Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time”

A whistleblower who worked at a Ukraine airbase has come forward with testimony that helps explain how MH17 was attacked. The man came to the editorial office of the newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda” by himself and remains anonymous as he still has relatives in Ukraine and is afraid of revenge and blackmail.

Published

on

20 Views

You can find the full, english translated, transcript courtesy of Fort Russ here.

You can find the original, Russian language, Komsomolskaya Pravda report along with the video recording of the conversation and more infographics here.

The whistleblower is going by the name Alexander for fear of his and his family’s life.


 

THE FIGHTER RETURNED WITHOUT MISSILES

Komsomolskaya Pravda – Where were you on July 17, 2014, the day Malaysian Boeing was shot down?

Alexander – I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the village Aviatorskoye. It is a regular airport. There at this time were based fighter jets and helicopters. Planes regularly flew on bombing missions, Su-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Lugansk. This lasted a long time.

– The aircraft flew every day?

– Daily.

– Why did you assume that these airplanes could be related to the downing of the “Boeing”?

– A few reasons. Out of the eight airplanes, which were based there, only two had “air-to-air” missiles. They were suspended.

– Why? Were there any aircraft battles in the air?

– No, the aircraft was fitted with missiles to cover themselves in the air. Just in case. Mostly they had air-to-ground ammunition. NURS, bombs.

-Tell us about July 17.

– Airplanes flew regularly. All day since the morning. In the afternoon, about an hour before the downing of the “Boeing”, three attack fighters were raised into the air. I don’t remember the exact time. One of the airplanes was equipped with such missiles. It was a Su-25.

– Have you personally seen it?

– Yes.

– Where was your vantage point?

– On site. Cannot tell you exactly.

– Did you have an opportunity to see specifically what the pylons of the aircraft where fitted with? Could you confuse “air-to-air” and “air-to-ground” missiles?

– No, I couldn’t confuse it. They vary in size, plumage, coloration. With a guidance head. Very easy to recognize. Anyway, after a short time, only one airplane returned, two were shot down. Somewhere in the East of Ukraine, I was told. The airplane that came back, was the one with those suspended missiles.

– It returned without the missiles?

– Without the missiles. That pilot was very scared.

– Do you know this pilot, have you seen him?

– Yes.

– Can you tell us his name?

– Last name Voloshin.

– Was he alone in the airplane?

– Yes. The airplane is designed for one person.

– Do you know his name?

– Vladislav, I think. Don’t remember exactly. Captain.

– Captain Voloshin came back. What happened next?

– Came back with blank ammunition.

– No missiles left?

– Yes.

“NOT THE RIGHT PLANE”

– Could you tell us, Alexander, the airplane came back from the mission, you still do not know about the loss of the “Boeing”, but you were somehow surprised by the absence of “air-to-air” missiles. Why?

– These “air-to-air” missiles are not included in the basic ammunition package.

They are used only with a special order. Typically, the aircraft with such rockets were not to allowed into the air. Because this missiles should not be frequently transported in the air.

In all two such missiles can fit on this plane. Never before they had been applied. They were written off previously. But literally on the eve, a week before this incident (the loss of “Boeing” – Ed.) the use of these missiles was urgently renewed. And they put again into service. They have not been used for many years.

– Why?

– They were expired. Made back in the Soviet years. But by the urgent order their expiration date was extended.

– And on this day they were put on the plane?

– They always stood with these missiles.

– But didn’t fly?

– Tried to let them in the air less frequently – every flight depletes the resource. But on this day, the plane flew.

– And came back without them?

– Yes. Knowing this pilot a little bit… (quite possibly, when the other two airplanes were shot down in front of him), he just had a frightened reaction, inadequate. Could out of fright or in revenge launch the missiles into a Boeing. Maybe he took it for some other combat aircraft.

– Are these missiles with self-guiding heads?

– Yes.

– When he launched them, they began to look for a target?

– No. The pilot himself finds the target. Then launches the missile, and it flies at the target.

– Could the pilot use these missiles against ground targets?

– It’s pointless.

– What else do you remember this day? What did the pilot say?

– He said a phrase, when he was lead out of the airplane: “It was not the right plane.” And in the evening there was a phrase to a question from one pilot to him, to Voloshin: “What’s up with the plane?” To which he replied: “The plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“AND AFTER THE TRAGEDY THE FLIGHTS CONTINUED”

– Did this pilot serve there for a long time? How old is he?

– Voloshin is about 30 years old. His base is in Nikolaev. They were transferred to Dnepropetrovsk. Before they were sent to Chuguev near Kharkov. And all this time they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk. And, according to one of the officers of the Nikolaev base, they still continue to do so.

– Did the pilots have good combat experience?

– Those who were there, had experience. Nikolaev base was even one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best base in Ukraine.

– Was the story about the “Boeing” discussed among the pilots?

– All attempts to discuss were immediately stopped. And the pilots mostly talked among themselves only, they are so… stuck-up…

– After everyone learned about this “Boeing” what happened to this pilot, captain Voloshin?

– After all of this flights continued. And the pilots did not rotate. The same faces.

“THERE WAS NO FLIGHTS… BUT IT WAS SHOT DOWN”

– Let’s try to recap the events. How could it develop? Three airplanes left on a combat mission. They were roughly in the same area, as Boeing. Two airplanes were shot down. This captain Voloshin was nervous, got scared, and possibly he mistook the Boeing for combat aircraft?

– Possible. The distance was long, he may have not seen specifically what kind of aircraft.

– What distance do these missiles need?

– At 3-5 kilometers they can find the target.

– And what is the speed difference between combat aircraft and the Boeing?

– No difference: the rockets have pretty good speed. Very fast rocket.

– Will catch up anyway? And height?

– It may easily at its maximum altitude – to 7 thousand meters – quite easily focus on the target.

– To reach it higher?

– Yes. The aircraft can simply lift the nose up, and can find the target with no problems and launch the rocket. The range of this missile is more than 10 kilometers.

– At what distance from the target does this rocket explodes? Does it hit the fuselage and explodes?

– Depending on the modification. Literally could when it hits the body or at a distance of 500 meters.

– We worked at the crash site and noticed that the fragments were trapped in the hull of the aircraft very closely. It seemed like it exploded literally two feet away from the Boeing.

– There is such a missile. The principle of fragments – it breaks, and the fragments hit. And then hits the main warhead of the rocket.

– Ukraine announced that on this day they had no combat flights. We checked different aggregate sources on the downed airplanes, Ukraine denied everywhere that its military aircraft flew on this day.

– I know about this. Ukraine also announced that two of these airplanes were shot down on the 16th, and not the 17th. And many times the date was changed. But actually, the flights were on a daily basis. I saw it myself. Even during the ceasefire there were flights, although, less frequent.

PROHIBITED BOMBS

– What ammunition was on the aircraft at your airfield? Were phosphorus bombs used, incendiary devices? Ukrainian artillery used it very actively on the ground.

– I didn’t see phosphorus bombs. But space-detonating bombs were used.

– Are they prohibited?

– Yes. This bomb was intended for Afghanistan. It was prohibited and was not used until lately. It was prohibited by some Convention, I do not remember, can’t say. This bomb is inhumane, burns everything. Burns absolutely everything.

– They were attached and used during hostilities?

– Yes. And there were also banned cluster bombs. Aircraft cluster bomb – depending on size can hit a very ambitious target. One bomb covers a stadium. Entirely, the whole entire area – two hectares.

– Why did they use such weapons?

– They were following orders. And whose order is unclear.

– What’s the point of such weapons – scare tactic?

– Maximum annihilation of manpower

CAN BE BEATEN FOR EVERY CARELESS WORD

– Why did you go to Russia, why decided to tell? Why, finally, no one learned this before? You’re not the only witness!

– Everyone is intimidated by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine. – Ed.) and the National Guard. People can be beaten for every careless word, jailed on any insignificant suspicion of sympathies towards Russia or the militia. I was initially against this “anti-terrorist operation”. Did not agree with the policy of the Ukrainian state. The civil war is wrong. To kill your own people is not normal. And to take some part in it or not, but to be on the Ukrainian side and to be partially involved in this, I don’t want to in the first place!

References:

http://fortruss.blogspot.gr/2014/12/meet-pilot-who-shot-down-malysian.html

http://www.kp.ru/daily/26323.5/3204312/

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

36
Leave a Reply

avatar
36 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
state farm policy number lookupx4cwym845tx4f8w4fw84rffw485fedwx30m85cgcr83n5rwxym8cnrsdfruxmxmct5895ct4jt3d4yxtjgwj45tc3jporno Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Non_Disclosure
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down #MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at wrong time” http://t.co/l0…

davidemanno2002
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down #MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at wrong time” http://t.co/l0…

RecallCarlLevin
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down #MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at wrong time” http://t.co/l0…

3okc
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down #MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at wrong time” http://t.co/l0…

lana_arcus
Guest

@redpilltimes

So it seems!

lana_arcus
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down #MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at wrong time” http://t.co/l0…

JohnGAHardie
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down #MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at wrong time” http://t.co/l0…

avgaso
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down #MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at wrong time” http://t.co/l0…

Gillier9
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Is pilot Vladislav Voloshin the man that shot down #MH17? “The plane was in the wrong place at wrong time” http://t.co/l0…

trackback

[…] of a Ukrainian military jet in the vicinity of the doomed flight is never discussed in western media […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More Infos here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More Infos here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] There you will find 85751 more Infos: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Find More Informations here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Informations on that Topic: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Find More Informations here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Informations on that Topic: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb

[…]Here is a good Weblog You may Obtain Interesting that we Encourage You[…]

trackback

3nvb54wnxd5cbvbecnv5ev75bc

[…]Every the moment inside a whilst we decide on blogs that we study. Listed below are the latest web sites that we select […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Find More Informations here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More Infos here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] There you will find 39928 more Infos: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Informations on that Topic: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Informations on that Topic: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] There you will find 41935 more Infos: redpilltimes.com/pilot-vladislav-voloshin-man-shot-mh17-plane-wrong-place-wrong-time/ […]

trackback

Title

[…]below you’ll locate the link to some web-sites that we feel you ought to visit[…]

trackback

Title

[…]usually posts some very fascinating stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[…]

trackback

Title

[…]below you’ll locate the link to some internet sites that we believe you need to visit[…]

trackback

Title

[…]please go to the websites we stick to, such as this a single, as it represents our picks from the web[…]

Latest

Trump’s wish to take the US out of NATO leaves NeoCons seething

The US President has seen the truth of the irrelevance of NATO, but there is enormous resistance to change.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Tucker Carlson, Fox News and Russian and American news outlets alike have picked up the story that US President Donald Trump has on numerous occasions, opined that the United States would do well to depart from the North Atlantic Military Organization, or NATO.

This wish caused enormous fury and backlash from those opposed, which, oddly enough include both Democrats and Republicans. Their anger and alarm over this idea is such that the media networks through much of the US are alive with the idea of impeaching the President or bringing 25th Amendment proceedings against him for insanity!

Take a look:

Tucker Carlson, as usual, nailed it.

NATO was formed to make Western Europe secure in the face of a perceived Soviet threat. In 1991, the USSR collapsed and the threat of Ivan the Communist bad guy collapsed with it.

But 28 years later, NATO is still here. And, why?

Well, many “experts” continue to point at Russia as a threat, though after that statement no one seems honestly able to elucidate precisely how Russia would, in fact, threaten any nation, take over it, or conquer the world. Indeed, if anyone seems to understand the perversity of being in charge of the whole world, it seems to be Russia, as expressed by politician and LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky (see how this is so here).

Zhironovsky observed that China is the other nation that is running at full force, but viewing the problems the US is having with being the leader of the world, China stops short of trying to attain this position itself. The question becomes “What does a nation that rules the world actually do then?”

President Trump appears to be seeing the same question, or some similar variant based on the same theme. NATO serves no constructive purpose anymore. Despite the conflicts in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Israel and Syria, there simply are no great threats in the world as it stands today. While there are certainly still wars, none of these wars represents an existential threat to the United States.

Why wouldn’t a US leader want out? In fact, there is further no existential threat to Europe from any present war, nor is there a threat from Russia itself. In fact, Russia has been entering into business relations with many European countries who wish to buy cheap and easily available Russian natural gas. Turkey purchased an S-400 antimissile system in addition to its US made Patriot battery.

There would seem to be very little in the way of concrete and reliable reasoning for the alliance to continue.

But the American Deep State and liberal establishment have come together to resist the US President in a truly furious manner, and it is revelatory of the hypocrisy of anti-Trump politics that American liberals, typically the “sing Kum-ba-yah peacenik” crowd, displays paroxysms of outrage and horror that NATO might be disbanded.

As the result of that, the American media is determined to choke off any possibility of one thinking, “well, what if we were to disband NATO?”

Why is this?

Simple. A lot of people make their living by preparing for the Russian “threat”, and it would mean the end of their work, the end of their money, and a great disruption in life. It does not matter that while this is true, these same people could conceivably apply their considerable skill sets to deal with real problems that face a world that no longer has a dipolar alignment, or to help prevent a real problem from arising from real situations, such as the recent and current Islamization of many European cities.

One of the great afflictions of American politics and policy has been that so much of it appears to be focused on “short term” or “no term” matters. We see this with the problems related to border security, the coming advent of AI-based automated processes that may furlough low-skilled workers in tremendous amounts in a short period of time. Rather than solve real problems, the elected representatives and media seem more content to oppose Donald Trump when he, as a businessman ought to do, makes a federal case out of what he sees on the horizon.

The Border Wall, for example, is a highly logical part of a properly handled set of immigration policies. But the very direct behavior of President Trump helped amplify the resentment the Democrats still hold against him for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and so, the Democrats have effectively said “nuts!” to the needs of the nation and they take out their resentment on the nation by refusing to negotiate with the President about how to close the border.

NATO is another example. The alliance served its purpose. It is time for the alliance to end, or to be radically restructured in terms of new goals based in real, and not just flimsy rhetorical, needs.

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

Latest

A dispassionate case for the American border wall

All the arguing on both sides is a rhetorical war that prevents action from happening. Here are simple reasons the border wall should go up.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the hottest news stories in the American press has been that over the border wall, proposed by President Trump during his campaign, and now resting at the center of a debate that has about one-quarter of the US governmental services in a state of shutdown. We have observed fiery, passionate, and even disgusting levels of rancor and bitterness in the political rhetoric concerning the wall. This debate goes on in the news media, and many of the Americans who watch and listen to this take on the fire of these arguments to even more passionate levels.

However, the passion has largely obscured the actual issue of border security, perhaps by design. As long as people keep fighting over it, it still is not getting done. And while thankfully the American government is designed to work very slowly in determining important matters, here, that trait is being exploited, mostly by Democrats, but also by Republicans and even possibly, President Trump himself.

The motives each side has vary.

President Trump wants Congress to pass wall funding because then it is a legislative act that the Legislative and Executive branches of government agree on. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will be called upon to test such a resolution for its legality. This is one very significant reason why the President is trying every way possible to get this through Congress.

If he goes the route of declaring a “National Emergency” then, according to a number of sources, the first thing that is likely to happen after the build order is a lawsuit that stops the process in its tracks – probably a land-use lawsuit regarding eminent domain and damage to the properties of private citizens, who for various reasons do not want a barrier built through their lands. This is a problem that the American government has sadly created for itself with a very poor reputation of proper reparations for the invocation of Eminent Domain land claims.

This is the simplest way to explain the raison d’être behind the President’s hesitation to invoke executive emergency powers.

For the Democrats, the motive is interesting. The rhetoric from conservatives, including the President, is that the Dems do not want the wall simply because the “imposter” President wants one. 

For anyone who thinks that this is an utterly insane, and indeed, childish, argument, well, you would be exactly right. It is.

It also appears to be true. Evidence for this is shown by the fact that almost every critic quoted by the mainstream press is a Democrat. How is it possible that Democrats have a unique hold on facts that other people just don’t? Even when a Republican expresses a concern about the wall, there is still actual logistical information backing the claim:

Republican and Democratic lawmakers raised immediate concerns over shifting funds that have already been approved by Congress for projects in states across the nation.

Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said he has been hearing from lawmakers in recent days concerned that Army Corps projects in their states could be canceled or postponed.

(This is a concrete situation that is based on normal concerns about money and not about ideological political views.)

“If they drag the money out of here,” Simpson said in an interview late Thursday, “a lot of members will have problem with it.”

(But now in come the Democrats, and observe as logic leaves and is replaced by fiery language.)

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the incoming chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an interview that rebuilding the disaster areas is “a way higher priority benefiting the American people than a wasteful wall.”

He said the Army Corps works on dams, levees and other projects across the nation and has an enormous backlog of unfunded needs. “It would be an incredible disservice to the American people and the economy” to divert the money to the border wall, he said.

And Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said in a statement that it would be “beyond appalling for the president to take money from places like Puerto Rico that have suffered enormous catastrophes, costing thousands of American citizens’ lives, in order to pay for Donald Trump’s foolish, offensive and hateful wall.

“Siphoning funding from real disasters to pay for a crisis manufactured by the president is wholly unacceptable and the American people won’t fall for it,” she said.

The Republican here spoke without passion, simply saying there is concern about shifting funds for the wall. But the Democrats used incendiary language like “wasteful” and “foolish, offensive and hateful” as adjectives to describe the border wall. Very passionate expressions, which are being repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream press and all of the Democrat party.

The bias most notably and publicly showed in the accusatory language of the Democrat kingpins themselves, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

There is little true “debate” about the border wall. Most discussion on the news media or social media is verbal rock-throwing rather than respectful, honest and fair discussion. As noted before, this may be part of the design to prevent action on the wall.

However there are dispassionate and reasonable arguments that support the construction of this project. Here are some of those reasons:

  •  A 30-35 foot tall wall running the entire length of the border is probably the cheapest and most cost effective single deterrent to illegal border crossings. Whoever wants to cross the border has to make some provision for dealing with the wall. If that provision is rather difficult, it will dissuade most people from trying it.
  • A wall reduces the need for manpower along the border. While it is absurd to assume that the wall alone would keep every illegal immigrant out, it also facilitates efficient deployment of manpower and other means for active border control.
  • Even if the wall is not continuous along the entire length of the border (which is likely to wind up as the case), where it isn’t is easier to monitor. This is another aspect of the manpower issue. There are likely to be gaps and open spaces for a variety of reasons. But right now, there are about over 1,200 miles of the 1,954 mile long border that have no barrier present. That is a lot of space to monitor actively.

These three reasons are really so close as to be almost the same exact reason. But the arguments for and against the border wall are being conducted in an apparent context that in order to secure a border, this is all anyone needs to do. This is an absurd idea and is being used to try to deflect action.

  • The best border security systems in the world are systems of walls, fences and monitoring facilities. Even the Great Wall of China did not stop all invaders. It deterred a lot of probable attempts though. The wall was also manned so that active attempts to get through it could be stopped in active manners.
  • The North – South Korean DMZ and the Berlin Wall are also particularly effective as parts of an overall border crossing deterrent system. The fences, trenches and watchtowers along the length of these two borders create an extremely effective measure to deter illegal crossings. For example, the Berlin Wall stood from 1961 to 1989, a total of 28 years. During that period, only five thousand people crossed that border. The US Border Patrol conducted over 300,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants crossing the border in 2018 alone.

The imagery of walls like North Korea’s and East Berlin’s are part of the reason why the border wall comes across as an unsavory idea. There is probably no American that does not know this image, and no one in the country like the idea of such a barrier being associated with the United States.

However, that is simply not the issue. The US is not a police state trying to keep people inside. It is dealing with a decades-long stretch of bad policy regarding immigration which will not be stopped except by radical means.

Many families made a very long journey this year in the migrant caravans to try to game the American system. It is understandable that many of these people are trying to get away from bad conditions in the countries they left. But taking advantage of the United States is wrong, and the wrong is shared equally by the actions of the illegals and by the weak posture of the United States herself.

The simplest fact is that only strength assures freedom. A strong border reinforces safe immigration. A strong and effective immigration policy relies on having a tightly controlled border AND an asylum and entry facilitation process that is thorough, lawful and dispassionate. The USA has had this in place in other points of entry, such as Ellis Island. Leaving the Mexican frontier open now is just stupid policy. An integrated, careful process to process would be immigrants as quickly and carefully as possible needs to become part of the new American way of doing things. There is no swifter way to guarantee overall immigration policy change than the construction of the physical barrier along the US-Mexican border.

It does not matter how anyone feels or thinks. Walls work when used rightly. President Trump’s plan satisfies all the required needs for a good US immigration policy as regards the Mexican border.

 

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

Latest

US Women’s March implodes upon itself [Video]

This year’s Women’s March collapses due to not being politically woke enough, in a truly astounding fashion.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

If this doesn’t make your head spin, perhaps you are either dead, or sufficiently “woke.” The Humboldt County Annual Women’s March, set for January 19th of this year got canceled because it was “too white.”

Yes. Too white. This is a county in Northern California, 270 miles north of San Francisco. According to the Wikipedia entry, on this locale, the 2016 census gave this demographic result.

In other words, the county’s own demographics are very white.

So, does this make sense? No? Well, maybe the interview will clear it up.

Still no?

It seems that Jesse Watters was just as stunned as anyone else. The expression on his face is priceless. Should I laugh now, or later? How does this woman actually believe her own rhetoric?

But the woman, Kelsey Reedy, seems to have the logic worked out in her mind.

Maybe that is because she is a woman. A liberal woman. Fantasy turned inside out. But wait! She also even included expletive language on a televised interview, which is indecent in of itself.

It would appear that being “woke” can truly turn in on itself.

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