Catherine Rampell (who?) Calls You/Me a Bigot for Concerns about Refugee Admissions

Who the heck is Catherine Rampell and who cares?   Did Rampell go to the same facial expression school for progressives that Kamala Harris apparently attended?

Rampell is one of those Ivy-league-educated thirty-somethings who has been elevated to a position as morally superior opinion writer (aren’t they all!) at the Leftwing anti-Trump Washington Post.

Neil Munro of Breitbart checked in with me to see how I felt about being a bigot for the last decade plus.

This is what Rampell opined in the Washington Post earlier this month.

Trump’s refugee ceiling is bad for everyone but bigots

Frankly I don’t pay any attention to the name-callers, except that they invigorate me to keep going just when I am ready for blogger retirement.

Once they start making charges against me and others who believe we have a right to know about a program that is changing America—a right to talk about it, to understand how a federal program works and a right to object to it—that we are racists, bigots and xenophobes, I know they are know-nothings.

And, they are weak because name-calling is the last refuge of political agitators whose team is losing.

Here is some of what Munro penned at Breitbart after asking the bigot—me—what I thought of Rampell’s charge.

Washington Post: Only ‘Bigots’ Oppose Large Refugee Inflows

President Donald Trump’s decision to accept 15,000 refugees in 2020 only helps “bigots,” says Catherine Rampell, a pro-migration columnist at the Washington Post.

“The only constituency helped by Trump’s latest cruelty are the bigots and knee-jerk nationalists crafting his policies,” she wrote, under the headline “Trump’s refugee ceiling is bad for everyone but bigots.”

Rampell’s jibe was dismissed by Ann Corcoran, founder of Refugee resettlement Watch, who says the federal importation of refugees expands American poverty, slows technological innovation, and fuels civic conflict. She responded:

There’s no sense trying to argue with [progresives] except to turn it back and say; ‘What about our own poor people? Why aren’t they interested in taking care of our poor Americans? Our homeless? Why are refugees and immigrants somehow cooler and more desirable to take care of than our own poor people? Have we run out of poor Americans to take care of?’ No, clearly, we have not run out of poor Americans.


Advocates for migration are eager to claim moral superiority over the Americans who want to help Americans, said Corcoran. “They believe we’re bigots — that’s what they’ve been saying for decades — but they know big business uses these refugees to keep wages low,” she said.


So the hidden agenda for Rampell and many others progressives is political ambition, not charity, Corcoran said. “The bottom line is that these immigrants vote for Democrats,” she said.

“Big business gets the cheap labor, the Democrats get the voters, and Americans get hammered with this humanitarian [B.S.],” she said.

Much more here.

The Left has successfully silenced many good Americans who might speak by effectively deploying the “racist” labeling methodology.  Just get over it, laugh it off, speak up and vote for Donald Trump!

If Trump loses they won’t have to bother with name-calling, they will have real power to silence us!

Spread the love

4 thoughts on “Catherine Rampell (who?) Calls You/Me a Bigot for Concerns about Refugee Admissions

  1. Frederick Douglass speaks to Rampell from 1853 on racist democrat open borders and sanctuary city policy of today: “The old avocations, by which colored men obtained a livelihood, are rapidly, unceasingly and inevitably passing into other hands; every hour sees the black man elbowed out of employment by some newly arrived emigrant, whose hunger and whose color are thought to give him a better title to the place; and so we believe it will continue to be until the last prop is levelled beneath us . . . It is evident, painfully evident to every reflecting mind that the means of living, for colored men, are becoming more and more precarious and limited. Employments and callings, formerly monopolized by us, are so no longer.
    White men are becoming house-servants, cooks and stewards on vessels — at hotels. They are becoming porters, stevedores, wood sawyers, hod carriers, brick makers, white washers and barbers, so that the blacks can scarcely find the means of subsistence — a few years ago, and a white barber would have been a curiosity — now their poles stand on every street. Formerly blacks were almost the exclusive coachmen in wealthy families . . .Without the means of living, life is a curse, and leaves us at the mercy of the oppressor to become his debased slaves.”5
    In an 1879 article in the Baltimore Sun, he observed how the bargaining power of blacks, potentially greater in the South because of a lack of other labor, was undercut in the immigrant-rich cities of the North:
    “Our people in the South have a monopoly of the labor market. They are the arm, the muscle and the hand, with the vantage ground of the constitution behind them, men sympathizing with them in every State, and the power to say, “Give us fair wages or your fields will go untilled.” In the North and West they will have no such advantage. They will be confronted by Irishmen, Germans, and Chinese, who can do all kinds of labor, even to handling the wood saw and the whitewash brush”.

    Immigration policy includes tacit approval of illegal immigration too. Texas sees over 1/2 of all construction now done by illegals with similar rates throughout much of our south. Up to the 30’s construction in these regions was all but exclusively done by the community of Frederick Douglass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *