailed Cosby as “a rapist,” was captured on video and posted online, gaining wide exposure.

The 77-year-old Cosby, who was never criminally charged in any of the cases, settled a civil suit in 2006 with another woman over an alleged incident two years before.

Cosby has declined to comment on the recent resurgence of allegations.

Usually I would write my thoughts on this latest attack of a great man, that literally follows the shameful feminist, SJW hijacking of the Rosetta comet accomplishment and subsequent skewering of Dr. Matt Taylor, but I thought it best to share 5 of the top comments on Yahoo with readers.

I think the comments say it better than I ever could, and the fact that they are highly up-voted is encouraging.

One thing I do know is that feminists and SJW’s are running amuck, and sooner rather than later their fall will come, and it will be epic…I just hope and pray they don’t take civilised society down with them.

Comment #1
Maybe this happened and maybe it didn’t. Bottom line is, why has she waited 29 YEARS to say anything? And, note that she isn’t making her accusations in a court of law nor even in a police station. Rather, she’s making them in an “interview.” Here in American, the burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused. Given that she’s waited all these years to say anything, she has zero credibility. Also, the statute of limitations ran out a long time ago. She should be forced to prove her charges or pay a penalty of public apology AND financial penalty as well.

Comment #2
The problem I have with her (Barbara Bowman) claim is, she said it happened multiple times… wouldn’t the 1st experience have given her reason to never be alone with him in the future? I don’t get stupid… never really did. I hope she’s made it up for attention and I fear she didn’t do that. I also fear that she was not drugged or raped… but that she willingly had sex with him, hoping for future favors in the entertainment industry and that shame has caused her to accuse him.

I haven’t looked into this to speak of, but all too often we hear of women who have sex with “powerful” men for their own advantage and all too often we’re later told they felt as if they had no choice, even though they clearly did. There is a massive downside… roughly 30yrs later, these accusations will only serve to tarnish reputations because the “proof” simply won’t be there.

Even in this case, Bowman freely admits she willingly did this, but blames him for “brainwashing” her and that simply doesn’t hold water. After all, it’s not like he had her alone somewhere with the time needed to truly make her think it was the right thing… she did that on her own, if the relationship is true.

Further, which girl is it, honestly, who willingly has sex multiple times with a man she views as something… anything… of a father? I’ve never met that woman, that’s for sure… and I don’t wanna because her brain was a wreck before she did that!

Comment #3
I believe in innocent until proven guilty. If the allegations are true they should be dealt with in the court of law not with Mr.Cosby’s check book. I believe in telling the truth. People do not like to be lied to. You are only as good as your word and once I find out I have been lied to my trust is entirely broken…very hard to rebuild trust. These are serious allegations, criminal allegations so if you are going to come out and say you were sexually taken advantage of file charges against him don’t ask for a payday. Allow him to defend himself in the court of law or admit guilt.

Comment #4
This is what disgust me about this country, it’s so easy for women to make accusations and ruin a man’s life and if the accusation are proven to be false the “Justice” system refuses to prosecute women who lie about rape. I don’t know what happened since I wasn’t there, but I live by code that if you make an accusation of any kind it’s up to you to prove it happened, it’s not up to the accused to prove it didn’t. Bill Cosby is worth roughly 400 million, so I accuse that these women are accusing to extort money..see how easy it is to accuse…

Comment #5
This same thing happened to my father at age 74 – a retired Colonel who served his country for the majority of his life. A 22-year old girl claimed he had “molested” her years prior. Although innocent of her charges, it cost my father over $70,000 in costs. There is something TERRIBLY wrong with a country that does not follow its own rules: “Innocent until proven guilty.” At least Bill Cosby can afford to protect himself. It took every penny of my father’s savings – and his dignity.

References:

http://news.yahoo.com/bill-cosbys-guest-shot-letterman-canceled-061618926.html

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
0 Comment authors
x4cwym845tx4f8w4fw84rffw485fedwx30m85cgcr83n5rwxym8cnrsdfruxm3cm9wy7vf5kcwxjc3ytxk0crtsxergsd3nvb54wnxd5cbvbecnv5ev75bcccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
trackback

ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb

[…]Here are a few of the web pages we advise for our visitors[…]

trackback

3nvb54wnxd5cbvbecnv5ev75bc

[…]Here is a superb Weblog You might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[…]

trackback

Title

[…]although web-sites we backlink to beneath are considerably not related to ours, we really feel they are essentially worth a go as a result of, so possess a look[…]

trackback

Title

[…]Here is an excellent Weblog You might Uncover Intriguing that we Encourage You[…]

trackback

Title

[…]below you will locate the link to some web sites that we consider it is best to visit[…]

Latest

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake Opposes Vote on Kavanaugh Until Leftist Accuser Has Her Say

The end of the Republic inches closer as Identity Politics knows no bounds: Republicans join the fight to delay Brett Kavanaugh confirmation vote.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via The Gateway Pundit


FLAKE OUT — ARIZONA SENATOR OPPOSES VOTE ON KAVANAUGH

Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday evening that until he learns more about the sexual assault allegation regarding Brett Kavanaugh, he is “not comfortable voting yes” on Kavanaugh.

It’s Flakes last chance to poke President Trump and the country in the eye before he rides retires and likely finds a job in the liberal media.

Via Mike Cernovich:

Kavanaugh’s accuser is a far left anti-Trump activist.

Via Zerohedge


Over the past few days, what appeared at first to be a merely token resistance to the nomination of Trump SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh has morphed into something entirely more menacing. And for the first time since Kavanaugh’s name was first floated in June, his nomination may be in jeopardy.

After allegations of decades-old sexual improprieties first surfaced last week, it looked as if Kavanaugh would easily surmount this obstacle. But we have to give the Democrats credit: They have lined up their dominoes perfectly. And on Sunday, they set their plan in motion when the Washington Post published an in-depth interview with Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The story detailed a blow-by-blow accounting of Ford’s allegations, as well as her explanation for why she neglected to share her experience until decades later. Tellingly, the story also noted that Democrats have been sitting on the story since July, and that Ford only decided to out herself after some unscrupulous members of the Judiciary Committee shared her identity with the press – or at least that’s what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office alleges.

While the allegations are relatively tame by #MeToo era standards (the incident allegedly unfolded when Kavanaugh was 17), it has apparently been enough for Democrats and a handful of turncoat moderate Republicans to successfully shut down a planned Thursday vote of the Judiciary Committee. Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake effectively shut down the vote last night when he revealed that he wanted to hear more from Ford before voting. Without Flake, the Republicans’ 11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee shifts to a 10-11 vote in favor of the Democrats. While Committee Chairman Charles Grassley has said he’d like the vote to proceed as scheduled, media reports say he is quietly working to organize a private call involving Ford and curious Senators in an effort to help mitigate their concerns.

But looking further ahead, Republican leaders might have more difficulty as Tennessee Republican Bob Corker – who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee but could still hold up the final confirmation vote – said Sunday that he’d also like to see Thursday’s committee vote delayed.

Here’s more from Bloomberg:

“I’ve made it clear that I’m not comfortable moving ahead with the vote on Thursday if we have not heard her side of the story or explored this further,” said Flake, who has the power to stall consideration if all Democrats on the panel join him since Republicans only hold an 11-10 majority on the committee. Flake’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Corker of Tennessee, who isn’t a member of the panel but whose vote is critical to confirmation, also doesn’t want the committee to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation until Ford’s allegations can be heard, said his spokeswoman, Micah Johnson. The senator wants the allegations to be heard promptly, she said.

The backlash intensified late Sunday when Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN that Thursday’s hearing should be delayed.

“Well, I think that might be something they might have to consider, at least having that discussion,” Murkowski.

[…]

“This is not something that came up during the hearings. The hearings are now over. And if there is real substance to this it demands a response.”

However, at least one of the Senate’s reputed moderates has stood up to the Democrats in an interview with the New York Times, castigating them for withholding this information until so late in the process (remember: Feinstein justified this decision by saying she had referred Ford’s allegations to the FBI, who reportedly added them to his background check file).

“What is puzzling to me is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge,” Collins told The New York Times.

Collins asked if Democrats believed Ford, “why didn’t they surface this information earlier,” and if they didn’t believe Ford, “why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it?”

“It is really not fair to either of them the way it is was handled,” Collins said.

Collins comments come after Ford spoke publicly about the alleged incident for the first time during an interview with The Washington Post that was published on Sunday.

On Monday, in the latest sign that Ford could appear at an embarrassing public hearing, Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, told “Today” that her client would be willing to testify publicly before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “She’s a credible person. These are serious allegations. And they should be addressed.”

The White House, for its part, is standing by Kavanaugh, and allowing the Senate to sort things out. According to Bloomberg, Kellyanne Conway said Ford should not be “insulted and ignored” in what appears to be an attempt to beat the Democrats at their own virtue-signaling game.

Still, according to a White House spokesperson, Trump isn’t giving an inch. Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim, citing WH spokesperson Kerri Kupec, reported that Judge Kavanaugh “categorically and unequivocally” denied this allegation: “This has not changed. Judge Kavanaugh and the White House both stand by that statement,”she said.

In fact, as Axios reports, Senate Republicans could “play hardball” by calling on Ford to testify before Thursday’s scheduled vote. Though Republicans wouldn’t surprised if Ford holds a press conference or gives a TV interview, which Axios says “would raise the stakes considerably.” Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for an FBI investigation and a postponement of the vote

To be sure, the Democrats’ goals here are obvious. After Sen. Corey Booker’s “selfless” decision to release unauthorized documents about Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush Administration failed to even delay the process, Democrats have now played their Trump card – no pun intended. Their goal: Delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at least until the Oct. 1 mark – the beginning of SCOTUS’s next term – to put a halt to any controversial decisions that could reverse important precedents. Of course, their ultimate goal is to stonewall the White House until after Nov. 6, when a few victories in the midterms might allow them to sink Kavanaugh’s nomination once and for all.

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

Latest

University announces “White Awake” safe space for white students

The University of Maryland at College Park has set up a new diversity support group to create a “safe space” for white students to discuss their feelings.

Campus Reform

Published

on

Via Campus Reform:


Update: After publication of this article, University of Maryland-College Park changed the name of the group to “Anti-Racism and Ally Building Group,” along with a shorter description, which reads,  “Do you want to improve your ability to relate to and connect with people different from yourself? Do you want to become a better ally? Members will support and share feedback with each other as they learn more about themselves and how they can fit into a diverse world.”

In a statement provided to Campus Reform on Friday, the university explained the name change: “Our Counseling Center acknowledges that we did not choose the right words in raising awareness about this research-based initiative, and how this group has been perceived is counter to the values of inclusiveness and diversity that we embody. Therefore, we are renaming the group to better reflect our intention and values.”


The University of Maryland at College Park announced Friday a new diversity support group to create a “safe space” for white students to discuss their feelings about “interactions with racial and ethnic minorities.”

The support group, called “White Awake,” will help white students who may “sometimes feel uncomfortable and confused before, during, or after interactions with racial and ethnic minorities.”

“This group offers a safe space for White students to explore their experiences, questions, reactions, and feelings,” the description explains. “Members will support and share feedback with each other as they learn more about themselves and how they can fit into a diverse world.” The description asks students if they want to “improve [their] ability to relate to and connect with people different from [themselves]” or if they want to become a better “ally.” The new group is now one of four in the university’s “Diversity Issues” program series.The group is being led by Noah Collins, who works for the UMD Counseling Center, and will be held once a week. Collins specializes in group therapy and is interested “especially in the areas of racial and cultural awareness,” according to his faculty bio.The safe space has been met with harsh criticism from students on social media.

“I am ashamed over the execution of white awake nor do I fully understand its clause. ‘How they can fit into a diverse world’? Why do they need to attend therapy sessions on how to be a decent human being in society?” a UMD student wrote on Twitter. “Why do they need to have these sessions to learn how to coexist?”

“Just like classes. You can’t take one class and feel like you have all understanding over a certain subject,” the student added. “It takes practice, it takes problems, it takes more than one course, so ‘White Awake’ has good intention but I am skeptical over the fairytale result.”

Campus Reform reached out to Collins and UMD for comment but did not receive a response by time of publication. If and when a comment is received, the article will be updated.


Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Grace_Gotcha

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

Latest

Harvard Prof: Merit-based admissions ‘reproduce inequality’

Professor Natasha Warikoo is displeased that students she interviewed are motivated by “self-interest” instead of social justice.

Campus Reform

Published

on

Authored by Toni Airaksinen of Campus Reform:


A Harvard University professor claims in a new academic study that merit-based admission processes at elite universities “reproduce inequality.”

Harvard education professor Natasha Warikoo draws on interviews with 98 white, native-born students at Harvard, Brown University, and the University of Oxford in “What Meritocracy Means to its Winners: Admissions, Race, and Inequality,” published in the journal Social Sciences.

During interviews Warikoo conducted between 2009 and 2011, these students were asked to sound-off on whether they felt their school had meritocratic admissions and if they supported affirmative action. Many answered the second question affirmatively and hailed the benefits of a diverse student body.

But Warikoo seems concerned with students’ responses. Analyzing data from these interviews years later, Warikoo points out that students’ approaches to diversity suggest that they’ve “internalized” the tokenistic rhetoric of the school admissions office, even if they had disagreed with policies like athletic recruitment or legacy admissions before coming to campus.

“Unlike in other campus domains in which there is a history of social protest among college students, in the realm of admissions, students seem to agree quite strongly with their universities, and come to even more agreement rather than critique upon arriving to campus,” she writes. “They suggest that most actors in elite institutions espouse views that reproduce their elite status, rather than engaging in symbolic politics or protest.”

According to Warikoo, “US students espouse a collective understanding of merit,” but only “value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society.”

“They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups in society, as many scholars define multicultural state policies,” she elaborates.

Notably, Warikoo addressed the same issue in her 2016 book The Diversity Bargain, which criticizes white students for understanding “the value of diversity abstractly, but [ignoring] the real problems that racial inequality causes.”

White students “stand in fear of being labeled a racist, but they are quick to call foul should a diversity program appear at all to hamper their own chances for advancement,” Warikoo claims in that book, asserting for instance that white students “reluctantly agree with affirmative action as long as it benefits them.”

Her new study, too, criticizes white students for believing in meritocracy and supporting affirmative action, suggesting that white students only support affirmative action for selfish reasons.

One white student, Naomi, was criticized for saying “diversity is really how you learn here,” as Warikoo suggested that Naomi only valued diversity because it added to the “collective merit” of her cohort of students.

Warikoo also reports that “some students used the collective merit framework to express support for legacy admissions…even while lamenting the inequality legacy admissions engenders.”

She bemoans that, ultimately, the students she interviewed were more motivated by “self-interest” than a commitment to social justice.

“They value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society,” she writes. “They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups.”

According to Warikoo’s interviews, students who attended elite high schools “no longer see a large number of their peers gaining admission to the likes of Harvard, Brown, and Oxford,” which they interpret “as evidence that the system is fair, even while ignoring the fact that students like them and their peers are vastly overrepresented at elite universities.”

The professor suggests that when the legitimacy of how they obtained seats at elite institutions gets called into question, students only become more convinced that they deserve to occupy those seats.

“This paper shows how admissions systems often reproduce inequality not only by how they select students, but also by defining ‘merit’ for admitted students in ways that will reproduce inequality in the future,” she concludes.

Warikoo claims that schools have “unequal” admission processes because black, working class, and first-generation students are underrepresented in student bodies. To fix this, Warikoo recommends that elite universities employ an “admissions lottery,” which the schools would use to randomly admit students who meet certain minimum standards.

“An admissions lottery would shift the meaning of selection from an absolute sense of merit—the best of the best—to an understanding that admission is somewhat arbitrary,” she predicts.

Warikoo’s study was published in the journal Social Sciences, which boasts of a “rapid peer-review” system. While most articles take months if not a year to be accepted, Warikoo’s article was accepted by reviewers in 48 days.

Though Warikoo initially agreed to answer a few questions by email, she ultimately did not respond to Campus Reform. Harvard University also did not respond.

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