What Trump Should Have Learned From His Travel Ban Order

Besides causing numerous left-leaning protests at our nation's airports, President Trump's travel ban had the nation's media running around trying to find anyone who had been "wronged" by his actions.  Fox news reported this:

"Family reunions were blocked, refugees from war-torn countries were turned away and border agents detained scores of unsuspecting travelers at airports as the U.S. began a chaotic implementation of President Donald Trump's plan to fight terrorism by temporarily stopping citizens of seven nations from entering the country."

CNN tried to put a "face" on all those they could find who were "unreasonably" harmed by Trump's executive action.  Even the Dallas Morning News found a family of an ex-U.S. Army translator who had traveled overseas and then, because of Trump, was not allowed back in the country.

This should all be a warning to Trump.

His hasty and poorly thought out executive orders, are giving the press plenty of ammunition in their fight to destroy his presidency.  The press is always out there waiting to jump on any collateral damage that Trump might cause.  Even though the temporary order, itself, could result in a major benefit to the country.  This is why the repeal of ObamaCare has to be handled delicately --- a talent that Trump, so far, seems incapable of.  If not done right, the media will find -- just like now -- every possible person who has been harmed by its repeal.

References:

Tears and detention for US visitors as Trump travel ban hits: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/29/tears-and-detention-for-us-visitors-as-trump-travel-ban-hits.html

These are the faces of Trump's ban: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/immigration-ban-stories/

Family of ex-U.S. Army translator caught in the middle of Trump's travel ban: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald-trump-1/2017/01/29/family-ex-us-army-translator-caught-middle-trumps-travel-ban

Obama Calls for the Control of the Internet and Communications

During a recent press conference with Angela Merkel, President Obama blamed the rise of Trump on the Internet and "communications" (Newspapers? Radio? TV?); claiming that these technologies need to be controlled because they are "disruptive".  Disruptive to who?  Him?  The Democrats?  Or, to those that call themselves globalists, who believe in open borders; a unified world government; and a single global currency?

The fact is, that Obama, once again, wants to control conservative talk.

Of course, he is talking about Fox News. In 2010, he said they had a "destructive" viewpoint.  In May of 2015, at a conference at Georgetown University, when talking about the fact that the media must be controlled, he said this: "I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu -- they will find folks who make me mad..."  Just recently, he went after them again when he claimed that Hillary Clinton's loss was due to the fact that Fox News is in "every bar and restaurant".  Really?.  Most bars I've gone to have sports on, and most restaurants play music, not Fox News.  He really needs to get out more often and see what the real world is like!

I suppose that this blog as well, needs to be controlled.  And, what about talk radio? Also I'm certain that he thinks Brietbart, Mediaite, and a whole host of other conservative websites must be sternly dealt with. In fact, any form of communications that doesn't show Barack Obama in a "good light" should be eradicated; or at least converted to a liberal format.  Since he has been in office, he has used his appointees on the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission to shut down conservative speech of any kind.

But now he's even gotten Facebook and Google involved in limiting free speech.  Both run by Obama and Democratic supporters, they are now in the process of cleansing the internet of supposed false/fake news. The question here is, who elected them the arbitrators of what constitutes fake news.  And, where is the line drawn between opinion pieces and so-called fake news.  Facebook and Google never had a problem allowing searches and stories when Harry Reid falsely claimed that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years; for which Politifact give dirty Harry a full "pants on fire" rating.

But the media is full of false stories.  Do a Google search on NBC and you will find dozens of occurrences by that supposedly major new agency (and Obama Supporter) selectively editing stories to favor a "Democratic" viewpoint. Then, we have the darling of the liberal left, Katie Couric, who selectively edited a documentary on gun control in order to make gun ownership advocates look like uninformed idiots.

The bottom line is that Obama doesn't really want to control the internet and communications on a fair basis.  He only wants to control those aspects that he doesn't like.  Of course, forget about that little thing called the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech.  Even if it is false.  Look at how many incorrect statements our politicians make.  For example, Obama's "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Finally, the rise of Donald Trump could best be explained as the country's rejection of excessive "political correctness" which is constantly encouraged by Democrats and by Barack Obama himself.  The President still can't say the words "Islamic Terrorists".   No major media outlet has even reported on Obama calling for the "control" of the Internet and Communications.  That is a type of abuse, in itself?

References:

President Obama Blames the Internet for the Rise of Trump – Technology Needs “More Control”: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/18/president-obama-blames-the-internet-for-the-rise-of-trump-technology-needs-more-control/

Obama call to change ‘how the media reports’ raises concerns: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/obama-call-to-change-how-media-reports-raises-concerns.html

Obama Says Fox News Promotes ‘Destructive’ Viewpoint: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/obama-says-fox-news-promotes-destructive-viewpoint/

Obama Slams Fox News for Being On In 'Every Bar and Restaurant,' Blames Network for Hillary's Defeat: http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/746353-president-obama-slams-fox-news-for-being-on-in-every-bar-and-restaurant-blames-it-for-hillarys-defeat/

FEC Dems lay groundwork to ban Fox, WSJ political coverage: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-dems-lay-groundwork-to-ban-fox-wsj-political-coverage/article/2603177

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation --- like PACs: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-chair-warns-that-conservative-media-like-drudge-report-and-sean-hannity-face-regulation-like-pacs/article/2548163

Articles: Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html

FCC Commissioner Warns of Federal Regulation of Online Speech: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20896-fcc-commissioner-warns-of-federal-regulation-of-online-speech

Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html

Harry Reid says anonymous source told him Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/06/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-anonymous-source-told-him-mitt-rom/

Katie Couric Regrets "Misleading" Editing on Gun Doc: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/katie-couric-regrets-misleading-editing-898303

Google Search: nbc selective editing: https://www.google.com/search?q=nbc+selective+editing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

pb

Climate Change Alarmists Fret Over the Lack of Media Coverage

In a recent article for Investor's Business Daily, Kerry Jackson speculated that climate alarmists were upset that hurricane Matthew didn't do more damage, and as a result, wasn't able to advance their cause.  In a later article, she also told us that these same people want to change the way hurricanes are measured.   Not just by wind, but by rainfall too.  This was so they could seem more threatening and more frequent.  All of which could signal even more "climate change".

Then, Brad Plummer at Vox.com was dismayed that in the 4 debates -- three presidential and one vice presidential -- the subject wasn't even mentioned.  Additionally, Michael Mann of "hockey stick" temperature projections speculated that the main stream media has been "compromised" and are intentionally ignoring climate change.  Boo hoo!

The simple fact, is that people don't care about it.  It's not an important issue.  Generally, jobs and the economy are the number one concerns. When you look at polling for the top issues on people's minds, climate change hardly ever comes up, and when it does, the percentage of people worried about it are in the single digits.

In my opinion, the main reason that people are turned off by the topic, is that "alarmists" literally blame everything on climate change.  Even wars, and every hurricane and tornado as if they didn't exist before, along with other endless declarations.  People like me, just find this too unbelievable.  Especially, when you consider that many declarations and predictions contradict each other.   Hell, the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, is running around predicting a 9 foot sea rise by 2050, when in fact, seas are only rising about 14 inches a century. Then, we were told by NASA earlier this year, that the rise in sea levels has slowed because the rains are heavier over land.  Tell that to California and the rest of the Southwest who are in a multi-year drought.

It's not the media that is losing interest.  It's the people who are and the media just plays to the interests of the public.

References:

Are Global Warming Alarmists Disappointed Hurricane Matthew Wasn't Worse?  http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/are-global-warming-alarmists-disappointed-hurricane-matthew-wasnt-worse/

Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them: http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/warming-alarmists-redefine-what-a-hurricane-is-so-well-have-more-of-them/

That's 4 straight debates without a single question on climate change. Good job, everyone: http://www.vox.com/2016/10/19/13342250/presidential-debates-climate-change

Mann on the Lack of MSM Climate Coverage: “One has to wonder if television networks are compromised…”  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/19/mann-on-the-lack-of-msm-climate-coverage-one-has-to-wonder-if-television-networks-are-compromised/

Polls: Priorities: http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Could climate change lead to a WAR? Global warming will increase the risk of armed conflict between ethnic groups: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3707108/Could-climate-change-lead-WAR-Global-warming-increase-risk-armed-conflict-ethnic-groups.html

Jill Stein just went way overboard on sea level rise: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/17/jill-stein-just-went-overboard-on-sea-level-rise/?utm_term=.9e8aeaf48736

NASA, University Study Shows Rising Seas Slowed by Increasing Water on Land: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-university-study-shows-rising-seas-slowed-by-increasing-water-on-land

Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/

Australia Doomed To Be A Third-World Country. Really?

What never ceases to amaze me is the fact that so many supposedly top scientists can keep making outlandish predictions that never come true, and yet they continue to get the attention of world-wide media.  One such scientist is ecologist and former Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich. 

Recently, the global-warming alarmist Ehrlich essentially said that Australia is “working to become a third-world country” through its economic dependence on mining natural resources for export and its reliance on coal mining.  And, that "gut feeling" prediction will come in the next 50 years.

The problem with Ehrlich is that he has made all too many predictions that never come true.  His biggest fail was his early 1970's prediction:

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Of course we didn't lose the nearly billion people in ten years that this award winning ecologist predicted.  In fact, since then, the population has doubled; and while there is starvation in the world and an estimated 10 million people die each year from it, the world is nowhere close to the 100 to 200 million deaths per year.

He also predicted that by the year 2000, the British Isles would become an impoverished bunch of islands with 70 million starving people.

In my opinion, Ehrlich and his outrageous predictions should never be so easily accepted as fact; especially when it comes to all the dire claims being made about global warming and climate change.  Unfortunately, in Ehrlich's case, the media eats his "bull sh*t" up and his fellow scientists keep piling on the accolades.

References:

Paul Ehrlich: Australia will become a “third world country” if we don’t abandon Mining: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/03/paul-ehrlich-australia-will-become-a-third-world-country-if-we-dont-abandon-mining/

Paul Ehrlich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

What the New York Times Didn’t Learn from Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb Fizzle: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/04/what-the-new-york-times-didnt-learn-from-paul-ehrlichs-population-bomb-fizzle/

Paul Ehrlich still prophesying doom, and still wrong: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100153735/paul-ehrlich-still-prophesying-doom-and-still-wrong/

Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions: http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

How many people die each minute from starvation?: https://factcheckinginjusticefacts.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/asmaa-al-hameli/

The Irresponsible Media, Black Leadership, And Even The White House Own The Ferguson Riots

When the Michael Brown shooting was first made public, we were told that an unarmed Black teen was shot in the back by a White police officer while holding his hands in the air in surrender.  The supposed reason that we were given for the shooting was that Michael Brown refused to move out of the middle of the street.  All of this was wrong and, if you think about it, made zero sense.  However, because of this irresponsible reporting, nights of rioting ensued. Blacks and sympathetic whites, all over the country, protested the shooting by holding their hands up in the air and shouting "Don't shoot". 

Also, the implied racism claim was further inflamed when Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP all descended on Ferguson, whipping up even more rage over the Brown shooting.  Beyond this, Obama's own Attorney General, Eric Holder, injected himself into the situation by launching a racial investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. That fact alone, solidified the belief in the minds of many Blacks that the shooting was racially motivated.  This too was irresponsible.

Lastly, President Obama, instead of reassuring the nation that the Grand Jury decision was correct, simply called for calm, while in split screen, rioting and flames were seen.

The President further fanned the flames by saying the anger was "understandable" for people who believe "the law is being applied in a discriminatory fashion".  Implying, of course, that the Grand Jury decision was indeed unfair.

So, all along, the stage was set for rioting; as if it would be somehow purposeful, but, long after the violence stops; and the media attention is gone; and people like the Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton have moved on, Ferguson will be left to fall into decay like so many other cities that fell victim to racial rioting in the past.  Blacks that remain in Ferguson are destined to live in a community that is poorer, and more crime ridden than it is today. Ironically, it will be the Black residents themselves, who will suffer the most for Michael Brown's death.

References:

Obama begs for calm as rioters set fires and attack police cars in Ferguson after grand jury refuses to indict police officer in Michael Brown case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848308/Obama-begs-calm-rioters-set-fires-attack-police-cars-Ferguson-grand-jury-refuses-indict-police-officer-Michael-Brown-case.html

Holder's Justice Department to Investigate Ferguson, Missouri, Police: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/justice-department-investigate-ferguson-missouri-police-n195271

Sharpton Calls Ferguson Decision 'An Absolute Blow' to Justice: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/ferguson-al-sharpton-react-grand-jury-decision-113157.html

Al Sharpton Announces Ferguson Protest Plans In 25 Cities: http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-agitator-al-sharpton-just-revealed-will-spread-protests-far-beyond-ferguson/

How The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision Is Being Distorted By Media

In headline after headline, the Supreme Court decision, siding with Hobby Lobby, is being grossly distorted by calling it a decision against a woman's reproductive health; or, more generally: contraception.  This is a complete lie.

What is not being told, is the fact that Hobby Lobby and the other litigant, Conestoga, already provided insurance with contraceptive coverage for 16 of 20 methods of contraception that were mandated by ObamaCare; meeting the contraception needs of 95% of the women working at their companies. Their's was not an argument against providing contraception or, somehow, a kind of war against women's reproductive health.  What they did object to is having to be told by Obama and his Department of Health and Human Services that they have to provide therapeutic abortion drugs such as Plan B as part of their medical insurance plans.  This is the only and true basis of their religious objection.

I think one of the most distorted headlines about the Supreme Court decision was this from NBC: "Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control."  It paints "employers", in a broad brush fashion, being able to deny birth control coverage. That is simply a lie.  The decision by the high court was limited to companies that are non-public owned and whose ownership is closely held by, for example, a family -- as was the case for Hobby Lobby.  All other employers must comply with the ObamaCare mandate to provide total contraceptive coverage; including abortive drugs.

The reality is that many, if not most employers had already provided some forms of contraception; and, they did so long before ObamaCare.  It is just good business in several ways.  Coverage of contraception is a recruiting tool that is able to attract good, qualified female employees; just as other benefits would.  Also, a pregnancy can be very costly to a company.  Under existing laws, women are entitled to maternity leave with their jobs held for them when they return.  As a result, companies must hire some form of temporary help to cover the loss of a woman on leave.  While some lower level jobs are easy to cover with temporary help, some higher level vacancies must be supplemented with extremely expensive consulting and contract labor.

Now, one last important note.  ObamaCare is designed to literally destroy the system of employer-based insurance in this country.  That's why the penalty for not providing it is so low; relative to the cost of providing insurance. So, the Hobby Lobby win is a moot point because, that company, like so many others, will probably elect to pay the ObamaCare employer mandate tax penalty and force their employees to buy their own insurance through the exchanges; assuming ObamaCare hasn't been repealed.  And, once an employee is in the exchange, all forms of contraception are covered; including those designed to be abortive.

References:

New Research Shows that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Provide the Contraceptive of Choice to Over 95% of Women it Ensures: http://reproductiveresearchaudit.com/new-research-shows-that-hobby-lobby-and-conestoga-provide-the-contraceptive-of-choice-to-over-95-of-women-it-ensures-only-330-women-likely-not-covered-for-abortion-causing-drugsdevices/

Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control:  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hobby-lobby-ruling-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

Obamacare And The End Of Employer-Based Health Insurance:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/11/14/obamacare-and-the-end-of-employer-based-health-insurance/

Obamacare Architect Emanuel: Most Employers Will Drop Health Coverage: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Emanuel-employers-drop-health/2014/03/21/id/560906/

Media Ignores Romney Debate Performance: Focuses on "Missing" Obama

Since last Wednesday's Presidential Debate, the media seems to be less focused on Romney's excellent performance and, instead, would prefer to analyze why Obama was MIA at that event.  It's as if they seem to think that Romney didn't really win but, instead, the President lost because he wasn't up to par.  Of course, by implication, this means that if Obama was Obama that night, Romney would still be eating his dust.

Anyone who unbiasedly watched that debate saw a sharp and quick-minded Romney who was in control of the facts and looked as presidential as anyone could look.  But of course, the left-wing media just won't give Romney the win on any basis.

My Prediction On Tonight's Presidential Debate

Both debaters may make a gaffe or two; or maybe more. But, expect the left wing media to highlight Romney's missteps while totally ignoring those of the President.  As a result, Obama will be played up as the winner of Wednesday night.  In my opinion, the only way Romney can win is to have a perfectly flawless evening along with putting Obama heavily on the defensive; otherwise, barring a perfect Romney performance, Obama can do no wrong in the media's eyes. That's my prediction.

The Media Placed Romney In A Catch 22 Position On Embassy Attacks

Immediately after Romney criticized the U.S. Embassy officials in Cairo for putting out a statement that apologized to the Muslims for America's belief in freedom of speech, the media pounced; saying that Romney had jumped the gun and had politicized a crisis situation.

But, I guarantee you that if Romney hadn't spoken, the media would have charred him for his lack of concern and, more probably, his lack of foreign policy experience.  Either way, the media was out to get Romney and elevate Obama in the process.

One last thing.  An apology is an admission of guilt and that Embassy apology may have actually inflamed the situation further. The U.S. should never issue an apology unless some "official" action, in violation of our principals, necessitated it.  Romney was right to criticize the apology.

WOW! The Media's Really Caught Paul Ryan This Time!

While giving an interview, Paul Ryan was asked if he ever ran a marathon and, if so, how fast.  Ryan responded with two hours and 50 something.  We'll of course, only a few amateur runners are able crack the 3 hour limit.  So, now the left-wing media has become absolutely hysterical in calling out Ryan as a liar.  Here's a sample of some of the headlines:

• Daily KOS: Ryan Marathon Liar
• Salon: Ryan marathon lie
• Huffington Post: Paul Ryan: Marathon Time Not True
• Salon: Ryan's Marathon Lie
• ABC News: Ryan Trips Over Marathon Question
• L.A. Times: Ryan exaggerates his marathon-running prowess
• The Atlantic: The Real Mystery Of Paul Ryan's Marathon Time
• NPR: Fact Check: Paul Ryan Exaggerates Marathon Claim

And, this just goes on and on with more than 23 pages of Google headlines on the topic.  Even Biden's "they want y'all back in chains" didn't get that much attention.  Nor did Obama's 57 states gaffe.  But, my God!  Is this the end of the Romney-Ryan ticket?  Did Romney make a mistake in picking a liar as a "running" running mate?  If Ryan lied about this, what else is he lying about?  I'm sure the media is now charged up an ready to find every lie that Ryan has every told. Go get 'em media.  This is more important than jobs, the economy, Iran and Israel, the collapse of Europe, and every other problem facing this country.

Actually, Ryan has since corrected himself by saying his time was 4 hours and 1 minute and 25 seconds. 

Rolling Stone Mag: Actions Have Consequences

Right now, the folks at Rolling Stone are probably high-fiving each other for their headline-grabbing story that actually brought down a key general in our war effort in Afghanistan. But, the last laugh just may be had by General McChrystal himself. As a result of that story the relationship that the media has enjoyed with our military over the last few decades may have seriously changed. In fact, what Rolling Stone Magazine has done may actually cause the military to deny the media access for many years to come.

Newton's Third Law tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But, when it comes to dishonoring a hero like McChrystal, the opposite reaction may not be equal, but greater than the original action. In the history of military-related journalism, the well may just have dried up thanks to Rolling Stone Magazine. I hardly think the rest of the industry will be too happy about that. Any bond of trust that had existed between journalists and the military has been broken!