Shelley Garland’s “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?”: Umm, No…?

Response to Shelley Garland’s Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

A new addition to the diverse cast of the Huffington Post blog, Shelley Garland describes herself as “an activist and a feminist”, now debuting with the only article to her name: Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

Screenshot_408
End white women’s suffrage? (Link)

The article starts naturally by subscribing the faults of events clearly not beneficiary to her “progressive cause” to white men (what’s more “progressive” than a referendum of self-determination? I kid). Hilariously, Garland misplaces her confidence that the white men are alone in their support of the Republican candidate and now President Donald J. Trump, failing to consider that at least 25% of each racial demographic (with the exception of African Americans) were in favor of the candidate. Now, now, I am not discounting that of all the racial categories noted, the only majority in favor of Trump were white people and that this demographic makes up the majority of the United States, around 70% to 75% as of 2010 United States census. However, Garland seems to exempt women from the category. Wasn’t it the critique of the third-wave feminist movement that men often place women on a pedestal, where women can do no wrong as the guardians of moral standards? Interestingly, CNN exit polls not only shows that a sizeable portion of white women voted for Trump but also the majority of the white women – a sharp 52% – voted for the man now currently in the White House.

Outside the remarkably low creativity, the article is honestly nothing but an entertainment piece, fashioned by a follower of a boring brand of identitarianism. The rest of her work not follows that the white men in the United States should be dealt justice for the crimes of white South Africans in the South Africa, but that the course of justice is acceptable as if disfranchisement should beget disfranchisement in spite of our country’s now general consciousness of disfranchisement as a breach of universal human rights. Unsurprisingly, the author does nothing to credit liberalism with its celebration of ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc. Instead, she champions a society where membership of a group is met with marginalization and/or bounties. An example of a society such as this would be Garland’s fantasy of a United States that decides to disfranchise its majority based on the crimes of their ancestors and/or people of similar race.

aHZSj3AaNM2z7w29jFTrMJrxHowever, in the end, Garland makes the supposition that her radical ideology is not only necessary albeit “unfair” but also implicates that the literal disfranchisement of the majority in favor of the minority is an acceptable choice. Whether this is through violent revolution or legislation is made vague, but the plan seems largely implausible, given the United States’ violent ties with “taxation without representation”. It was because of this, that I had trouble distinguishing whether the article was satirical or not, reducing an entire social movement to a page only championed by out-of-touch, likely privileged, and self-described “feminist” college students midst their completion of a Gender Studies MA degree.

Then, I read Garland’s bio.

tumblr_ogppinl6b31ux1dn3o1_500I certainly hope that Huffington Post, if they continue to employ the ramblings of left-wing authoritarians, does not quickly degenerate into a hotspot for Garlands of the Western world to tinker on to produce more unproductive, aggressive solutions to global inequalities. Regardless of whether Caucasian men are responsible for the atrocities worldwide, I thank the Lord that the United States is still a functioning constitutional republic in protection against these crazed ideologues.

Reject Antifa –Domestic Terrorism

We must declare Antifa as a domestic terrorist group, the same movement whose darkly clad members raided a peaceful protest in UC Berkeley.

Fiona Quintero with 57, 403 supporters

bfbtcgcfduahsud-800x450-nopad

Petitioning the President of the United States and 1 Other

Declare Antifa a Terrorist Organization

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order…

READ MORE

Read More »

The “Muslim Ban”: The Joke of the Year

The New York Times reports that President Trump has announced executive actions, including the “Muslim ban”; this executive order, Michael D. Shear and Helene Cooper describes, “suspends the entry of refugees into the United States and directs official to determine additional screening”. However, this extends from the refugee situation as the order also halts the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely and “bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism”.

We shall review a small, rushed (** cough ** college student with calculus awaiting ** cough **) description of these seven countries through interventions, terrorism, etc.

Iraq:  Under the “invitation” of the Iraqi Government in 2014, former President Barack Obama led a military intervention in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an intervention that still extends to the present.

Syria:  Beginning in the March 2011, the Syrian Civil War has continued to preside over Syria with spillovers in neighboring countries: a struggle for power between the Syrian Arab Republic, the Syrian Opposition, ISIL, Rojava, and the organized CJTF-OIR.

Iran: Now barring US citizens from entry as retaliation, the Shia country is a struggling hybrid between a theocracy, a constitutional republic, and ‘Islamic Republic’. In an alleged ‘proxy war’ with the United States (or Saudia Arabia, depending on the outlet), Iran is believed to be backing the Houthis rebel forces aligned against the internationally-recognised government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi albeit Saudi-supported. Otherwise, Iran has not engaged in direct warfare with the United States and has cooperated to the point of reaching the famed 2015 Iran nuclear deal framework, an agreement that called off sanctions in exchange for measures that made nuclear facilities and uranium enrichment facilities only suitable for nuclear power and civil use. However, in a reckless move, sanctions against Iran were officially extended for another decade by Congress, with cosponsor of the H.R. 6297 including 6 Democratic Representatives and 4 Republican Representatives (Rant: as a Californian, I hate that a Californian Democrat cosponsored the bill… looking at you Representative Brad Sherman of the 30th District). Since then, bills have been introduced to impose nonnuclear sanctions with respect to Iran by Congressmen, including Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Iran still remains in the State Sponsors of Terrorism, which also humorously continues to exclude Saudi Arabia. A country that has been escaped media criticism for its clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Sudan: This hybrid between a presidential republic and an Islamic Republic has been pressured by the United States and other countries toward ‘moderate’ positions. Moderate position does not include common liberties, such as the freedom of the press, as Sudan ranks 172 of 180 countries in terms of freedom of the press according to Reporters Without Borders. Hamas and the National Islamic Front continue to have influence within the country despite considered a general “cooperative counterterrorism partner” by the Country Reports on Terrorism 2013.

Libya: Key Democrats and Republicans supported US action in Libya through bipartisan resolution towards allied military action long ago, including John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer; the three officials and others were shared the common interest of at least a no-fly zone. Nicole Gauouette of CNN reports that the country has since then fallen into a spiral downward, with ISIS bases flourishing across the country, economic turmoil, and a reminiscent vacuum that for “rival government factions and associated militias”.

Somalia: TIME magazine and Daily Signal sheds light on the concern on Somalian terrorists with Abdul Razak Ali Artan as the 74th Somalian-American to plot terrorism.

Yemen: As mentioned before, this country has become the battleground of a ‘proxy war’ between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a fight between the Shia and Sunni powers. As of October 2016, the BBC reports, Yemen has been a victim of “airstrikes by a Saudi-led multinational coalition”, with the conflict and a blockade imposed by that coalition leaving “80% of the population in need of aid”. “Intervention” is a curious word for widespread and systematic attacks on civilian targets in violation of international humanitarian law, isn’t it?

why-would-you-do-thatGiven these details, why is that politicians will applaud the military intervention of these countries as humanitarian crises and protections of the West against the force of ISIS, but God forbid we ever bar them from entering our own country, the world is falling apart and racism has triumphed the one and only President Donald J. Trump? In fact, as sfrantzman says in his post, “Ctrl-F” in the official order, and you will see that none of the countries listed above are mentioned explicitly. Former President Barack Obama’s administration, or Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, chose those countries in their implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, a “kind of ‘Muslim ban’ before the Muslim bam” as sfrantzman hilariously points out. So which is it? Countries of concern, state sponsors of terrorism, or humanitarian crises? Pick your poison.

For more information (and inspiration for this post), watch The Jimmy Dore Show‘s clip surrounding the topic:

Is there such thing as a good Trump voter? Yes.


Response to 
Jamelle Bouie’s article There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter

facepalm-1791146_1280The answer is simple: yes. You would think to yourself that from 62,829,832 votes in favor for Trump, according to International Business Times, that there must be hundreds, thousands, even millions of voters with a slight sense of moral character, simply leaning towards the other side of the political spectrum. Read More »