Search This Blog

Monday, January 23, 2017

Today In Fake News

The New York Times is at it again today.  The Monday edition of the paper has a story at the top of the front page that announces that because of President Trump's "rocky" start, he is losing his influence across Washington.

Let's stop there.  One might validly ask, what "rocky" start?  Did the Times think that the music for the first dance at the Inaugural Ball was a poor choice?  Did the Times not like the First Lady's gown?  Is the Times claiming that the executive order stopping new regulations until they are reviewed by the White House is a "rocky" start?  It's identical to the order issued by Obama.  Is the problem that only two cabinet appointments were approved on Friday with more to come today?  What is "rocky"?

The truth is that this is a phony narrative that the Times is putting forward as part of its wishful thinking campaign.  There is no sense to it except in the world of fake news put out to encourage the Democrat base to have hope.  In a week, however, there really will be things that have happened.  By that time, the current Times narrative will be just a memory.

It does not serve the best interests of the nation for the Times to just stick with fake news.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Here They Go Again

The mainstream media is out again with yet another misleading story about "settlements" in Israel.  This time, the purveyor of the bogus story is Reuters.  In an article today about whether or not President Trump will shift the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Reuters reports that "Israeli authorities" granted permits for the building of over 500 residences in "settlements" in Jerusalem.  That sounds ominous, doesn't it?

Here's what actually happened today.  The city of Jerusalem building department granted building permits for about 500 homes/apartments within the city of Jerusalem.  About a third of the units are in a section of the city which is the northern terminus of the Jerusalem light rail line, the largest mass transit line in the city.  The rest are in areas that put them closer to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, than the majority of the people living in Jerusalem.  So let's be clear.  The city government authorizes homes and apartments within the city limits and the morons at Reuters call these new homes "settlements".

It's also important to understand that we don't know who the residents of these new homes will be.  It's more likely than not that they will be Jewish Israelis rather than Muslim residents, but nothing on this has been settled.  The problem that Reuters and the ever so judgmental diplomatic world has is that these buildings are on land that was part of Jordan prior to 1967.  Clearly, it cannot be that for the last fifty years no new construction could be allowed in Jerusalem, but that is the basic position of the "international community".  Indeed, former president Obama locked this view in when he engineered the passage of a UN resolution so declaring about a month ago. 

I wonder when the UN will pass a resolution declaring all new construction in Oklahoma illegal.  Remember, until Oklahoma was opened to settlement in the late 19th century, it was "Indian Territory".  We cannot expect the world to accept that change, can we? 

And let's not forget that prior to World War I, Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) ruled Jerusalem.  Shouldn't the Turks be the only ones allowed to approve buildings?

And then there's the crusaders.  The Kingdom of Jerusalem was in control in the twelfth century or so.  Should we have them control who lives in the city?  And how about the Saracens, the Romans, the Macedonians and the Jewish kingdoms of three thousand years ago.  Actually, if we go back to those Jewish kingdoms, that may solve the entire problem.  After all, it was a Jewish kingdom for about 1000 years in the period before Christ, and now it is a Jewish state.  The world should accept the original inhabitants as being in charge.  Isn't that good liberal orthodoxy?

Fake News Ought To Be Believable, At Least

I happened to see the front page of the New YorkTimes this morning.  There was the obligatory articles about yesterday's protest marches, but what caught my eye was the article at the top of the page proclaiming that President Trump was "improvising edicts" while his plans were "murky".  The Times' "news" story then when on to explain that the Trump White House was just throwing together executive orders in a slap-dash sort of way.  It also said that there were no real policies being promoted; everything was being done on an ad hoc basis.

It's bizarre; it is truly bizarre.  This wasn't commentary; it was presented as news.  So far, Trump has issued two executive orders that were not just housekeeping items.  The first was the same as one president Obama issued on his first day in office in 2009 that stopped the issuance of any new regulations until the White House had a chance to review them.  The second told the federal agencies to interpret and enforce Obamacare in a way that would minimize the financial burdens on the American people.  Those surely don't sound like last minute items thrown together on a whim.

More than that, however, all of America (other than the media and the left) knows what Trump's policies are going to be.  Oh, we don't know the details, but we surely know the general outline and goal of his policies.  Maybe we should tell the Times.  Trump is going to repeal and replace Obamacare.  He is going to enforce the immigration laws again and take steps to seal our porous borders.  He is going to promote job creation and economic growth by cutting and reorganizing taxes, spending to improve our infrastructure and removing unnecessary and burdensome regulations.  He is going to promote new and fairer trade agreements.  He is going to restore our military.  He is going to promote production of American energy sources of all sorts.  There's more, but that should be enough.  There's nothing "murky" about this.

In short order, the Times will be proven wrong.  To the extent that Trump acts through executive orders (mostly to repeal Obama's executive orders), it will be obvious what the purpose and policy behind those actions are.  So why is the Times putting out fake news that will so quickly be revealed as such?  And remember, this is not the first time the Times has done this.  Right after the election, the Times was busily promoting the story that the Trump transition team was "in chaos".  Then the transition proceeded in a very orderly fashion with cabinet selections who will soon be confirmed and who will carry out Trump's policies.  In fact, the transition managed to complete its work while spending only about 80% of the amount budgeted for its work, something unheard of in Washington.  The Times' story of chaos in the transition was fake news that was promptly shown to be false.  And now the Times is trying a new line of attack that will also quickly be shown to be false.

I think that the story is more wishful thinking by the Times editors and reporters than an actual attempt at fake news.  The leftist Democrats at the Times just cannot believe that President Trump and his administration is capable of doing anything right.  The problem for the Times is that the majority of Americans don't agree with them.  They expect that news organizations publish news not fake news that aligns with the writer's political hopes.  For many years, the number of people reading the Times has declined.  If the Times is not careful, it will lose the last of its readers who are not full fledged members of the delusional Democrat die-hards.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

More On The Protests

I watched the coverage of today's protests.  When asked on camera about the reasons for the protests, there was some variant of a response that said that the intent was to stop the attack on women's rights, LBGT rights, and civil rights that the Trump administration is planning.


There are no such attacks planned and no reason to believe that such an attack is coming.  It's fair to say that in the past, Trump on occasion spoke about women in ways that some would not find acceptable.  During the campaign, however, Trump never indicated any hostility towards LBGT rights, civil rights or women's rights.  The only contrary view comes because Trump has said that he is pro-life and that he thought the laws like the North Carolina bathroom law were state rather than federal issues.  Even on abortion, Trump did not call for outlawing abortion, but rather said that if Roe v. Wade were reversed by the Supreme Court, the abortion issue would then go back to being a state rather than a federal issue.

It is not possible that today's marches were actually about either of these issues.  The Supreme Court is not likely to reverse the Roe decision.  Further, the bathroom issue actually is a state by state issue rather than a federal one.  Trump won't have much, if any, impact on that. 

With all the energy expended on today's marches, it is sad that there wasn't a more coherent goal for the marchers.  So much was done, but it was accomplished so little.  It was more a march to say "we are still here" than one to push for something in particular to be done.  What a waste of effort.

The Upside Down World of the Far Left

Today's protests make me wonder if these protesters even know what they are saying and doing.  A few weeks ago, I saw a series of interviews on TV in which the reporter was at two protests against the newly nominated Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder.  The reporter asked five protesters this question:  "Who is Andrew Puzder?"  None of the five could answer the question.  One protester did say that the reporter should speak to the leader of the protest because perhaps he knew.  In other words, these protesters had no idea about what they were supposedly protesting.

Today, we have thousands of people marching in DC and other places across the country.  Without a doubt, some of them have some policy or another that President Trump has said he will adopt in mind in conduction their protests.  For the most part, though, the protests are supposed just to be in support of "women's rights".  One does have to wonder what specific rights are being threatened.  In DC, the head of Planned Parenthood spoke because her organization may be defunded by the federal government now because of its alleged history of selling body parts of aborted babies, a federal criminal offense if proven true.  I'm sure that the protesters are not marching to protect the right of abortionists to sell the aborted babies for a profit.  No one supports that other than the ghouls who would do it.

So what women's rights are at stake?  The truth is that the proper answer is NONE.  For the entire presidential campaign, however, the Democrats acted as if the GOP nominee had threatened women's rights, but they never really said in what way that threat had happened.  It was just all phony charges with no substance. 

Hopefully, after six months of Trump as president, these women who are marching today will realize that they haven't lost any rights.  I know that some won't accept that, but let's hope that most do.

Protest is fine, but protest for no reason other than upset at losing an election is both childish and a waste of time.

That's The End of Day One

We are coming to the end of the first 24 hours of the Trump administration.  As I write this, there is supposed to be ongoing demonstrations in DC and elsewhere to protest Trump's victory.  It seems a rather silly exercise.  Trump has yet to do anything worthy of protesting.  Aside from issuing an executive order to stop any new regulations from being issued or published which is standard and almost identical to the executive order issued by president Obama on the day he took office, nothing really has happened yet.  I wonder if the protesters feel let down because nothing has transpired.

It does keep the left active and feeling like they are "speaking truth to power" even if there's no understanding of what they are saying or why they are saying it.  I hope they enjoy themselves.

Friday, January 20, 2017

ABC Reporter Says Trump Speech Had Anti-Semitic Overtones

In a new low from the mainstream media (which is hard to imagine), ABC reporter Terry Moran said today that President Trump's inaugural speech had anti-Semitic overtones.  If you listened to the speech, you must be wondering what in the world Moran is talking about.  Here's the answer:  Trump said that he wants to put America first in all policy decisions.  Eighty years ago, during the 1930s, there was a group called the America First movement that wanted to keep the USA out of the looming conflict in Europe (which became WW II).  Some in that movement adopted Nazi rhetoric and blamed Jews for the problems in Europe.  Since Trump used the same words, "America First", he could be said to be referring back to the anti-Semitic tilt of that old pre-war movement.

This has to be the stupidest analysis from a mainstream media reporter ever, and that is really saying something.  What's next?  Will Moran tell us that the fact that they use Dixie paper cups in the White House proves that president Trump is racist?  After all, the Confederacy was often called Dixie.  Maybe Moran will tell us that when they play the Marine Corps Hymn at the White House, it proves Trump is Islamophobic or anti-Hispanic.  Remember the lyrics say from the "halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."  Those are references to the Marines defeating the Mexicans and the Barbary Pirates who came from what is today Libya.  Such references surely prove that Trump hates Mexicans and Moslems, right?

The real truth is that Terry Moran's appearance on ABC shows that the network must hate the disadvantaged.  After all, Moran sounds very much like moron.  That means that ABC is trying to criticize those of lower intelligence.  How shameful.

I guess the only proper response to Moran's report is to ask, "can you say fake news?"